I bet even Adrian knew about laws against breaking into computers that don't belong to you.
Yes, being an informed citizen is not always an effortless affair - nevertheless, it is your own responsibility, and not someone else's to spoon-feed you. Besides, I really tend to doubt that this is a common occurrence, that people are regularly shocked - shocked, I tell you! - to find out that some activity or behavior they've been innocently engaging in is, in fact, a felony offense, and that as a result they're going away to the Graybar Hotel for a couple of years. I particularly doubt that this happened in specific the case at hand.
I am presuming nothing, except that those in prison have been tried and convicted in accordance with the laws and procedures that govern such things. If there are those who are not, they are being wrongly imprisoned and should be freed. However, I see no evidence of that in this case.
If your objection is on the general grounds that the current system is less than perfect, and that therefore people are occasionally wrongly imprisoned, I'd sure like to hear about the perfect, error-free system you propose to replace it with. Or even about a system that will substantially reduce the prevalence of such errors while not making it impossible to imprison real, actual criminals. Who, I might remind you, do actually and in fact exist, whether or not we choose to believe that a substantial fraction of felons are simply being oppressed by The Man.
People being oppressed, simply because they belong to a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group is NOT the same as an individual whose rights are reduced because he or she commits a felony.
Precisely. Guess what? When they came for the murderers (terrorists, embezzlers, pedophiles, gas-station stick-up men, et cetera), I said nothing. Know why? Because those are groups of people who should have their rights restricted, by virtue of the fact that their own voluntary actions violated someone else's rights. To compare that to someone having their rights restricted due to circumstances beyond their control is not only offensive, it's positively stupid.
Slippery-slope arguments are grade-A bullshit. Sorry. Nothing personal. This is not exactly a novel concept, that unauthorized intrusions into someone else's computer are a criminal offense.
"Felon" is not a condition that one has no control over. The notion that you shouldn't break into computer systems that don't belong to you didn't exactly come out of left field just for Adrian here.
Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies. Me, I don't much care for the idea of spending a couple of years in a 9x12 cage, so I don't do things that would tend to lead to that outcome either.
Did they take a DNA sample from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham when they put him in jail for taking bribes from defense contractors?
The list of qualifying federal offenses for DNA collection was pretty dramatically expanded back in 2004 (google on H.R. 5107, the "Justice For All" Act, for details) to cover pretty much all federal felony convictions, so yeah, they almost certainly did collect DNA from Cunningham.
Whoever modded you "offtopic" is teh stup1d. Of course a comment like that is "offtopic", but for crying out loud, don't waste mod points on what's basically friendly banter - this isn't the fucking Lincoln-Douglas debates here. Sheesh.:(
The burden of proof that an election is fair should always be on those organizing the election.
Well, they aren't here today, so I guess I'll work with the people who are advancing claims here today, and - not unreasonably, I think - ask them what they support those claims with.
Even if I grant all that to be true, arguendo, it's an awful long way from "I dunno" to "Bush was re-elected even though he lost the popular vote", which is what the OP was stating as fact. If that is, in fact, the case, it seems that someone taking that position ought to provide a bit more support for it than just his or her say-so.
I'm not sure what would happen if a ratified treaty directly contradicted a provision in the Bill of Rights. My guess is that the treaty would prevail...
No. The Constitution supersedes treaties. Otherwise you could sneak amendments to the Constitution in through the back door by simply signing a treaty with some other country. Article VI needs some careful parsing, but the effect of Article VI is that treaties, like federal laws and the Constitution itself, supersede state laws and state constitutions. Nothing in Article VI is to be construed such that treaties supersede the federal Constitution, as the Supreme Court made clear in the governing case on this issue, Reid v. Covert.
Now, there is some disagreement amongst scholars (notably Akhil Amar as a famous dissenting voice) as to whether treaties under US law should be considered superior, equvalent, or subordinate to Federal law when they conflict
Scholarly debate notwithstanding, case law is really fairly clear that treaties are on a par with federal statute, and that both are subordinate to the Constitution in any case - see, e.g., Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957).
That would be the easiest way, but depending on how developed these virtual economies become, it may someday be possible to use these "currencies" without first cashing out. If/when you can exchange WoW money for real-world goods or services - i.e., by spending some of your gold (or whatever - I don't play WoW) at Amazon to buy a book - then the IRS will surely perk up and take an active interest, as income from what's effectively a barter system is definitely taxable. As the GP post said, we're not exactly there yet, but if we get to that point, converting to greenbacks may not be a necessary step to attract the attention of the taxman.
If this was posted an hour after the event and this place was in the business of hot breaking news stories, then I might buy that. OTOH, this story wasn't posted until 36 hours after that, and by then there were a zillion sites with the complete thing, including the Youtube links someone posted below.
The most benign explanation I can come up with is probably the correct one - Zonker didn't bother to look at the source for the article, and just cut'n'pasted the thing as is. Standard Slapdash incompetence, in other words, in which case I call shenanigans on the article submitter for taking advantage of the kid who rides the short bus.
Alas, I don't think you stopped to ponder any of the issues I raised. Oh, well. Perhaps your mouse is broken, and you can't click on the link to read the four or five hundred comments praising Colbert for sticking it to Chimpy McBushitler. At least here you have one or two lone voices objecting to Colbert's presentation, but no such thing there. So I ask you again, is the video the thing you're supposed to be interested in? If so, why not select one of the many sites that present the entire thing, rather than selected portions, without the comments?
Were it not for that, and the fact that this is such an unbelievable video from such a biased source, I might have even believed it actually happened!
There are none so blind as those who will not see. When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source. And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary. So, let's all stop and ponder whether the video is really the thing you're supposed to be interested in.
Take off the blinders for a moment and pretend it's President John Kerry, with video selections and commentary provided by Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. Is that still cool, or do you want to award some more Oscars?
Why is it even necessary to present someone's slanted commentary on the thing? Just put it out there on its own merits and let the folks who missed it have a look. Unless this is all just an excuse for something else, that is.
Or, are you trying to say that they are a "far left smear website"?
Throw a stone into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps is the one that got hit.
Actually, I didn't say anything about which way it slanted, just that it was slanted. Rather telling that you immediately jumped to that conclusion, I think.
A quick search on Google news for "colbert white house" gives over 400 hits on the same event. Gotta wonder why such a slanted source was the one selected.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet even Adrian knew about laws against breaking into computers that don't belong to you.
Yes, being an informed citizen is not always an effortless affair - nevertheless, it is your own responsibility, and not someone else's to spoon-feed you. Besides, I really tend to doubt that this is a common occurrence, that people are regularly shocked - shocked, I tell you! - to find out that some activity or behavior they've been innocently engaging in is, in fact, a felony offense, and that as a result they're going away to the Graybar Hotel for a couple of years. I particularly doubt that this happened in specific the case at hand.
If your objection is on the general grounds that the current system is less than perfect, and that therefore people are occasionally wrongly imprisoned, I'd sure like to hear about the perfect, error-free system you propose to replace it with. Or even about a system that will substantially reduce the prevalence of such errors while not making it impossible to imprison real, actual criminals. Who, I might remind you, do actually and in fact exist, whether or not we choose to believe that a substantial fraction of felons are simply being oppressed by The Man.
Precisely. Guess what? When they came for the murderers (terrorists, embezzlers, pedophiles, gas-station stick-up men, et cetera), I said nothing. Know why? Because those are groups of people who should have their rights restricted, by virtue of the fact that their own voluntary actions violated someone else's rights. To compare that to someone having their rights restricted due to circumstances beyond their control is not only offensive, it's positively stupid.
Slippery-slope arguments are grade-A bullshit. Sorry. Nothing personal. This is not exactly a novel concept, that unauthorized intrusions into someone else's computer are a criminal offense.
"Felon" is not a condition that one has no control over. The notion that you shouldn't break into computer systems that don't belong to you didn't exactly come out of left field just for Adrian here.
Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies. Me, I don't much care for the idea of spending a couple of years in a 9x12 cage, so I don't do things that would tend to lead to that outcome either.
The list of qualifying federal offenses for DNA collection was pretty dramatically expanded back in 2004 (google on H.R. 5107, the "Justice For All" Act, for details) to cover pretty much all federal felony convictions, so yeah, they almost certainly did collect DNA from Cunningham.
Whoever modded you "offtopic" is teh stup1d. Of course a comment like that is "offtopic", but for crying out loud, don't waste mod points on what's basically friendly banter - this isn't the fucking Lincoln-Douglas debates here. Sheesh. :(
Well, they aren't here today, so I guess I'll work with the people who are advancing claims here today, and - not unreasonably, I think - ask them what they support those claims with.
A most welcome response - it's so very uncommon to see that sort of thing, rather than flames or insults or spin in response. Cheers! ;)
Even if I grant all that to be true, arguendo, it's an awful long way from "I dunno" to "Bush was re-elected even though he lost the popular vote", which is what the OP was stating as fact. If that is, in fact, the case, it seems that someone taking that position ought to provide a bit more support for it than just his or her say-so.
Ummm, what?
Thinking is all well and good, but it wouldn't hurt to complement the thinking with a bit of research.
No. The Constitution supersedes treaties. Otherwise you could sneak amendments to the Constitution in through the back door by simply signing a treaty with some other country. Article VI needs some careful parsing, but the effect of Article VI is that treaties, like federal laws and the Constitution itself, supersede state laws and state constitutions. Nothing in Article VI is to be construed such that treaties supersede the federal Constitution, as the Supreme Court made clear in the governing case on this issue, Reid v. Covert.
Scholarly debate notwithstanding, case law is really fairly clear that treaties are on a par with federal statute, and that both are subordinate to the Constitution in any case - see, e.g., Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957).
That would be the easiest way, but depending on how developed these virtual economies become, it may someday be possible to use these "currencies" without first cashing out. If/when you can exchange WoW money for real-world goods or services - i.e., by spending some of your gold (or whatever - I don't play WoW) at Amazon to buy a book - then the IRS will surely perk up and take an active interest, as income from what's effectively a barter system is definitely taxable. As the GP post said, we're not exactly there yet, but if we get to that point, converting to greenbacks may not be a necessary step to attract the attention of the taxman.
The most benign explanation I can come up with is probably the correct one - Zonker didn't bother to look at the source for the article, and just cut'n'pasted the thing as is. Standard Slapdash incompetence, in other words, in which case I call shenanigans on the article submitter for taking advantage of the kid who rides the short bus.
Good thing I didn't do that then, eh?
Alas, I don't think you stopped to ponder any of the issues I raised. Oh, well. Perhaps your mouse is broken, and you can't click on the link to read the four or five hundred comments praising Colbert for sticking it to Chimpy McBushitler. At least here you have one or two lone voices objecting to Colbert's presentation, but no such thing there. So I ask you again, is the video the thing you're supposed to be interested in? If so, why not select one of the many sites that present the entire thing, rather than selected portions, without the comments?
There are none so blind as those who will not see. When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source. And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary. So, let's all stop and ponder whether the video is really the thing you're supposed to be interested in.
Take off the blinders for a moment and pretend it's President John Kerry, with video selections and commentary provided by Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. Is that still cool, or do you want to award some more Oscars?
Do you consider it left-wing?
Why is it even necessary to present someone's slanted commentary on the thing? Just put it out there on its own merits and let the folks who missed it have a look. Unless this is all just an excuse for something else, that is.
Throw a stone into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps is the one that got hit.
Actually, I didn't say anything about which way it slanted, just that it was slanted. Rather telling that you immediately jumped to that conclusion, I think.
Actually, no, I think you've nailed it already.
Oh, there's a nice unbiased source. A little red meat for dinner tonight, eh Zonker?