The restrictions on sex offenders are specifically provided for by legislation. And the kinds of things that sex offenders can be restricted from doing are provided for by legislation. It isn't just made up by a judge.
a regular cigarettes sits there burning and emitting chemicals directly into the air. an electronic cigarettes only releases vapor through the mouthpiece in response to someone sucking on it. thus all the vapour goes into the persons lungs first prior to having a chance to be exhaled.
there is a massive difference. I've sat next to people smoking e-cigs and I could not even detect it. and when you aren't inhaling you can drop the thing in your pocket because it isn't emitting vapours between breaths.
Fine. Is it censorship if EA choose not to publish my game? Is it censorship if a Warner Music refuses to publish my music? Is it censorship if the Penguin Group refuses to publish my book?
Wooooooooosh!! None of those are government enforced oligopolies. But, if they were, just like if the SFGate were, then yes it would be also be censorship.
intellectual property law gives apple a legal monopoly on what apps you can buy for your iphone. This is a government granted monopoly.
Would you prefer that the government be allowed to determine who may speak and who may not? If you would, then you may attempt to amend the Constitution.
You're right, and it is very problematic that for some reason corporations are not even allowed to run for office! What kind of democracy is this?
All men are created equal! And that includes corporations! It's what the founding fathers wanted!
I thought the purpose of using a vehicle was to go MORE quickly.
If there was a way to get people from point A to point B faster, while not increasing the danger, this should be the holy grail. If we simply wanted to make sure drivers go less quickly the solution is obvious. Stop building roads.
"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."
But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.
the party selling the product is the party marking the claim. it makes no difference who originally printed it.
By your logic, if I found an empty box on the road I ought to have the right to sue the manufacturer because it says on the outside of the box that there's a product inside.
There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:
If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).
Did you just say you are opposed to Wikileaks because there is a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government? Dude thats the whole reason Wikileaks exists.
Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.
That's a catch 22 situation. If we can't see what information is being suppressed we'll never know whether or not the justification for suppressing it is good or bad, and consequently whether the law is good or bad.
Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.
The governments of the world have exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of national security/just shut up and trust us argument.
te House has said that they expect health insurance premiums to rise by an extra 10% as a result of this "reform".
Note also that this "reform" doesn't include a single element that is even intended to reduce health insurance costs.
it does. Mandatory insurance will reduce health insurance rates since the people who are currently forgoing insurance are the part of the population that hardly ever makes claims. average cost of a policy will go down.
also, with everyone covered by insurance, hospital billing departments can be reduced in size. In Canada hospitals barely spend any overhead on billing, because every patient pretty much automatically has insurance.
this reduces overhead and reduces costs.
also, when all children have insurance that means fewer people will reach adulthood suffering from chronic conditions aggravated by poor healthcare in childhood. You can not assume that parents automatically give their children the best possible healthcare. parents on average are just as stupid as the next average person is, and 1/2 of them are stupider. You can be certain there are lots of parents out there who make any excuse not to take their kids to the doctor because of cost.
The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.
As a society we have every interest in regulating actions that also "indirectly" affect another person's rights. Many criminal statutes deal with indirect affect, including all of the so called "victimless crimes".
And whether I get insurance does affect you. Since I virtually never visit the doctor, what you pay for insurance would actually decrease if I bought insurance.
As someone who purchases insurance it is in your best interest that a large body of healthy people also buy insurance.
If the only people who buy insurance are those who routinely get sick your insurance rates will go up.
Also as a society we all benefit when you are covered by insurance so you can get to see the doctor when you feel sick and potentially stop an outbreak of an contagion. Whether that be a contagion of AIDS, hepatitis or tuberculosis or something else.
they pick drones because someone shooting at a drone is actively involved in an act of VANDALISM and nothing more. drones have no right to self defense.
Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.
that's ok. we no longer "recognize" the nation we are at war with unless we want some puppet dictator to be our mouthpiece so we can claim their government is on our side and we are just providing humanitarian assistance.
I don't see how any government which can't even secure its own territory has claim to legitimacy or a right to be recognized. regardless of how pro-US it is. Call a spade a spade. We should just send settlers over there and colonize. enough with this hypocrisy.
Sometimes you need the courage to choose the military option, even when you know it means your son might not come back.
How many congressmen have son's on the front lines? And what about daughters?
The people making the decisions are not the people on the front lines. And a drone is NOT entitled to kill in self defense. And putting a name on a list for assassination is hardly self defense.
No parallel. This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information. This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.
This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.
there is no impartial validation of whether or not the probable cause is in fact probable cause. no affidavit and therefore no threat of perjury charges for wrong information. and the only person authenticating the probable cause is another cop. The cops can't be the ones trying to protect your rights simultaneously as the ones trying to infringe your rights. It is a conflict of interest. In your world we could do away with juries and judges and merely have cops and prosecutors.
This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone. Why not? verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed. Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments,
like no officer would ever be able to afford to pony up the $40 fee or whatever the phone company is charging for a look up. That's sound reasoning.
b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.
its not illegal to pull the information because according to the government there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.. therefore the phone company can sell the information to whoever the hell it wants, and you have no recourse.
just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required.
no. but if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no probable cause or due process required. The government is arguing no expectation of privacy.
A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions.
only based on reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime is in progress and a warrant is impractical, or if they are arresting you and the search is carried out incidentally to the arrest. It's already been decided that when you are being lawfully arrested the police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity for evidence, to secure your property, etc. It's not a blanket authorization to search your trunk simply to give you a speeding ticket.
If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car).
supervisors have the power to take away rights from subordinate officers, but they can't create rights that don't otherwise exist. The right of an officer to search your vehicle still devolves from either a warrant, or a search incidental to an arrest, or reasonable grounds to suspect that the search is necessary to stop a crime in progress and that it would be impractical to obtain a warrant.
However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not.
true. but with all that said, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with compelling third parties to turn over records about your car which are not located inside your car. and goes not give the officer the right to take you back to your home and search the car which you weren't driving at the time.
Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have leve
I think what you're witnessing isn't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed, it changes everything. From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.
God put microbes on mars in the last 6000 years to test our faith.
What was that you were saying about theological point of view?
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win. do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
Cowardice dressed up as wisdom, inflated by conceit. You enable those whom you hate. What a horrible life.
"They also showed that illusory motion reversal occurs with non-uniform and non-periodic stimuli (for example, a spinning belt of sandpaper), which also cannot be compatible with discrete sampling. "
according to wiki they were concluding that illusory motion reversal in non-uniform and non-periodic stimuli disprove the theory of discrete sampling.
You asked "Why do we see the wagon wheel effect if updates are asynchronous? There must be some synchronization going on down the line. "
You are arguing from ignorance..
And you cite an article that contradicts you as if it was in agreement with you.
finally you say
"The reason behind the effect is still not fully understood and the authors have proposed the effect results from a "motion during-effect"."
which has absolutely nothing to do with your original position.
There is a huge difference between "the reason behind the effect is still not fully understood " and " There must be some synchronization going on down the line. ".
Personally hand every adult a loaded uzi when boarding the plane there will be no more hijackings.
But you'd have an increase in planes falling from the sky from misfires.
right. but the national security threat is not planes falling out of the sky, it is planes being hijacked. you can't necessarily have a system that is perfect in every way.
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
No worries. there's actually a pretty good chance you would commit suicide before the trial was over.
I was only talking about the MLAT operating to allow(require) US courts to enforce a UK subpoena.
I didn't mean the MLAT would require the US courts to impose any particular punishment handed down by courts in the UK.
I was referring to the MLAT facilitating the production of evidence by witnesses. in the present case wikipedia was found to be a witness to some matter before the UK court which ordered certain evidence disclosed.
Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the U.S, so I believe that they are bound by U.S law.
and the US probably has a mutual legal assistance treaty with the UK, including whatever local legal framework is necessary to give such treaties effect. Which means if wikipedia refused to comply then a letter can be sent over to a DA or somebody responsible for this stuff in the US with a copy of the court order and that would be obligated by the treaty to go to a US court and request a subpoena which the court would be obligated to enforce pursuant to the treaty. if wiki then refused to comply it would be found in contempt of the US court. (not to mention the UK court).
obviously it depends on the exact wording in the treaty but generally thats how MLATs work.
You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.
I'm not sure if that really did in itself. If the effect is identical, then I suspect the court wouldn't care. However Psystar has no distribution right. To clone hard drives this way is clearly done for the purpose of distributing OSX and that would be an infringement even if the individual copies are all perfectly authorized under law.
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.
Invalid analogy. You have no right to make a copy of the software onto the recordable DVD. This act is copyright infringement and that DVD is called an "Infringing copy".
Copyright law only allows you to install a non-infringing copy of software on a computer, including RAM.
Every time you use software which is an infringing copy, you are committing an additional act of copyright infringement.
On the other hand if Apple gives you a DVD with the sofware on it, then you have a non-infringing copy, and it is copyright law that allows you to make a copy of a non-infringing copy onto a computer including its RAM, for the strict purpose of running the software on that computer including the right even to modifying strictly for the purpose of making it compatible with that computer.
However you have no rights to distribute such computers. They contain copies of the software, and distribution rights are another exclusive right of the copyright holder.
You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.
If you comply the EULA may give you additional rights, but it didn't give you the original right to run the software, nor can an document you have not agreed to alter the fact that you legally own the copy of the software apple sold you.
I'm not saying EULA's are always invalid. And I'm not saying what Psystar is doing is legal. I'm saying its not as simple as people make it out to be.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the *enemy*. He cannot be rehabilitated. He cannot be reconstructed. He and his comrades would seek the overthrow of our system of government and its replacement with Sharia law. He is not a common criminal, and it is disrespectful to treat him like one - and you should always respect your enemy. Send him to his god and be done with it.
He would love that. treating him like a common criminal is the most humiliating thing you can do to him. And seriously... unless the state has evidence to prove such allegations I would not want to live in a place that any government officials have the power to just go around and kill people with no due process.
This is a land where the rule of law, the constitution, and the fundamental principles of justice are supreme. if you hate your justice system so much that you would try to thwart it and impose your own vigilantee justice, then you are just as bad as any common criminal attempting to replace justice with Sharia law.
Justice demands a fair trial. And if the US can't give it, they should turn these people over to the Hague.
- During an interview with NBC tonight, the interviewer asked Obama if people would find it offensive that KSM would receive all the rights of an American citizen in a trial. Obama replied "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Pre-judging much? Tainting the jury?
If the Executive branch didn't already believe someone deserved to be convicted and put to death, they would not be prosecuting in the first place.
This taints the jury just as much as if the defendant came out in public and said "I didn't do it!".
which is : not at all.
what would taint the jury is if Obama went beyond merely saying someone was guilty, and starting making arguments presenting evidence in public or presenting witnesses.
For the prosecution to claim confidence in a guilty verdict is expected. I should hope no prosecutor ever proceeds with a trial if they are not personally convinced that the accused is in fact guilty, and they have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
The restrictions on sex offenders are specifically provided for by legislation. And the kinds of things that sex offenders can be restricted from doing are provided for by legislation. It isn't just made up by a judge.
a regular cigarettes sits there burning and emitting chemicals directly into the air. an electronic cigarettes only releases vapor through the mouthpiece in response to someone sucking on it. thus all the vapour goes into the persons lungs first prior to having a chance to be exhaled.
there is a massive difference. I've sat next to people smoking e-cigs and I could not even detect it. and when you aren't inhaling you can drop the thing in your pocket because it isn't emitting vapours between breaths.
Fine. Is it censorship if EA choose not to publish my game? Is it censorship if a Warner Music refuses to publish my music? Is it censorship if the Penguin Group refuses to publish my book?
Wooooooooosh!! None of those are government enforced oligopolies. But, if they were, just like if the SFGate were, then yes it would be also be censorship.
intellectual property law gives apple a legal monopoly on what apps you can buy for your iphone. This is a government granted monopoly.
Your rights only go so far as they do not impinge on the rights of others...you cannot force people to listen to you.
Then perhaps the judge needs to learn how to setup mail filters instead of whining about people he doesn't want emailing him.
no.. he didn't whine. he convicted the idiot with contempt of court as he deserved.
Would you prefer that the government be allowed to determine who may speak and who may not? If you would, then you may attempt to amend the Constitution.
You're right, and it is very problematic that for some reason corporations are not even allowed to run for office! What kind of democracy is this?
All men are created equal! And that includes corporations! It's what the founding fathers wanted!
I thought the purpose of using a vehicle was to go MORE quickly.
If there was a way to get people from point A to point B faster, while not increasing the danger, this should be the holy grail. If we simply wanted to make sure drivers go less quickly the solution is obvious. Stop building roads.
"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."
But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.
the party selling the product is the party marking the claim. it makes no difference who originally printed it.
By your logic, if I found an empty box on the road I ought to have the right to sue the manufacturer because it says on the outside of the box that there's a product inside.
There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:
Did you just say you are opposed to Wikileaks because there is a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government?
Dude thats the whole reason Wikileaks exists.
Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.
That's a catch 22 situation. If we can't see what information is being suppressed we'll never know whether or not the justification for suppressing it is good or bad, and consequently whether the law is good or bad.
Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.
The governments of the world have exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of national security/just shut up and trust us argument.
te House has said that they expect health insurance premiums to rise by an extra 10% as a result of this "reform".
Note also that this "reform" doesn't include a single element that is even intended to reduce health insurance costs.
it does. Mandatory insurance will reduce health insurance rates since the people who are currently forgoing insurance are the part of the population that hardly ever makes claims. average cost of a policy will go down.
also, with everyone covered by insurance, hospital billing departments can be reduced in size. In Canada hospitals barely spend any overhead on billing, because every patient pretty much automatically has insurance.
this reduces overhead and reduces costs.
also, when all children have insurance that means fewer people will reach adulthood suffering from chronic conditions aggravated by poor healthcare in childhood. You can not assume that parents automatically give their children the best possible healthcare. parents on average are just as stupid as the next average person is, and 1/2 of them are stupider. You can be certain there are lots of parents out there who make any excuse not to take their kids to the doctor because of cost.
The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.
As a society we have every interest in regulating actions that also "indirectly" affect another person's rights. Many criminal statutes deal with indirect affect, including all of the so called "victimless crimes".
And whether I get insurance does affect you. Since I virtually never visit the doctor, what you pay for insurance would actually decrease if I bought insurance.
As someone who purchases insurance it is in your best interest that a large body of healthy people also buy insurance.
If the only people who buy insurance are those who routinely get sick your insurance rates will go up.
Also as a society we all benefit when you are covered by insurance so you can get to see the doctor when you feel sick and potentially stop an outbreak of an contagion. Whether that be a contagion of AIDS, hepatitis or tuberculosis or something else.
Your health affects us all indirectly.
they pick drones because someone shooting at a drone is actively involved in an act of VANDALISM and nothing more.
drones have no right to self defense.
Damn them for being enemy combatants?
Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.
that's ok. we no longer "recognize" the nation we are at war with unless we want some puppet dictator to be our mouthpiece so we can claim their government is on our side and we are just providing humanitarian assistance.
I don't see how any government which can't even secure its own territory has claim to legitimacy or a right to be recognized. regardless of how pro-US it is. Call a spade a spade. We should just send settlers over there and colonize. enough with this hypocrisy.
Sometimes you need the courage to choose the military option, even when you know it means your son might not come back.
How many congressmen have son's on the front lines? And what about daughters?
The people making the decisions are not the people on the front lines. And a drone is NOT entitled to kill in self defense. And putting a name on a list for assassination is hardly self defense.
No parallel. This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information. This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.
This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.
there is no impartial validation of whether or not the probable cause is in fact probable cause. no affidavit and therefore no threat of perjury charges for wrong information. and the only person authenticating the probable cause is another cop. The cops can't be the ones trying to protect your rights simultaneously as the ones trying to infringe your rights. It is a conflict of interest. In your world we could do away with juries and judges and merely have cops and prosecutors.
This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone. Why not? verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed. Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments,
like no officer would ever be able to afford to pony up the $40 fee or whatever the phone company is charging for a look up. That's sound reasoning.
b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.
its not illegal to pull the information because according to the government there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.. therefore the phone company can sell the information to whoever the hell it wants, and you have no recourse.
just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required.
no. but if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no probable cause or due process required. The government is arguing no expectation of privacy.
A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions.
only based on reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime is in progress and a warrant is impractical, or if they are arresting you and the search is carried out incidentally to the arrest. It's already been decided that when you are being lawfully arrested the police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity for evidence, to secure your property, etc. It's not a blanket authorization to search your trunk simply to give you a speeding ticket.
If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car).
supervisors have the power to take away rights from subordinate officers, but they can't create rights that don't otherwise exist.
The right of an officer to search your vehicle still devolves from either a warrant, or a search incidental to an arrest, or reasonable grounds to suspect that the search is necessary to stop a crime in progress and that it would be impractical to obtain a warrant.
However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not.
true. but with all that said, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with compelling third parties to turn over records about your car which are not located inside your car. and goes not give the officer the right to take you back to your home and search the car which you weren't driving at the time.
Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have leve
I think what you're witnessing isn't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed, it changes everything. From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.
God put microbes on mars in the last 6000 years to test our faith.
What was that you were saying about theological point of view?
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win.
do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
Cowardice dressed up as wisdom, inflated by conceit. You enable those whom you hate. What a horrible life.
"They also showed that illusory motion reversal occurs with non-uniform and non-periodic stimuli (for example, a spinning belt of sandpaper), which also cannot be compatible with discrete sampling. "
according to wiki they were concluding that illusory motion reversal in non-uniform and non-periodic stimuli disprove the theory of discrete sampling.
You asked
"Why do we see the wagon wheel effect if updates are asynchronous? There must be some synchronization going on down the line. "
You are arguing from ignorance..
And you cite an article that contradicts you as if it was in agreement with you.
finally you say
"The reason behind the effect is still not fully understood and the authors have proposed the effect results from a "motion during-effect"."
which has absolutely nothing to do with your original position.
There is a huge difference between "the reason behind the effect is still not fully understood " and " There must be some synchronization going on down the line. ".
Personally hand every adult a loaded uzi when boarding the plane there will be no more hijackings.
But you'd have an increase in planes falling from the sky from misfires.
right. but the national security threat is not planes falling out of the sky, it is planes being hijacked.
you can't necessarily have a system that is perfect in every way.
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
No worries. there's actually a pretty good chance you would commit suicide before the trial was over.
I was only talking about the MLAT operating to allow(require) US courts to enforce a UK subpoena.
I didn't mean the MLAT would require the US courts to impose any particular punishment handed down by courts in the UK.
I was referring to the MLAT facilitating the production of evidence by witnesses. in the present case wikipedia was found to be a witness to some matter before the UK court which ordered certain evidence disclosed.
Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the U.S, so I believe that they are bound by U.S law.
and the US probably has a mutual legal assistance treaty with the UK, including whatever local legal framework is necessary to give such treaties effect. Which means if wikipedia refused to comply then a letter can be sent over to a DA or somebody responsible for this stuff in the US with a copy of the court order and that would be obligated by the treaty to go to a US court and request a subpoena which the court would be obligated to enforce pursuant to the treaty. if wiki then refused to comply it would be found in contempt of the US court. (not to mention the UK court).
obviously it depends on the exact wording in the treaty but generally thats how MLATs work.
You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.
I'm not sure if that really did in itself. If the effect is identical, then I suspect the court wouldn't care. However Psystar has no distribution right. To clone hard drives this way is clearly done for the purpose of distributing OSX and that would be an infringement even if the individual copies are all perfectly authorized under law.
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.
Invalid analogy. You have no right to make a copy of the software onto the recordable DVD. This act is copyright infringement and that DVD is called an "Infringing copy".
Copyright law only allows you to install a non-infringing copy of software on a computer, including RAM.
Every time you use software which is an infringing copy, you are committing an additional act of copyright infringement.
On the other hand if Apple gives you a DVD with the sofware on it, then you have a non-infringing copy, and it is copyright law that allows you to make a copy of a non-infringing copy onto a computer including its RAM, for the strict purpose of running the software on that computer including the right even to modifying strictly for the purpose of making it compatible with that computer.
However you have no rights to distribute such computers. They contain copies of the software, and distribution rights are another exclusive right of the copyright holder.
You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.
If you comply the EULA may give you additional rights, but it didn't give you the original right to run the software, nor can an document you have not agreed to alter the fact that you legally own the copy of the software apple sold you.
I'm not saying EULA's are always invalid. And I'm not saying what Psystar is doing is legal. I'm saying its not as simple as people make it out to be.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the *enemy*. He cannot be rehabilitated. He cannot be reconstructed. He and his comrades would seek the overthrow of our system of government and its replacement with Sharia law. He is not a common criminal, and it is disrespectful to treat him like one - and you should always respect your enemy. Send him to his god and be done with it.
He would love that. treating him like a common criminal is the most humiliating thing you can do to him.
And seriously... unless the state has evidence to prove such allegations I would not want to live in a place that any government officials have the power to just go around and kill people with no due process.
This is a land where the rule of law, the constitution, and the fundamental principles of justice are supreme. if you hate your justice system so much that you would try to thwart it and impose your own vigilantee justice, then you are just as bad as any common criminal attempting to replace justice with Sharia law.
Justice demands a fair trial. And if the US can't give it, they should turn these people over to the Hague.
- During an interview with NBC tonight, the interviewer asked Obama if people would find it offensive that KSM would receive all the rights of an American citizen in a trial. Obama replied "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Pre-judging much? Tainting the jury?
If the Executive branch didn't already believe someone deserved to be convicted and put to death, they would not be prosecuting in the first place.
This taints the jury just as much as if the defendant came out in public and said "I didn't do it!".
which is : not at all.
what would taint the jury is if Obama went beyond merely saying someone was guilty, and starting making arguments presenting evidence in public or presenting witnesses.
For the prosecution to claim confidence in a guilty verdict is expected. I should hope no prosecutor ever proceeds with a trial if they are not personally convinced that the accused is in fact guilty, and they have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.