I'm not sure I know what 'looking sideways' even means, but I would recommend against any extraneous acrobatics or gymnastics while passing customs.
As far as being detained, the rules are the same as if you are walking down the street. A customs agent may detain you for a short amount of time (minutes to a few hours or so) with "reasonable suspicion" that you are performing an illegal activity (generally, smuggling contraband into the country) while they sort out what's going on. You may be arrested if the agent has "probable cause" to believe that you have broken the law.
Again, these are the same standards that apply if you are walking down the street, driving in your car, etc.
US Customs have far more power and US law says that you aren't subject to the Constitution etc until they clear you. You have NO rights and they are ALL powerful. Naturally, this is false. But I wouldn't expect a Canadian to know much US Constitutional law. US law cannot supersede the US Constitution as you claim it does. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land".
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the Constitution protects everyone from "unreasonable search and seizure". US courts have opined that a search of any container at the border is reasonable. Searching people at the border is unreasonable. Unless the customs agent has probable cause to believe that you are attempting to smuggle something illegal into the US, it would be illegal to perform a cavity search on you. You also may not be detained at the border without probable cause.
You absolutely do have rights at the border, but they are fewer than what you would enjoy once you have entered the country. For instance, once you have lawfully entered, searching your belongings/automobile/home without probable cause would then be illegal, as that is an unreasonable search.
From TFA:
If someone does discover it, you can try saying: "I don't know what's on there. My boss told me to give it to the head of the New York office." This is what Bruce said to do if a customs agent discovers your USB drive with sensitive materials on it.
Here is a hint: Never EVER say to a custom's agent, "Someone else give me this package/suitcase/USB Drive/whatever to smuggle into your country. I have no idea what is inside." Saying something like this is a great way to get yourself detained.
It's my understanding that this is Qmail's default behavior. Not only is it qmail's default behavior, it is qmail's ONLY behavior unless you patch it. GP was is just misinformed, an asshole, or both.
I have just reread GP's post, and have concluded that GP is both misinformed and an asshole.
Take Reiser's case. The man is so obviously guilty it reeks. An Engineer might say, well they haven't even proved that she's dead. But somehow we are supposed to believe that she left a car full of groveries on the side of the road, failed to show up to her best friend's house, and left her kids in the hands of a man that she hates so that she could fly away to Russia? That's ridiculous. Actually, Nina's mother absconded with the kids and they are now in Russia. Nina was involved with a man who confessed to 8 murders and practiced "Death Yoga". Is it that line of thinking still sounding so far-fetched to you?
A decent attorney could package it up and sell it. However, as you pointed out, Reiser hamstrung his attorney with cockamamie explanations of the evidence against him.
The only reasonable explanation for preferring to sleep on the floorboards of a Honda CRX--in an inch of standing water--is the fact that the passenger seat was covered with human blood and guts (and needed to be disposed of).
And I'd much rather sleep in the passenger seat than remove it and sleep on a hard bumpy floorboard with rails and bolts sticking out of it. Don't forget the inch-deep puddle on the floorboards. I bet that made 'em real inviting.
The only reason I'd prefer to sleep on the floorboards of a car in an inch-deep puddle would be if the seat were covered in my wife's blood and guts. Oh, wait...
When in court, on trial for your life, subject to judgement from average citizens who have no hope of understanding you, your mannerisms or your bizarre hobbies and interests, keep your mouth shut. Why should this come as any surprise to you?
In US criminal trials, the prosecution must prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. The attorney that you are paying to defend you is busy creating reasonable doubt all over the place. But if you take the stand, you lose a lot of that reasonable doubt because the prosecutor can ask you point blank why the hell such a quantity of your wife's blood was found in your car and why the hell you removed the passenger seat and hosed down your car's interior and attempted to hide the car. The prosecutor is going to poke holes in your story and make you look like an idiot because that's his friggin' job.
So, yes, if you are the defendant in a criminal trial in the US, you have the right not to testify at your own trial, and you'd be a fool not to use it unless your attorney advises you otherwise.
I think we've just proved that I can be convicted of first degree murder if my friend turns up missing. Umm, no. Your attorney would just get the hospital records that say your friend was treated for stepping on a nail.
What, again, was Hans's explanation for the 6 inch bloodstain? "I don't remember"?
I'm disappointed in the majority of slashdotters who are are convinced he's innocent. Do you realize that is really stupid? Why is a group of people who are so rational about technology, say, or science, willing to believe something they just can flat out not know? I think that you are mistaking the belief that Reiser is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the belief that he is innocent.
The only two people who really know if Hans killed Nina are Hans and Nina, and Nina is unavailable at the present time. From my perspective, it did not seem like the evidence presented in the news rose to the level of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Obviously I have no idea what evidence was presented in court.
It sounds to me like Hans really did hang himself by testifying, however. It sounded like his attorneys were doing a fine job explaining away Hans's odd behavior by saying he's got mild Autism, he's a computer nerd, he's done kooky things his entire life. He's just a bit of a kook.
But does being a kook prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Nina was/is a sophisticated woman. How do we know she didn't just "disappear" in order to get away from that guy she was banging on the side who was into "Death Yoga" and confessed to several killings? She was in the midst of a bitter divorce with Hans, so she probably would get a kick out of him on trial for her murder, no?
Unfortunately for Hans, his arrogance got the better of him. How hard would it have been to either a) not take the stand, or b) take the stand and just cry and blubber incoherently about how it breaks his heart that his kids lost their mother, and how they might soon lose their father as well. Any parent on the jury would have eaten that up.
I mean, really. He claimed to have slept in a 1-inch-deep puddle of water and not really noticed? If he wants to make wild claims like that, he needs to just sit down, shut up, and pray for a hung jury.
You're swinging from one extreme to the other. You're right that doing favours for her is no good, but being direct with her is just as bad and will turn most women off instantly, and throw him into the "Let's Just Be Friends" zone. I'm with you here, but beyond this statement, I disagree with everything you say.
"Telling her how you feel" is like saying to her "I like you and I want to fuck you!". In most cases it won't get you the favourable reaction you're looking for, unless you have high social value and status. It's just low-class and instantly outs the man as the clueless neanderthal that he is. This is ridiculous. What you are looking for is sex or rejection, and quick. Your suggestion below of becoming some type of Renaissance man won't get him an answer for months or years, and by then she's long-since written him off. "I like you and I want to fuck you" is 10X preferable to becoming "cultured and knowledgeable, experienced and worldly."
A buddy of mine once went up to a girl in a bar who was wearing a button and said, "Nice button. Wanna fuck?" Her response: "Can we dance for a while first?" He had a great night that night.
The worst she could have said was, "No," which is every bit as successful an answer as the one he got. He would have wasted no further time on her.
Admittedly your odds are going to improve somewhat if you can be a little smoother than my friend, but the idea is still the same: How long does it take you to be pretty sure whether you have any interest whatsoever in a particular girl? 10 seconds? How long does it take to know for sure? 2 minutes? What makes you so sure she isn't sizing you up the exact same way?
In my experience, the best dating techniques tease out her 10 second or 2 minute assessment of you as quickly as possible. What good is it to you to talk to some chick for an evening, buying her drinks the whole time, only to realize that she had written you off after just 10 seconds and now just wants free alcohol from her new "friend"?
That seems to be the premise of all the "gurus" out there that everyone here is linking to. I've never actually listened to one, but listen to their names. "Cocky and Funny." Yeah, if she's into you, she'll think it's endearing, but if she's not, she'll tell you to "stick it in your ear." That's exactly what you want! You want a Yea or Nay, and you want it quickly so you can either keep workin' it or move on. Do not put serious effort into a chick before you have her 10 second or 2 minute assessment.
Although, what are the odds that they would take the time to do this and have the tools readily available to read your EXT3 or whatever Linux format your drive is in? We are talking about TSA here. No, it is Customs we are talking about here.
Here's hoping that they just think you're not worth the trouble and tell you to move along. If Customs finds you to be trouble, the only place you'll be moving to is a holding cell while they figure out why you look like trouble.
Here's a hint: Customs's only job is to try to make sure your border crossing is legal. Until you satisfy them that your purposes in crossing the border are legal, you are not going to get across. Being difficult is definitely NOT going to help convince them that your purposes are legal.
The first time one of these things smacks a commercial jet, it's going to be the end of this madness. Dude, the drones weigh 14 lbs. They pose about as much of a threat to commercial aviation as a rogue goose.
The women in my family know how to say no, rarely flirt, and are about as subtle as a nine-pound hammer dropped on your foot. This sounds a lot more like the Filipino women I have known.
As a public service message to all men out there who are still single, Filipino women are impulsive, psychotic, sadistic, deviant, and have no sense of proportion or scale. If you ever give up the opportunity for a roll in the hay with one, you are an idiot.
A rich person could never find a way to pay for their millions of dollars worth of toys and get around a consumption tax. Such as buying and domiciling a yacht from a jurisdiction that has no consumption tax?
As a business owner, I'd have to say that the income tax is a lot harder to evade than a consumption tax. My employees can't evade because I report their income to the IRS. I report their income to the IRS because if I don't, then I can't deduct their wages on my taxes.
But with a consumption tax? What's to stop me from giving massive "cash discounts"? I think you'd see a lot of that if a large consumption tax gets enacted to replace the income tax.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I know what 'looking sideways' even means, but I would recommend against any extraneous acrobatics or gymnastics while passing customs.
:)
As far as being detained, the rules are the same as if you are walking down the street. A customs agent may detain you for a short amount of time (minutes to a few hours or so) with "reasonable suspicion" that you are performing an illegal activity (generally, smuggling contraband into the country) while they sort out what's going on. You may be arrested if the agent has "probable cause" to believe that you have broken the law.
Again, these are the same standards that apply if you are walking down the street, driving in your car, etc.
Enjoy your stay.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the Constitution protects everyone from "unreasonable search and seizure". US courts have opined that a search of any container at the border is reasonable. Searching people at the border is unreasonable. Unless the customs agent has probable cause to believe that you are attempting to smuggle something illegal into the US, it would be illegal to perform a cavity search on you. You also may not be detained at the border without probable cause.
You absolutely do have rights at the border, but they are fewer than what you would enjoy once you have entered the country. For instance, once you have lawfully entered, searching your belongings/automobile/home without probable cause would then be illegal, as that is an unreasonable search.
You've obviously never flown into Canada. Their customs agents are distinguishable from US customs agents only by the maple leaf on their uniforms.
You're gonna get the same treatment in Canada as the US.
Here is a hint: Never EVER say to a custom's agent, "Someone else give me this package/suitcase/USB Drive/whatever to smuggle into your country. I have no idea what is inside." Saying something like this is a great way to get yourself detained.
Yup. That's it. It uses svn under the hood. Most of the svk commands are the same as svn commands.
Check out svk.
He defines "secure out of the box" as "no remote root holes". That's a pretty stupid definition, IMHO.
Attention DJB: if your software can be turned into a spam relay out of the box (via backscatter), it is NOT secure.
I have just reread GP's post, and have concluded that GP is both misinformed and an asshole.
A decent attorney could package it up and sell it. However, as you pointed out, Reiser hamstrung his attorney with cockamamie explanations of the evidence against him.
The only reasonable explanation for preferring to sleep on the floorboards of a Honda CRX--in an inch of standing water--is the fact that the passenger seat was covered with human blood and guts (and needed to be disposed of).
The only reason I'd prefer to sleep on the floorboards of a car in an inch-deep puddle would be if the seat were covered in my wife's blood and guts. Oh, wait...
What back seat? It's a Honda CRX.
In US criminal trials, the prosecution must prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. The attorney that you are paying to defend you is busy creating reasonable doubt all over the place. But if you take the stand, you lose a lot of that reasonable doubt because the prosecutor can ask you point blank why the hell such a quantity of your wife's blood was found in your car and why the hell you removed the passenger seat and hosed down your car's interior and attempted to hide the car. The prosecutor is going to poke holes in your story and make you look like an idiot because that's his friggin' job.
So, yes, if you are the defendant in a criminal trial in the US, you have the right not to testify at your own trial, and you'd be a fool not to use it unless your attorney advises you otherwise.
What, again, was Hans's explanation for the 6 inch bloodstain? "I don't remember"?
The only two people who really know if Hans killed Nina are Hans and Nina, and Nina is unavailable at the present time. From my perspective, it did not seem like the evidence presented in the news rose to the level of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Obviously I have no idea what evidence was presented in court.
It sounds to me like Hans really did hang himself by testifying, however. It sounded like his attorneys were doing a fine job explaining away Hans's odd behavior by saying he's got mild Autism, he's a computer nerd, he's done kooky things his entire life. He's just a bit of a kook.
But does being a kook prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Nina was/is a sophisticated woman. How do we know she didn't just "disappear" in order to get away from that guy she was banging on the side who was into "Death Yoga" and confessed to several killings? She was in the midst of a bitter divorce with Hans, so she probably would get a kick out of him on trial for her murder, no?
Unfortunately for Hans, his arrogance got the better of him. How hard would it have been to either a) not take the stand, or b) take the stand and just cry and blubber incoherently about how it breaks his heart that his kids lost their mother, and how they might soon lose their father as well. Any parent on the jury would have eaten that up.
I mean, really. He claimed to have slept in a 1-inch-deep puddle of water and not really noticed? If he wants to make wild claims like that, he needs to just sit down, shut up, and pray for a hung jury.
No text necessary.
A buddy of mine once went up to a girl in a bar who was wearing a button and said, "Nice button. Wanna fuck?" Her response: "Can we dance for a while first?" He had a great night that night.
The worst she could have said was, "No," which is every bit as successful an answer as the one he got. He would have wasted no further time on her.
Admittedly your odds are going to improve somewhat if you can be a little smoother than my friend, but the idea is still the same: How long does it take you to be pretty sure whether you have any interest whatsoever in a particular girl? 10 seconds? How long does it take to know for sure? 2 minutes? What makes you so sure she isn't sizing you up the exact same way?
In my experience, the best dating techniques tease out her 10 second or 2 minute assessment of you as quickly as possible. What good is it to you to talk to some chick for an evening, buying her drinks the whole time, only to realize that she had written you off after just 10 seconds and now just wants free alcohol from her new "friend"?
That seems to be the premise of all the "gurus" out there that everyone here is linking to. I've never actually listened to one, but listen to their names. "Cocky and Funny." Yeah, if she's into you, she'll think it's endearing, but if she's not, she'll tell you to "stick it in your ear." That's exactly what you want! You want a Yea or Nay, and you want it quickly so you can either keep workin' it or move on. Do not put serious effort into a chick before you have her 10 second or 2 minute assessment.
Here's a hint: Customs's only job is to try to make sure your border crossing is legal. Until you satisfy them that your purposes in crossing the border are legal, you are not going to get across. Being difficult is definitely NOT going to help convince them that your purposes are legal.
Umm. How do you give the poor an income tax cut when they already pay no income tax? In fact, they tend to pay negative income tax.
Heh. This is 100X bigger news than the OP, even though it is vaporware at present. ;) Thanks for that.
Ummm. What do you recommend as a substitute?
As a public service message to all men out there who are still single, Filipino women are impulsive, psychotic, sadistic, deviant, and have no sense of proportion or scale. If you ever give up the opportunity for a roll in the hay with one, you are an idiot.
As a business owner, I'd have to say that the income tax is a lot harder to evade than a consumption tax. My employees can't evade because I report their income to the IRS. I report their income to the IRS because if I don't, then I can't deduct their wages on my taxes.
But with a consumption tax? What's to stop me from giving massive "cash discounts"? I think you'd see a lot of that if a large consumption tax gets enacted to replace the income tax.
I care only about tax burden. Who cares what the tax is called or when it is collectible?