Reporting threats and assaults to the authorities is standing up for yourself.
I totally agree. The "thin-skinned" response is to "just ignore" it. Which really means, do nothing at all to stop it or stand up for yourself. Just go cower in the corner when you're threatened.
Standing up for yourself by reporting it takes real courage. It takes being thick-skinned enough to know that it might get worse, before it gets better, but that you're being a part of creating positive change, and changing the bully culture.
Sorry grandpa, you remembered something right, but you forgot the details. That is for telephone calls. For internet communications, you only have to provide the logs you do have, on request. You do not have to have those logs. But as we know, for example from lavabit, if you don't have logs and the law enforcement agency is high enough on the food chain, they might get a warrant that requires you to give them access to your service instead.
What about all the low-murder-rate cities where guns are banned? Seems it might not actually be so obvious at all once you switch from partisan sound bites to statistics...
No, in the US the courts must prefer the survival of the contract. The illegal action would have to be not a detail, but the main purpose of the contract. You would need the clause to go the other way to cancel the contract if any part is not valid; except that that disclaimer itself would usually not be enforceable either.
More likely, they simply lied and made up an excuse where they look stupid, to protect themselves against looking criminal.
Most likely the NDA requires that they ask the court to seal documents, if it mentions the courts at all; most likely it was to prevent them from telling the media, or anybody else.
False. Illegal portions of the contract are not enforceable, and you simply are NOT required to do those parts. And if you knew they were not enforceable, then there is no conspiracy. This happens frequently.
To have a conspiracy you have to have some action taken in furtherance of the crime. Signing the contract and then also taking a step to further the illegal actions, then the contract proves intent. But only once they already have you in those other details.
There are standard formulas for who owns water, and how far out, and who has an exclusive economic zone, and where. There might be argument over a few miles here and there at borders, but generally the formula is well established.
"Ghost writer" isn't a type of servant. It is actually a professional who you've brought in to help you tell your story. Maybe this is the truth of his story. Maybe he wanted a propaganda fluff piece and he made the mistake of hiring a ghost writer instead of a PR firm. Maybe he thought he could just tell the writer what lies to write, and didn't have to hide any of the dirt, and was shocked to find out that the writer cares about telling what Assange wanted told, but does NOT care about only telling that part of the story, and intends instead to tell the whole truth, simply including Assange's take on it. Which seems to be what happened.
I don't see how that is a writer "turning" on him. The truth is the truth, it is not for or against him. If he wants the truth to involve him being a morally upstanding guy, that requires morally upstanding behavior.
Get with the program, everybody knows what a dirtbag he is. The new talking points involve saying it doesn't matter if he is a dirtbag, because it isn't about him, it is about... leaks of the past. Well that is just history, he isn't still out there meeting with whistleblowers. Maybe it is time for supporters to realize the situation, and start a new organization for leaks.
You're being intentionally misleading. If you have sex with somebody, and then fall asleep in bed with them, they do have consent. If they slip it in in the morning and you don't want it, you say "no," and then you've withdrawn consent, and they have to stop. But you don't have to ask verbal consent constantly with a lover, especially one you're literally sleeping with after the act.
They should have clarified, he's not suing to stop the fracking, he's suing to stop local utilities from compensating for the increased water usage due to fracking. Which is not any better, I'm not sure why they got it wrong.
I advise you look up some of the words you used. For example, "criminal" and "authority." You might find you are substantially mistaken about their meaning in English.
Yes, rights are legal tools, not magical force fields. Note however that they do exist. You seem to think admitting they are not a magical force field means you're against rights, or support violations of rights. That is literally insane, because if rights were a magical force field they wouldn't need anybody to agree that they are thus; they would be obviously so by their function.
I have a right to walk down the street unmolested. The existence of muggers does not mean I do not have that right. It means that I have to defend my rights successfully, which may not always be possible. But afterwards, I can seek redress, and society can agree formally what was right and wrong.
I spend time every week at the local internment camp memorial. It has large plaques explaining the acknowledgment by the US Government that the camps violated the rights of those interned. To twist that history is especially disgusting when contrasted against the solid patriotism of those interned. Their belief in American principles is what led their long struggle, using formal legal and legislative systems of the United States, to have the record set straight regarding the violations of their rights. Claiming rights are magical denies this whole process, and the strengthening effect it had on the nation. Such a thing could not happen now; we have precedent to cover it.
Actually when you tell them to ask you anything, you probably waived your right to remain silent, and if you then refuse to answer further questions it can cause you all sorts of problems.
You need to start the lawyer talk much sooner, before you've provided information or agreed to do so, and not play games with your responses.
Oh yeah, and that doesn't work at the border. At the border you actually go to jail a the end of that exchange, and pay a $10,000 fine too.
When I was just a wee lad, my family was crossing the border from Washington State to British Columbia, and since my parents were longhairs, we were flagged for a search. They searched until they found a month's supply of brown rice in a paper bag in the back seat, and then they realized my parents were health-food-hippies not drug-hippies, and they stopped the search and waved us through.
You're just using different words, but that is what is being said. "Challenging responses" is the part where they are "refusing" to accept the answer, often even telling you that you are lying.
You should read that link, instead of just searching for it and pasting the link without reviewing it. The first line says, "The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed." Notice that it does NOT say, "There is none."
Slashdot Mirror
Reporting threats and assaults to the authorities is standing up for yourself.
I totally agree. The "thin-skinned" response is to "just ignore" it. Which really means, do nothing at all to stop it or stand up for yourself. Just go cower in the corner when you're threatened.
Standing up for yourself by reporting it takes real courage. It takes being thick-skinned enough to know that it might get worse, before it gets better, but that you're being a part of creating positive change, and changing the bully culture.
Did some precious perfect snowflake get his wittle feelers hurt?
You must be one of those sadistic psychotic narcissists I read about on slashdot!
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Sorry grandpa, you remembered something right, but you forgot the details. That is for telephone calls. For internet communications, you only have to provide the logs you do have, on request. You do not have to have those logs. But as we know, for example from lavabit, if you don't have logs and the law enforcement agency is high enough on the food chain, they might get a warrant that requires you to give them access to your service instead.
What about all the low-murder-rate cities where guns are banned? Seems it might not actually be so obvious at all once you switch from partisan sound bites to statistics...
Pescatarian diets are generally grouped with the vegetarian diets when considering health.
No, in the US the courts must prefer the survival of the contract. The illegal action would have to be not a detail, but the main purpose of the contract. You would need the clause to go the other way to cancel the contract if any part is not valid; except that that disclaimer itself would usually not be enforceable either.
More likely, they simply lied and made up an excuse where they look stupid, to protect themselves against looking criminal.
Most likely the NDA requires that they ask the court to seal documents, if it mentions the courts at all; most likely it was to prevent them from telling the media, or anybody else.
False. Illegal portions of the contract are not enforceable, and you simply are NOT required to do those parts. And if you knew they were not enforceable, then there is no conspiracy. This happens frequently.
To have a conspiracy you have to have some action taken in furtherance of the crime. Signing the contract and then also taking a step to further the illegal actions, then the contract proves intent. But only once they already have you in those other details.
For about 2000 years, from Aristotle until after Galileo, belief in zero, belief in nothing, the void, was Heresy, and punishable by death.
Scotland is slightly smaller than South Carolina in land area, but has a higher population. So "smaller" without a dimension is wrong-ish.
People like GSP.
There are standard formulas for who owns water, and how far out, and who has an exclusive economic zone, and where. There might be argument over a few miles here and there at borders, but generally the formula is well established.
I'm 1/4 sheep, you insensitive clod! Sheep are sheeple too.
Now get off my lawn!
Jings, crivens and helpmaboab!
Will there be a referendum about beta, d'ye ken?
Vote Soylent for Beta! Soylent for Beta! Soylent Betas are Nerds!
slashdot will always have the hive mind, but the nerds jumped ship for soylent news.
"Ghost writer" isn't a type of servant. It is actually a professional who you've brought in to help you tell your story. Maybe this is the truth of his story. Maybe he wanted a propaganda fluff piece and he made the mistake of hiring a ghost writer instead of a PR firm. Maybe he thought he could just tell the writer what lies to write, and didn't have to hide any of the dirt, and was shocked to find out that the writer cares about telling what Assange wanted told, but does NOT care about only telling that part of the story, and intends instead to tell the whole truth, simply including Assange's take on it. Which seems to be what happened.
I don't see how that is a writer "turning" on him. The truth is the truth, it is not for or against him. If he wants the truth to involve him being a morally upstanding guy, that requires morally upstanding behavior.
Get with the program, everybody knows what a dirtbag he is. The new talking points involve saying it doesn't matter if he is a dirtbag, because it isn't about him, it is about... leaks of the past. Well that is just history, he isn't still out there meeting with whistleblowers. Maybe it is time for supporters to realize the situation, and start a new organization for leaks.
You're being intentionally misleading. If you have sex with somebody, and then fall asleep in bed with them, they do have consent. If they slip it in in the morning and you don't want it, you say "no," and then you've withdrawn consent, and they have to stop. But you don't have to ask verbal consent constantly with a lover, especially one you're literally sleeping with after the act.
If we have no idea, then it would be just as likely to be what the media portrayed as any other thing.
Up your logic. Not knowing doesn't mean you know.
They should have clarified, he's not suing to stop the fracking, he's suing to stop local utilities from compensating for the increased water usage due to fracking.
Which is not any better, I'm not sure why they got it wrong.
I advise you look up some of the words you used. For example, "criminal" and "authority." You might find you are substantially mistaken about their meaning in English.
Yes, rights are legal tools, not magical force fields. Note however that they do exist. You seem to think admitting they are not a magical force field means you're against rights, or support violations of rights. That is literally insane, because if rights were a magical force field they wouldn't need anybody to agree that they are thus; they would be obviously so by their function.
I have a right to walk down the street unmolested. The existence of muggers does not mean I do not have that right. It means that I have to defend my rights successfully, which may not always be possible. But afterwards, I can seek redress, and society can agree formally what was right and wrong.
I spend time every week at the local internment camp memorial. It has large plaques explaining the acknowledgment by the US Government that the camps violated the rights of those interned. To twist that history is especially disgusting when contrasted against the solid patriotism of those interned. Their belief in American principles is what led their long struggle, using formal legal and legislative systems of the United States, to have the record set straight regarding the violations of their rights. Claiming rights are magical denies this whole process, and the strengthening effect it had on the nation. Such a thing could not happen now; we have precedent to cover it.
Actually when you tell them to ask you anything, you probably waived your right to remain silent, and if you then refuse to answer further questions it can cause you all sorts of problems.
You need to start the lawyer talk much sooner, before you've provided information or agreed to do so, and not play games with your responses.
Oh yeah, and that doesn't work at the border. At the border you actually go to jail a the end of that exchange, and pay a $10,000 fine too.
Canadian border staff are polite and reasonable.
When I was just a wee lad, my family was crossing the border from Washington State to British Columbia, and since my parents were longhairs, we were flagged for a search. They searched until they found a month's supply of brown rice in a paper bag in the back seat, and then they realized my parents were health-food-hippies not drug-hippies, and they stopped the search and waved us through.
You're just using different words, but that is what is being said. "Challenging responses" is the part where they are "refusing" to accept the answer, often even telling you that you are lying.
You should read that link, instead of just searching for it and pasting the link without reviewing it. The first line says, "The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed." Notice that it does NOT say, "There is none."