There's no reason for him to go into a high security prison. It costs more for the feds to hold high security prisoners, he's never been accused of violence, he seems to be a low risk to guards or other prisoners.
B.. b... but he's one of THOSE people who can whistle into a phone and launch nuclear missiles!
If you hack into an AMERICAN computer then yes, you fall within the legal jurisdiction of the USA.
If you're physically present in the UK and break UK laws, you fall within the jurisdiction of the UK and it's their darned job to make sure that their laws are followed, i.e. punish you for breaking them.
I thought plain vanilla bleach took care of all biological and most chemical agents just fine?
And as far as radioactive isotopes go, use whatever would remove the non-radioactive isotope of the element in question.
Building cities in places where we really shouldn't, e.g. on major fault lines, near volcanoes, below the sea level, etc).
Using dangerous chemicals (Bhopal and other disasters).
Genetic engineering (we're still waiting for the disaster here, but since it deals with stuff that is self-replicating, there's a good chance of truly absurdly huge consequences).
Most things nuclear, from reactor-powered satellites to discarded medical equipment (Goiania) to reactors going up in flames.
Large dams.
Dumping all kinds of crap (chemical weapons, etc) in the oceans.
This "invention" is completely redundant. Cars that were designed to shut their engine off when stopped (start-stop-automatic) won't need additional hints from stupid traffic signals, and all other cars won't support it.
Sorry IBM, you just reinvented the square wheel. Sucks to have paid all those patent fees.
Or how about indecent exposure? Say, a Canadian in Alberta goes to the U.S.-Canada border, and waves his bare dick at Montana on the other side of it; a 17 year old American girl is watching from there. In Canada, this would be merely indecent exposure, as the age of consent in 16. In Montana (where age of consent is 18), I'd imagine that would amount to sexual assault on a minor. What crime was committed, and which court should handle the case?
The act was committed on a U.S. computer on U.S. soil.
Irrelevant. The guy broke UK laws and is now in UK custody. It's the UKs fscking job to make sure their laws are followed.
There are two logical ways to treat this: either as a criminal act by a UK citizen on US soil, or as an act of war by the UK for allowing one of their citizens to attack a resource of the US government.
Holy false dichotomy, Batman.
You might argue false dichotomy, but this was an attack (however trivial) by a UK citizen against a resource of the US government.
Hacking (as in "accessing without the owners permission") into computers is illegal in the UK. It doesn't matter where the computer is or who it belongs to - it only matters that you're in the UK while you do it. Why they would even consider handing this guy off to anyone else without trying him for his crime first is beyond me.
Depends on who arrests you first.
The answer has to be the state of New York
No it doesn't have to. The penal code of a country can easily specify that it does have jurisdiction if the suspect committed the crime from a place where it is not illegal or where no jurisdiction applies. In fact, such questions should be answered at the very beginning of a penal code, else the whole thing is kind of pointless.
German penal code, for example, specifies the place where a crime took place as the place where the perpetrator was when he commited the criminal act. Any crime commited by someone physically located in Germany at the time when the crime was committed falls under German jurisdiction. It also claims jurisdiction over any crime committed against a German citizen anywhere in the world if the action is also considered a crime there or if no other penal code applies there (that's the part about international waters and such).
Now, let me ask you this: if I was in the UK, and shot a missile at the U.S., should I still be tried in the UK? Based on your arguments, the answer is yes.
Quite naturally. The UK does have laws against such things.
You send the criminals to the other country to be tried and sentenced in order to send a message to the other government that, "Even though this person committed a crime against you, it was not supported by our government and we bear you no ill will."
And prosecuting and putting said person in prison will not do that? I'm not following here. Usually, prosecuting someone and locking them away is a standard way of a government saying "We don't approve of what you did.".
There is some sort of group-think amongst slashdot readers that computer crimes are not crimes at all and should readily be forgiven.
No, but they guy's been in jail for a couple of years now without trial, for something that he could easily be prosecuted for in the UK.
I am saying that he is hardly innocent, and that, at the very least, the UK should give him a token jail sentence as a gesture of good will towards the U.S.
He's been locked up for a couple of frickin' years now. If they put him on trial today and give hime a "token" jail sentence, he'll be out tomorrow for time already served.
The real issue comes down to proper punishment, and making sure that those who are wronged have the chance to see "justice done".
No. The victim does not get to punish the criminal. That's barbaric and any civilized nation should have moved beyond this kind of sh1t.
Now, what is the UK going to do in a trial, since the UK was not the one wronged in this case?
The UK was "wronged". UK laws were broken, by someone who was physically present in the UK at the time when he was breaking those laws. It's the UKs job to put the guy on trial.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US for hacking NATO computer systems. He hacked a NATO computer system. He's getting extradited. What's the controversy here?
The UK arrested some guy who allegedly committed an act that's considered criminal by UK laws while being physically present in the UK while committing said act. Why are they even thinking about extraditing him anywhere? It's the UKs job to put the guy on trial and lock him up/fine him if he's found guilty.
The fact that they haven't done so for seven years is simply mind-boggling.
That's why they open multiple bank accounts with 10k in them.
That's when they use the SWIFT data they have collected to find one of them, transfer some money to it to put it just above 10k, and arrest you and send you off to prison. Have a nice day.
Because he committed the crime abroad. Where he was sitting when he commanded the crime to happen isn't relevant,
The physical location of the perpetrator at the time he or she commited the criminal act defines the crime scene, at least in any sane jurisdiction. Otherwise, you'd have extradition requests from Thailand and a host of other places with lese majeste laws for things people in other countries wrote on their web pages.
A countries penal laws can have provisions for applying in other cases, but those are exceptions to the rule. If a country has arrested someone who committed a crime while he was physically present in said country, then it's that countries f***ing job to put that someone on trial.
German penal law clearly defines the place where a crime took place as the place where the perpetrator was when he or she commited the criminal act.
However, it also has a few provisions that allow applying German penal law to crimes commited abroad, e.g. if the victim was German and the action would be considered a crime in Germany.
The guy who shoots across the border can quite likely be sentenced by either country, depending on where he's captured.
A French person with a rifle shoots across the France/Germany border and kills a German. In which country did the murder occur?
It doesn't matter.
French law probably states what someone needs to do to qualify as a murderer and what the punishment is. It quite likely doesn't say that the victim needs to be in France. Hence, the murderer can be sentenced in France, regardless of where the victim was.
Methane can be stored in two major ways: 1) high pressure/adsorbed on to a sponge-like material or 2) in cryogenic liquid form.
Err... no. You're confusion methane and hydrogen.
Methane is much easier to store than hydrogen. And storage facilities for methane already exist and would just need to be expanded, compared to hydrogen which requires new technology. Produced methane could be fed almost directly into the already existing and well-established natural gas distribution and storage network.
Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel,
True. But there are other renewable source with intermittent output that can be used for electrolysis, like wind power. And where I live, the potential power from wind is about five times that of solar.
Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'd be happy with methane first, since it's already much easier to handle than plain hydrogen. Synthesizing longer chain hydrocarbons might make the fuel more convenient, but also requires more effort.
Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system.
The problem with CO2 is that you'll need _lots_ for the industrial process, and there's only very little of it air (300-something ppm). Extracting that is a major pain in the rear (i.e. requires lots of energy).
Slashdot Mirror
First it's the birthplace of Einstein. And now this.
You'll need to come up with a haiku.
B .. b ... but he's one of THOSE people who can whistle into a phone and launch nuclear missiles!
... the people who react poorly to violent video games are the ones who are likely to exhibit violent behavior even without any video games?
If you're physically present in the UK and break UK laws, you fall within the jurisdiction of the UK and it's their darned job to make sure that their laws are followed, i.e. punish you for breaking them.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Hello, is that you, Dr. Heisenberg?
I thought plain vanilla bleach took care of all biological and most chemical agents just fine? And as far as radioactive isotopes go, use whatever would remove the non-radioactive isotope of the element in question.
Yeah. Even if it was going to explode "really soon" or "any second now" in astronomical terms, that'd still be 10000 or 1000 years, respectively.
Building cities in places where we really shouldn't, e.g. on major fault lines, near volcanoes, below the sea level, etc).
Using dangerous chemicals (Bhopal and other disasters).
Genetic engineering (we're still waiting for the disaster here, but since it deals with stuff that is self-replicating, there's a good chance of truly absurdly huge consequences).
Most things nuclear, from reactor-powered satellites to discarded medical equipment (Goiania) to reactors going up in flames.
Large dams.
Dumping all kinds of crap (chemical weapons, etc) in the oceans.
1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today.
2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?
Sorry IBM, you just reinvented the square wheel. Sucks to have paid all those patent fees.
Brilliant. YMMD.
Irrelevant. The guy broke UK laws and is now in UK custody. It's the UKs fscking job to make sure their laws are followed.
There are two logical ways to treat this: either as a criminal act by a UK citizen on US soil, or as an act of war by the UK for allowing one of their citizens to attack a resource of the US government.
Holy false dichotomy, Batman.
You might argue false dichotomy, but this was an attack (however trivial) by a UK citizen against a resource of the US government.
Hacking (as in "accessing without the owners permission") into computers is illegal in the UK. It doesn't matter where the computer is or who it belongs to - it only matters that you're in the UK while you do it. Why they would even consider handing this guy off to anyone else without trying him for his crime first is beyond me.
Depends on who arrests you first. The answer has to be the state of New York
No it doesn't have to. The penal code of a country can easily specify that it does have jurisdiction if the suspect committed the crime from a place where it is not illegal or where no jurisdiction applies. In fact, such questions should be answered at the very beginning of a penal code, else the whole thing is kind of pointless.
German penal code, for example, specifies the place where a crime took place as the place where the perpetrator was when he commited the criminal act. Any crime commited by someone physically located in Germany at the time when the crime was committed falls under German jurisdiction. It also claims jurisdiction over any crime committed against a German citizen anywhere in the world if the action is also considered a crime there or if no other penal code applies there (that's the part about international waters and such).
Quite naturally. The UK does have laws against such things.
You send the criminals to the other country to be tried and sentenced in order to send a message to the other government that, "Even though this person committed a crime against you, it was not supported by our government and we bear you no ill will."
And prosecuting and putting said person in prison will not do that? I'm not following here. Usually, prosecuting someone and locking them away is a standard way of a government saying "We don't approve of what you did.".
There is some sort of group-think amongst slashdot readers that computer crimes are not crimes at all and should readily be forgiven.
No, but they guy's been in jail for a couple of years now without trial, for something that he could easily be prosecuted for in the UK.
I am saying that he is hardly innocent, and that, at the very least, the UK should give him a token jail sentence as a gesture of good will towards the U.S.
He's been locked up for a couple of frickin' years now. If they put him on trial today and give hime a "token" jail sentence, he'll be out tomorrow for time already served.
No. The victim does not get to punish the criminal. That's barbaric and any civilized nation should have moved beyond this kind of sh1t.
Now, what is the UK going to do in a trial, since the UK was not the one wronged in this case?
The UK was "wronged". UK laws were broken, by someone who was physically present in the UK at the time when he was breaking those laws. It's the UKs job to put the guy on trial.
The UK arrested some guy who allegedly committed an act that's considered criminal by UK laws while being physically present in the UK while committing said act. Why are they even thinking about extraditing him anywhere? It's the UKs job to put the guy on trial and lock him up/fine him if he's found guilty.
The fact that they haven't done so for seven years is simply mind-boggling.
That's when they use the SWIFT data they have collected to find one of them, transfer some money to it to put it just above 10k, and arrest you and send you off to prison. Have a nice day.
The physical location of the perpetrator at the time he or she commited the criminal act defines the crime scene, at least in any sane jurisdiction. Otherwise, you'd have extradition requests from Thailand and a host of other places with lese majeste laws for things people in other countries wrote on their web pages.
A countries penal laws can have provisions for applying in other cases, but those are exceptions to the rule. If a country has arrested someone who committed a crime while he was physically present in said country, then it's that countries f***ing job to put that someone on trial.
German penal law clearly defines the place where a crime took place as the place where the perpetrator was when he or she commited the criminal act.
However, it also has a few provisions that allow applying German penal law to crimes commited abroad, e.g. if the victim was German and the action would be considered a crime in Germany.
The guy who shoots across the border can quite likely be sentenced by either country, depending on where he's captured.
It doesn't matter.
French law probably states what someone needs to do to qualify as a murderer and what the punishment is. It quite likely doesn't say that the victim needs to be in France. Hence, the murderer can be sentenced in France, regardless of where the victim was.
"We built a Fusor from old Chinese TVs"
True, but we eventually want to/have to stop burning coal. ethanol factories(fermention)
Good point. air destilators(making nitrogen, oxygen, argon and CO2)
And that requires lots of energy. Air only contains a few hundred ppm of CO2, so you need to process a few tons of air for a few kgs of CO2.
Methane is much easier to store than hydrogen. And storage facilities for methane already exist and would just need to be expanded, compared to hydrogen which requires new technology. Produced methane could be fed almost directly into the already existing and well-established natural gas distribution and storage network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage
True. But there are other renewable source with intermittent output that can be used for electrolysis, like wind power. And where I live, the potential power from wind is about five times that of solar.
Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'd be happy with methane first, since it's already much easier to handle than plain hydrogen. Synthesizing longer chain hydrocarbons might make the fuel more convenient, but also requires more effort.
Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system.
The problem with CO2 is that you'll need _lots_ for the industrial process, and there's only very little of it air (300-something ppm). Extracting that is a major pain in the rear (i.e. requires lots of energy).