The physical lock might as well be a combination lock, and thus the combination would consist of "knowledge" just the same as for an encryption key. It is perfectly legal for the police to require you to divulge the combination to your locker.
"Something you know" isn't what counts when it comes to protecting you from self incrimination; it is whether the "something you know" is incriminating you. And unless your combination isn't a crime in itself, you wouldn't directly incriminate yourself by divulging it, which is what the self incrimination protection is about.
You don't get what he's saying.
THEY CAN KICK IN YOUR DOOR to get access to the house. This does not require you divulging information which incriminates you.. e.g. the combination.
It doesn't matter if the incrimination is direct or not, it's still self incrimination.
If they want your data, they should pry it from me by force.
Just because the lock is stronger doesn't mean they should be allowed to imprison me indefinitely because they WANT to, but CANT, prove you've committed a crime.
actually, clinton was preparing to go after afghanistan toward the end of his term. He chose to allow his successor to begin this campaign rather than leave the commander's chair in its most critical phase.
Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.
While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under Clinton. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism- fighting was to the Clinton White House.
...statistically you have a MUCH better chance of being killed by a falling vending machine than terrorism.
Maybe the situation here is more dire in the UK, but I don't think your claim holds true for the US (and, absent statistics, it makes me doubt that it holds true for the UK):
"... Moreover, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission there were 37 known vending machine fatalities between 1978 and 1995, for an average of 2.18 deaths per year...."
Ah, but he said "falling" vending machines.
That would not be classified as a vending machine fatality, but rather an industrial freight fatality. The real statistics are hidden.
Games use massive binary bundles like this. All you have to do is keep a current game installed, like world of warcraft, and you can cram anything short of an HD movie into it.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but you got elected officials, chosen by the working classes, against the population in general, and the House of Lords, who are 'appointed' working for the general population? How does this work?:D
I think it's a rather ominous demonstration of how beholden our political systems (on both sides of the pond) have become to media manipulation.
We all know how much media loves the internet.
The rest of it, for all the conspiracy theories, probably goes back to ratings.
The more apprehension you create, the more likely they are to turn to your channel the next day, and the next, and the next.
They get their ratings through BOTH edges of the sword too. They get the statists who think mama government will save them from the big bad terrorists. They get the sane people who feel compelled to at least know what is going on, and turn on the news out of dread of what their own government will do next.
I interpreted that as person used computer to contact child, and also had underage pornagraphy. I suppose noting person tried to screw a stranger instead of a family member is kind of relevant.
The fact that he used a car could be relevant too.
This would indicate whether he operates close to home, or whether your child is not at any risk at all because he doesn't feel comfortable operating there. Clearly he'd want a late model. Any chance of breaking down with a kidnapped child would be rather calamitous, right?
Less Government = More Prosperity = More Equality.
late 19th and early 20th century US.
It had much less government. Most people lived in shacks and had no indoor plumbing.
The wealthy lived in opulent estates, not unlike biltmore.
Any attempt by workers to get uppity with leave for illness or enough free time to eat and sleep regularly were met with responses ranging from immediate termination to machine gun fire.
Most medications and processed foods carried with them very real risks of mortality for those who consumed them, and a very large portion of them contained far from what the packaging indicated.
Since Regan was never able to implement the Less Government thing, how can he have proved Less Government = More Prosperity = More Equality?
simple. he made the government bigger only in military spending, syphoned money away from domestic programs to do so, and got the government regulators' nose out of the business of fine, upstanding business executives.
It certainly created more equality. Anyone not within the upper 2% was equally miserable.
Like the regulations that prevented the current bubble? Or the dot-com bubble before that? Sure, sure, give us more of those enlightened commandments.;-)
Exactly my point. You do know there were regulations, rolled back by republicans, which prevented investment and banking firms from investing in certain sectors at the same time, among other things.
The ABSENCE of those regulations led to the credit crunch.
As for the dot-com bubble, that's just a case of people rushing to a new, unexplored market. Some win, many lose, but people who recklessly invest in it should not expect the returns they do.
Because he should pay the cost of feeding the poor alone, while his taxes ALSO pay for the police and military protection which keeps that same poor person and all his other compatriots from ransacking their house at will.
People who benefit more from public services should pay a higher price.
The greater your assets protected by the government (read: tax payers), the more taxes YOU should pay.
People seem to misunderstand that regulations were put in place for good reasons.
Some of which include: The abuse of labor to the point of neo-feudalism The rise of massive cartels and trusts in the early 20th century. The recklessness and malfeasance which led to the 1929 collapse.
Deregulation is a pretty aweful idea all around. The system of regs which were in place before his presidency were carefully erected over a long period of time, and represented a much better balance of centralized, liability free corporate power and consumer and labor rights.
The removal of media ownership regulations resulted in clear channel, fox, and the other big houses which have long since pitched investigative reporting in favor of catering to governmental political whims by assisting their slight of hand.
The removal of tariffs allowed multinational conglomerates to turn the competition game on its head, and force governments to compete for them by selling out their constituencies.
While there are a few bad examples, most regulations are there for a damn good reason. And, of course, Reagan, like every other "anti-regulation" administration since, has cherry picked the regulations most useful to the protection of the public trust for the chopping block (FCC media ownership, trade barriers against nations with no human rights standards, organized labor support, bankruptcy protections), while turning around and strengthening things like limited liability and copyright.
We now have so many examples from recent history of the calamitous consequences for the public at large, the middle class, and political discourse that it's utterly ludicrous to consider deregulation beneficial. At this point, however, the issues is moot.
The media moguls the reaganites fed in the 90's are the only ones left, and they don't give one damn about honest political discourse or an informed public. In fact, they want quite the contrary, because they routinely play golf with the political bed fellows who gave them their media empires.
Well one would hope that the law would have registration requirement, so that offenders would be required to register each new address.
Also, one would hope that the law would make it a crime to falsely register an address.
I have yet to read the law, but this is exactly what I thought when I saw this headline.
If it's not in the bill already, it will be passed later when enough famous people and government officials end up on this list.
Then, you can say goodbye to those pesky email leaks which continuously stymie the corrupt efforts of: wall street officials, lobbying firms, the alphabet organizations, congressmen, and many, many more!
With the baby, they're also tossing out a puppy too: the numerous small, independent domains used by individual web publishers and small-scale boutique email providers.
so which lefties doctored the intelligence reports for iraq, authored the patriot act, and established "internment camps" off shore in places like gitmo for "extraordinary rendition"?
an incredibly stupid law vs out-and-out tyrrany, global war crimes, and fraud.
The left certainly is as bad as the right isn't it.. oh wait.
There have been so many news stories about people searching the sex offender database for their areas and pumping a few shotgun blasts into their heads.
The death penalty is a rather stiff punishment for pissing in the park.
Force used: Threat Computer used: Yes Pornography involved: Yes
What is so special about computers and pornography?
How about we also include other entries to vilify baselessly through connection with child abuse.
Public roads used: yes
Oh you use the interstate? *whisper*it's probably one of those perverts, you know the ones, get steph up to her room*whisper*
Late Model Automobile used: yes Briefcase used: Yes Designer Suit used: yes Perscription eyeglasses used: yes
Now instead of vilifying computer geeks, suddenly every corporate executive, doctor, and lawyer will be eyed as a potential threat to the innocence of your child.
Unfortunately, without those laws, we get problems on the other side---idiot judges who keep letting out repeat offenders who progressively work their way up to heinous crimes. I don't know what the solution is
"better 1,000 guilty go free than one innocent suffer wrongfully"
The solution is parents keeping a closer watch on their kids.
Unless you think your child is ready to make their own sexual decisions, you should be keeping close tabs on them, working with other members of your own community to make sure they report anything strange going on, etc.
I don't know about you, but my parents were busy people, and they still had enough time to keep me out of trouble until I could drive.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they can compel blizzard to provide the full source to the program, they cant prove which files are or are not part of the program's resources.
Ah, one of the few benefits of proprietary software lockdown.
This would be the sane interpretation.
I'm wondering who touched the daughters of the mods who gave GP "insightful"
No, that argument doesn't fly.
The physical lock might as well be a combination lock, and thus the combination would consist of "knowledge" just the same as for an encryption key. It is perfectly legal for the police to require you to divulge the combination to your locker.
"Something you know" isn't what counts when it comes to protecting you from self incrimination; it is whether the "something you know" is incriminating you. And unless your combination isn't a crime in itself, you wouldn't directly incriminate yourself by divulging it, which is what the self incrimination protection is about.
You don't get what he's saying.
THEY CAN KICK IN YOUR DOOR to get access to the house. This does not require you divulging information which incriminates you.. e.g. the combination.
It doesn't matter if the incrimination is direct or not, it's still self incrimination.
If they want your data, they should pry it from me by force.
Just because the lock is stronger doesn't mean they should be allowed to imprison me indefinitely because they WANT to, but CANT, prove you've committed a crime.
A warrant can be enforced without my cooperation.
They can drag me away by force and search my house.
If I'm clever enough, I could have hidden it in a manner the investigators did not anticipate, and still get away with the crime.
Handing over an encryption key requires me to cooperate and incriminate myself.
They can copy and brute-force crack my drive if they like, and have several thousand years, but they should not be allowed to compel my password.
(1) Ignore it. This was the Clinton strategy,
actually, clinton was preparing to go after afghanistan toward the end of his term. He chose to allow his successor to begin this campaign rather than leave the commander's chair in its most critical phase.
Enter bush, with operationignore
Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.
While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under Clinton. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism- fighting was to the Clinton White House.
The constitution USED to be referred to as "the supreme law of the land"
Unfortunately, since the nixon years, the supreme court has been using creative interpretations.
The most abused clauses I can think of a is "cruel and unusual punishment", followed in order, by the fourth, first, and fifth amendments.
Maybe the situation here is more dire in the UK, but I don't think your claim holds true for the US (and, absent statistics, it makes me doubt that it holds true for the UK):
Ah, but he said "falling" vending machines.
That would not be classified as a vending machine fatality, but rather an industrial freight fatality. The real statistics are hidden.
I blame the labour party : )
Nope, I don't think they will.
Games use massive binary bundles like this. All you have to do is keep a current game installed, like world of warcraft, and you can cram anything short of an HD movie into it.
Specifically, they can RAISE WAGES and HIRE AMERICANS so we actually have a real choice to buy american.
Chrysler's engines are assembled in germany.
Try again.
Until you adopt the attitude to buy American products, as a matter of culture, any ranting about globalization is just a fraud.
because I haven't been compelled by the destruction of american purchasing power...
ou can't reserve for yourself the right to go global when your actions, when taken as an aggregate, practically force companies to do so.
yes I can, because companies' actions, taken as aggregate, literally force me to do so.
multinational conglomerates have much greater market power than I do.
They CAN reverse the trend, while I cannot.
This is true.
Paramount declared the franchise dead when enterprise crashed and burned horribly.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but you got elected officials, chosen by the working classes, against the population in general, and the House of Lords, who are 'appointed' working for the general population? How does this work? :D
I think it's a rather ominous demonstration of how beholden our political systems (on both sides of the pond) have become to media manipulation.
We all know how much media loves the internet.
The rest of it, for all the conspiracy theories, probably goes back to ratings.
The more apprehension you create, the more likely they are to turn to your channel the next day, and the next, and the next.
They get their ratings through BOTH edges of the sword too.
They get the statists who think mama government will save them from the big bad terrorists.
They get the sane people who feel compelled to at least know what is going on, and turn on the news out of dread of what their own government will do next.
Welcome to "wag the dog"
I interpreted that as person used computer to contact child, and also had underage pornagraphy. I suppose noting person tried to screw a stranger instead of a family member is kind of relevant.
The fact that he used a car could be relevant too.
This would indicate whether he operates close to home, or whether your child is not at any risk at all because he doesn't feel comfortable operating there.
Clearly he'd want a late model. Any chance of breaking down with a kidnapped child would be rather calamitous, right?
Less Government = More Prosperity = More Equality.
late 19th and early 20th century US.
It had much less government.
Most people lived in shacks and had no indoor plumbing.
The wealthy lived in opulent estates, not unlike biltmore.
Any attempt by workers to get uppity with leave for illness or enough free time to eat and sleep regularly were met with responses ranging from immediate termination to machine gun fire.
Most medications and processed foods carried with them very real risks of mortality for those who consumed them, and a very large portion of them contained far from what the packaging indicated.
Since Regan was never able to implement the Less Government thing, how can he have proved Less Government = More Prosperity = More Equality?
simple. he made the government bigger only in military spending, syphoned money away from domestic programs to do so, and got the government regulators' nose out of the business of fine, upstanding business executives.
It certainly created more equality. Anyone not within the upper 2% was equally miserable.
Like the regulations that prevented the current bubble? Or the dot-com bubble before that? Sure, sure, give us more of those enlightened commandments. ;-)
Exactly my point. You do know there were regulations, rolled back by republicans, which prevented investment and banking firms from investing in certain sectors at the same time, among other things.
The ABSENCE of those regulations led to the credit crunch.
As for the dot-com bubble, that's just a case of people rushing to a new, unexplored market. Some win, many lose, but people who recklessly invest in it should not expect the returns they do.
Because he should pay the cost of feeding the poor alone, while his taxes ALSO pay for the police and military protection which keeps that same poor person and all his other compatriots from ransacking their house at will.
People who benefit more from public services should pay a higher price.
The greater your assets protected by the government (read: tax payers), the more taxes YOU should pay.
People seem to misunderstand that regulations were put in place for good reasons.
Some of which include:
The abuse of labor to the point of neo-feudalism
The rise of massive cartels and trusts in the early 20th century.
The recklessness and malfeasance which led to the 1929 collapse.
Deregulation is a pretty aweful idea all around.
The system of regs which were in place before his presidency were carefully erected over a long period of time, and represented a much better balance of centralized, liability free corporate power and consumer and labor rights.
The removal of media ownership regulations resulted in clear channel, fox, and the other big houses which have long since pitched investigative reporting in favor of catering to governmental political whims by assisting their slight of hand.
The removal of tariffs allowed multinational conglomerates to turn the competition game on its head, and force governments to compete for them by selling out their constituencies.
While there are a few bad examples, most regulations are there for a damn good reason. And, of course, Reagan, like every other "anti-regulation" administration since, has cherry picked the regulations most useful to the protection of the public trust for the chopping block (FCC media ownership, trade barriers against nations with no human rights standards, organized labor support, bankruptcy protections), while turning around and strengthening things like limited liability and copyright.
We now have so many examples from recent history of the calamitous consequences for the public at large, the middle class, and political discourse that it's utterly ludicrous to consider deregulation beneficial. At this point, however, the issues is moot.
The media moguls the reaganites fed in the 90's are the only ones left, and they don't give one damn about honest political discourse or an informed public. In fact, they want quite the contrary, because they routinely play golf with the political bed fellows who gave them their media empires.
I drive a hundai.
It was built in a factory about 100 miles from my current residence, in the USA.
Well one would hope that the law would have registration requirement, so that offenders would be required to register each new address.
Also, one would hope that the law would make it a crime to falsely register an address.
I have yet to read the law, but this is exactly what I thought when I saw this headline.
If it's not in the bill already, it will be passed later when enough famous people and government officials end up on this list.
Then, you can say goodbye to those pesky email leaks which continuously stymie the corrupt efforts of: wall street officials, lobbying firms, the alphabet organizations, congressmen, and many, many more!
With the baby, they're also tossing out a puppy too: the numerous small, independent domains used by individual web publishers and small-scale boutique email providers.
so which lefties doctored the intelligence reports for iraq, authored the patriot act, and established "internment camps" off shore in places like gitmo for "extraordinary rendition"?
an incredibly stupid law vs out-and-out tyrrany, global war crimes, and fraud.
The left certainly is as bad as the right isn't it.. oh wait.
I dare you to give your email to anyone who might ever become an enemy.
Child custody battles after a bitter divorce anyone?
add to 3.
the place them in mortal danger.
There have been so many news stories about people searching the sex offender database for their areas and pumping a few shotgun blasts into their heads.
The death penalty is a rather stiff punishment for pissing in the park.
Let's examine the last part of this shall we?
What is so special about computers and pornography?
How about we also include other entries to vilify baselessly through connection with child abuse.
Public roads used: yes
Oh you use the interstate? *whisper*it's probably one of those perverts, you know the ones, get steph up to her room*whisper*
Late Model Automobile used: yes
Briefcase used: Yes
Designer Suit used: yes
Perscription eyeglasses used: yes
Now instead of vilifying computer geeks, suddenly every corporate executive, doctor, and lawyer will be eyed as a potential threat to the innocence of your child.
For another, quite realistic example:
Cross used: Yes
Collar used: Yes
Communion wafers used: Yes
Unfortunately, without those laws, we get problems on the other side---idiot judges who keep letting out repeat offenders who progressively work their way up to heinous crimes. I don't know what the solution is
"better 1,000 guilty go free than one innocent suffer wrongfully"
The solution is parents keeping a closer watch on their kids.
Unless you think your child is ready to make their own sexual decisions, you should be keeping close tabs on them, working with other members of your own community to make sure they report anything strange going on, etc.
I don't know about you, but my parents were busy people, and they still had enough time to keep me out of trouble until I could drive.
i've never seen a wealthy guy advocate healthcare for the 50 million and growing without it.
What would it cost him? Would he, or his children, or his children's children EVER miss that money?
Face it, without some regulatory compulsion, these people are about as generous with their money as stones are with blood.