The fact is that capitalism, which seeks to promote efficient and desired activity through profit seeking, is completely incompatible with the legal system and judiciary which seek to arbitrarily impose non-natural constraints on behaviour.
I see nothing nothing natural about private ownership beyond direct physical possession but capitalism depends on this. I own property I've never even seen. property that doesn't even exist in any tangible concrete way. This is only possible because of the legal system and judiciary which seek to arbitrarily impose non-natural constraints on behaviour making it so.
(actually I'm just quoting you back.. in my opinion the judiciary do not seek to impose anything except a rational interpretation of the laws.)
every single species in existence today has always bounced back. If I understand what you are saying, you are implying that extinctions will never happen again?
Our technophilic world leaders aren't rushing to build superior wolves and superior diseases and place them in control of the worlds latest military (human killing) technology
We've put computers in charge of war machines, communication, transportation, production, banking and virtually everything else humanity depends on.
your overly broad generatlization to wolves and disease is invalid.
I never claimed that absolutely anything in the universe smart enough to kill humans will destroy humanity, I said computer chips.
The question is, whether we can put a brain on a chip smart enough to procreate and kill human beings.
it doesn't need to be smarter than that to destroy human kind. And once humanity is eliminated, no one will care if computer chips can mimic our brains.
Why is it that only our generation understands the truly public and universal nature of the internet? Nobody owns the internet, and nobody ever will. You can claim to own the wires, the equipment, the computers, the software, and every other component, but you still won't own the internet. The internet has given birth to an idea -- that we're all interconnected and nobody owns the spaces in between. This idea recurs generation after generation, only to die because society can't find a place for it.
Oh, but they'll try. They will cast their books down on our heads, scream a million epitaths of criminal, deviant, terrorists, and invent new terms to express their disgust. They'll arrest us, punish us, and wage massive campaigns of fear. But they'll never get the idea out of our heads that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to pay their tax to touch the life of another person.
they disagree with you, and they are the ones with the guns, jails and judges to enforce what they believe.
Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.
yeah right. like the corrupt cops in the third world are going to arrest themselves for a finders fee. LOL
No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.
stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada.
this case is like trying to prosecute someone for yelling "fire", on the basis that they threw away their ticket stub instead of keeping it with them at all times as clearly printed on the ticket.
If it raising a false alarm is a crime, prosecute raising a false alarm, don't try to pretend failing to keep your ticket stub on you is illegal. If raising a false alarm is not a crime, tough cookies. Fix the law, and move on.
Furthermore, Occam razor doesn't mean jack shit. "The simplest solution is USUALLY correct". It doesn't mean that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct.
You are misstating what Occam's Razor is. The principle is that if you have 2 alternate theories that both make identical predictions and the only difference is that 1 theory includes additional complications with no additional explanatory power, then the simpler one should be kept and the complex one discarded.
Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about how to compare 2 alternate theories that don't both make the same predictions. In order to choose between theories with different predictions the correct procedure is to pick the theory that better matches the evidence.
Without occam's razor you could take any theory "N" and make a competing version called "N+transcendental pixies". The pixies don't add any explanatory power but they make the theory more complex and have absolutely no method for selecting one over the other except flipping a coin.
By your re-statement of occam's razor the ultimate explanation for everything would simply be "because".
there has already been a US court case where someone was denied the right not disclose the value of their encryption key because the cops merely claim to already know what data was encrypted by the key string.
the court treated a string of characters in your brain like a physical object in the real world.
Take, for instance, an article about a fiction novel or short story. The best reference about that, the book where it was first published, is cited in the references. How does that article lack references? Or boxes complaining that in some way the article is not written in a style suited for an encyclopedia. Well, if you think so, do us a favor, stop complaining and *show* how it should be written.
Wikipedia has articles already that show you how articles should be written.
In the future I'll simply nominate non-encyclopedic articles that talk about fictional universes as if they referred to real facts for DELETION. because I'm too busy to fix every improperly written article and wikipedia is NOT the place to pretend that fictional characters are real.
incorrect: "Mr. Fantasticman hates rats."
correct: "In issue #3, the character of Mr.Fantasticman is depicted as hating rats". (citing a reliable source, and not your own opinion as to what the plot depicts)
To say that Mr. Fantasticman actually hates rats is to make an implicit claim that Mr.Fantasticman actually exists and has a mental state. He doesn't. And therefore he has no state of mind. He is nothing but a plot device, or a trademark, or a bit of intellectual property.
Furthermore to say he hates rats without citing a source is to rely upon your own interpretation of what is going on in the story, and that is Original Research and strictly not allowed. Unless you are citing the author saying "the character of mr.fantasticman hates rats", then you are performing your own research into the character. citing the novel or comic itself is NOT a reliable source as to what the novel or comic objectively means. It doesn't matter if the the character is shown as flat out stating "I hate rats". It is still open to interpretation what that ultimately says about the plotline. And its not a wiki editors place to attempt to interpret artwork and create a synopsis of what it means.
Federal judges serve for life and basically have no check or balance on their power, save a higher court, or a Constitutional amendment.
really? What about the law itself? What about jurisprudence?
If a judge orders you to do something, only the executive branch can actually enforce it. And ultimately the only thing they can do if you refuse is take you into custody in which case you have the right of habeus corpus, so a DIFFERENT judge will determine whether there is an actual law that justifies your detention. if not, you will be ordered to be released.
Judges are obligated to obey the same laws as everyone else. and while a great deal of deference is paid to them, they are NOT omnipotent.
If the judiciary truly ran amock, the executive brach could arrest the offending judges and charge them with some kind of crime. appoint new judges and carry on.
Another thing that has always bothered me is that law enforcement lying to citizens is routine and legal, but lying to law enforcement is a crime (even if you don't know the person you are talking to is law enforcement).
(emphasis added)
I don't think you've got it right. It would violate a fundamental principle of justice to turn a completely innocent act into a criminal offense on the basis of facts that a person could not possibly know.
This has a chilling effect on the innocent act and specifically on the 1st amendment right to tell a lie.
the only reason lying to cops is illegal is because when they ask you something, they aren't asking for your opinions or your creativity, but rather they are trying to solve a crime and intentionally lying in that situation is tantamount to aiding and abetting. If you don't know the question pertains to an investigation (because you don't know its a cop) then whatever you say has nothing to do with your motivations towards trying to help criminals get away.
I am doubtful such a statute exists, or that it could hold up to scrutiny. By any chance do you have the relevant statute for us to see?
This is not an analogous situation to the law that typically converts murdering a cop into first degree murder whether or not you knew they are a cop. Murdering anyone whatsoever is always illegal.
As you said "There's one line in the warrant about how this roommate saw the defendant change grades".
There is no actual evidence of dishonesty from the witness so it would be speculation on the judges part to conclude the witness is lying.
in the face of the serious consequences for lying to police, witnesses are generally believed.
the bottom line is that this entire thread makes a big deal out of the warrants mention of a dual boot computer. As if this was the actual basis for the warrant.
it isn't.
As for fraud...
According to wiki " a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. "
he gained access to a computer service by entering false personal information in order to create a profile. That is the allegation.
the crime is not "outing someone". and the basis for the warrant is not "OMFG! he uses a dual boot computer!"
If anyone bothers to actually read the entire information they would notice that the warrant lays out grounds to believe that the accused has accessed school computer systems for the purpose of ALTERING GRADES.
If that isn't "unauthorized" I'm not sure what is.
As for the other charge of fraud, it isn't simply a matter of posting an article somewhere and saying 'so and so is gay'. its impersonating someone else and creating a gay profile for the purpose of defamation (which would be an unfair advantage). If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.
The hacking does not relate to the profile, but rather altering student grades in a teachers computer system.
Nothing in the warrant says that the crime is "outing a gay person".
The officer does seem to make too much out of the fact that the accused apparently can use linux on his machine. but after you remove the sensational parts of the warrant, there is still definitely an allegation of a bona fide crime.
its unfortunate that cops think that judges are too stupid to follow a logical line of reasoning without dressing it up. But what do you expect when judges are elected and only people with strictly average IQ's can get hired as police.
its entirely possible the cop was awestruck by linux, but it doesn't matter because altering grades is clearly the kind of thing almost everyone thinks of as unauthorized access.
The point of the original idea is that the extremists, usually by definition, shout the loudest even though they're a minority. This aims to redress the balance a little. Us atheists could take a well-thought-out leaf from that book.
you mean atheists should flood google somehow to point people at websites that discuss how completely absurd believing in the invisible sky man is?
You cannot evacuate cities for long periods just to find out that it was a false alarm.
Perhaps not, but tell that to people who lost loved ones in the earthquake.
my tea leaves tell me that your town is going to be destroyed by an earthquake next week. You better evacuate. If you don't, then you'll be responsible for telling the people who lost loved ones that you ignored my dire warnings.
The President has no real jurisdiction over private citizens, and his Executive Orders don't have the force of law except in specific cases where congress passed a real law to give them such an effect.
There is nothing in the constitution which gives the president authority to create actual laws by any label.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to think anyone present today needs to apologize for the past.
The fact that you are the innocent recipient of ill-gotten goods, does not mean you get to keep them.
To the extent that you were denying the original crime took place, an apology is in order.
The fact is that capitalism, which seeks to promote efficient and desired activity through profit seeking, is completely incompatible with the legal system and judiciary which seek to arbitrarily impose non-natural constraints on behaviour.
I see nothing nothing natural about private ownership beyond direct physical possession but capitalism depends on this. I own property I've never even seen. property that doesn't even exist in any tangible concrete way. This is only possible because of the legal system and judiciary which seek to arbitrarily impose non-natural constraints on behaviour making it so.
(actually I'm just quoting you back.. in my opinion the judiciary do not seek to impose anything except a rational interpretation of the laws.)
every single species in existence today has always bounced back. If I understand what you are saying, you are implying that extinctions will never happen again?
Our technophilic world leaders aren't rushing to build superior wolves and superior diseases and place them in control of the worlds latest military (human killing) technology
We've put computers in charge of war machines, communication, transportation, production, banking and virtually everything else humanity depends on.
your overly broad generatlization to wolves and disease is invalid.
I never claimed that absolutely anything in the universe smart enough to kill humans will destroy humanity, I said computer chips.
The question is, whether we can put a brain on a chip smart enough to procreate and kill human beings.
it doesn't need to be smarter than that to destroy human kind. And once humanity is eliminated, no one will care if computer chips can mimic our brains.
Why is it that only our generation understands the truly public and universal nature of the internet? Nobody owns the internet, and nobody ever will. You can claim to own the wires, the equipment, the computers, the software, and every other component, but you still won't own the internet. The internet has given birth to an idea -- that we're all interconnected and nobody owns the spaces in between. This idea recurs generation after generation, only to die because society can't find a place for it.
Oh, but they'll try. They will cast their books down on our heads, scream a million epitaths of criminal, deviant, terrorists, and invent new terms to express their disgust. They'll arrest us, punish us, and wage massive campaigns of fear. But they'll never get the idea out of our heads that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to pay their tax to touch the life of another person.
they disagree with you, and they are the ones with the guns, jails and judges to enforce what they believe.
Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.
yeah right. like the corrupt cops in the third world are going to arrest themselves for a finders fee. LOL
No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.
stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada.
this case is like trying to prosecute someone for yelling "fire", on the basis that they threw away their ticket stub instead of keeping it with them at all times as clearly printed on the ticket.
If it raising a false alarm is a crime, prosecute raising a false alarm, don't try to pretend failing to keep your ticket stub on you is illegal.
If raising a false alarm is not a crime, tough cookies. Fix the law, and move on.
"Cyber bullying" was not a crime.
I honestly think soon there will be something to make music better than it is right now, but I have know idea how that is possible, any suggestions?
learn how to play an instrument
Furthermore, Occam razor doesn't mean jack shit. "The simplest solution is USUALLY correct". It doesn't mean that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct.
You are misstating what Occam's Razor is. The principle is that if you have 2 alternate theories that both make identical predictions and the only difference is that 1 theory includes additional complications with no additional explanatory power, then the simpler one should be kept and the complex one discarded.
Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about how to compare 2 alternate theories that don't both make the same predictions. In order to choose between theories with different predictions the correct procedure is to pick the theory that better matches the evidence.
Without occam's razor you could take any theory "N" and make a competing version called "N+transcendental pixies". The pixies don't add any explanatory power but they make the theory more complex and have absolutely no method for selecting one over the other except flipping a coin.
By your re-statement of occam's razor the ultimate explanation for everything would simply be "because".
there has already been a US court case where someone was denied the right not disclose the value of their encryption key because the cops merely claim to already know what data was encrypted by the key string.
the court treated a string of characters in your brain like a physical object in the real world.
Take, for instance, an article about a fiction novel or short story. The best reference about that, the book where it was first published, is cited in the references. How does that article lack references? Or boxes complaining that in some way the article is not written in a style suited for an encyclopedia. Well, if you think so, do us a favor, stop complaining and *show* how it should be written.
Wikipedia has articles already that show you how articles should be written.
In the future I'll simply nominate non-encyclopedic articles that talk about fictional universes as if they referred to real facts for DELETION. because I'm too busy to fix every improperly written article and wikipedia is NOT the place to pretend that fictional characters are real.
incorrect:
"Mr. Fantasticman hates rats."
correct:
"In issue #3, the character of Mr.Fantasticman is depicted as hating rats". (citing a reliable source, and not your own opinion as to what the plot depicts)
To say that Mr. Fantasticman actually hates rats is to make an implicit claim that Mr.Fantasticman actually exists and has a mental state. He doesn't. And therefore he has no state of mind. He is nothing but a plot device, or a trademark, or a bit of intellectual property.
Furthermore to say he hates rats without citing a source is to rely upon your own interpretation of what is going on in the story, and that is Original Research and strictly not allowed. Unless you are citing the author saying "the character of mr.fantasticman hates rats", then you are performing your own research into the character. citing the novel or comic itself is NOT a reliable source as to what the novel or comic objectively means. It doesn't matter if the the character is shown as flat out stating "I hate rats". It is still open to interpretation what that ultimately says about the plotline. And its not a wiki editors place to attempt to interpret artwork and create a synopsis of what it means.
funny. I saw the movie before reading the graphic novel, I had no preconceptions going into it, and it blew me away.
After going and reading the graphic novel I was completely impressed by how good the movie is while staying so close to the comic.
job well done I say.
I'm definitely buying this on blu-ray.
Federal judges serve for life and basically have no check or balance on their power, save a higher court, or a Constitutional amendment.
really? What about the law itself? What about jurisprudence?
If a judge orders you to do something, only the executive branch can actually enforce it. And ultimately the only thing they can do if you refuse is take you into custody in which case you have the right of habeus corpus, so a DIFFERENT judge will determine whether there is an actual law that justifies your detention. if not, you will be ordered to be released.
Judges are obligated to obey the same laws as everyone else. and while a great deal of deference is paid to them, they are NOT omnipotent.
If the judiciary truly ran amock, the executive brach could arrest the offending judges and charge them with some kind of crime. appoint new judges and carry on.
Another thing that has always bothered me is that law enforcement lying to citizens is routine and legal, but lying to law enforcement is a crime (even if you don't know the person you are talking to is law enforcement).
(emphasis added)
I don't think you've got it right. It would violate a fundamental principle of justice to turn a completely innocent act into a criminal offense on the basis of facts that a person could not possibly know.
This has a chilling effect on the innocent act and specifically on the 1st amendment right to tell a lie.
the only reason lying to cops is illegal is because when they ask you something, they aren't asking for your opinions or your creativity, but rather they are trying to solve a crime and intentionally lying in that situation is tantamount to aiding and abetting. If you don't know the question pertains to an investigation (because you don't know its a cop) then whatever you say has nothing to do with your motivations towards trying to help criminals get away.
I am doubtful such a statute exists, or that it could hold up to scrutiny. By any chance do you have the relevant statute for us to see?
This is not an analogous situation to the law that typically converts murdering a cop into first degree murder whether or not you knew they are a cop. Murdering anyone whatsoever is always illegal.
As you said "There's one line in the warrant about how this roommate saw the defendant change grades".
There is no actual evidence of dishonesty from the witness so it would be speculation on the judges part to conclude the witness is lying.
in the face of the serious consequences for lying to police, witnesses are generally believed.
the bottom line is that this entire thread makes a big deal out of the warrants mention of a dual boot computer. As if this was the actual basis for the warrant.
it isn't.
As for fraud...
According to wiki " a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. "
he gained access to a computer service by entering false personal information in order to create a profile. That is the allegation.
the crime is not "outing someone". and the basis for the warrant is not "OMFG! he uses a dual boot computer!"
this story is blown out of proportion.
If anyone bothers to actually read the entire information they would notice that the warrant lays out grounds to believe that the accused has accessed school computer systems for the purpose of ALTERING GRADES.
If that isn't "unauthorized" I'm not sure what is.
As for the other charge of fraud, it isn't simply a matter of posting an article somewhere and saying 'so and so is gay'. its impersonating someone else and creating a gay profile for the purpose of defamation (which would be an unfair advantage). If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.
The hacking does not relate to the profile, but rather altering student grades in a teachers computer system.
Nothing in the warrant says that the crime is "outing a gay person".
The officer does seem to make too much out of the fact that the accused apparently can use linux on his machine. but after you remove the sensational parts of the warrant, there is still definitely an allegation of a bona fide crime.
its unfortunate that cops think that judges are too stupid to follow a logical line of reasoning without dressing it up. But what do you expect when judges are elected and only people with strictly average IQ's can get hired as police.
its entirely possible the cop was awestruck by linux, but it doesn't matter because altering grades is clearly the kind of thing almost everyone thinks of as unauthorized access.
This is an example of the fallacy that consuming energy requires one to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
For counterexample, check out the promising new 'photosynthesis' technology that the plant world has been working on.
the part where the plant "consumes" energy is not photosynthesis.
it's a weasel excuse.
The point of the original idea is that the extremists, usually by definition, shout the loudest even though they're a minority. This aims to redress the balance a little. Us atheists could take a well-thought-out leaf from that book.
you mean atheists should flood google somehow to point people at websites that discuss how completely absurd believing in the invisible sky man is?
I think you read too much into the word "response".
He probably should have said 'counterpoint' or 'analogy'.
Is it relevant what came first?
that he is an innocent man who was framed?
You cannot evacuate cities for long periods just to find out that it was a false alarm.
Perhaps not, but tell that to people who lost loved ones in the earthquake.
my tea leaves tell me that your town is going to be destroyed by an earthquake next week. You better evacuate. If you don't, then you'll be responsible for telling the people who lost loved ones that you ignored my dire warnings.
stealing $1 three times is NOT more serious than stealing $1,000,000 a single time.
Using tricks to pass an irrational and unjust law is shameful.
Societies right to impose punishment on human beings is not unbounded simply because they refused to obey the law on 3 distinct occasions.
Absurd.
The President has no real jurisdiction over private citizens, and his Executive Orders don't have the force of law except in specific cases where congress passed a real law to give them such an effect.
There is nothing in the constitution which gives the president authority to create actual laws by any label.