Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wait what? (Score 1) 173

So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?

This is theft, plain and simple, just like "civil" asset forfeiture.

The USA has no problem stealing from their own citizens in their own country, its hardly a surprise that they have no problem stealing from citizens of other countrys who are also overseas.

Comment Re: uh, no? (Score 1) 340

To be fair, having seen the video of the US Diplomat (April Glaspie) saying to the Iraqis (actual Saddam IIRC); '[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait' you can read that deliberately obtuse statement either way. The subtlety of the language may have been lost in translation, but I would certainly not argue with someone who suggested that it ment that the US would not intervene in an Iraqi prosecution of a border skirmish with Kuwait. Likewise , I'm sure the diplomats were oh the view that had told the Iraqis that the US had not yet formulated their view on the merits of the Iraqi border claims.

Comment Re: uh, no? (Score 1) 340

To be fair, having seen the video of the US Diplomat (April Glaspie) saying to the Iraqis (actual Saddam IIRC); '[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait' you can read that deliberately obtuse statement either way. The subtlety of the language may have been lost in translation, but I would certainly not argue with someone who suggested that it meant that the US would not intervene in an Iraqi prosecution of a border skirmish with Kuwait. Likewise , I'm sure the diplomats were oh the view that had told the Iraqis that the US had not yet formulated their view on the merits of the Iraqi border claims.

Comment Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score 1) 316

I love how the Democratic Party invention of free speech zones somehow became a "Dubya" thing. They may have only become widely covered starting in 2000, but they were originally an invention of the DNC to keep pro-life protestors away from their 1988 convention.

Both parties have been using them since the 2004 elections, so it's not like you can lay the blame solely on the Republicans either. Both parties do it.

The UK has had 'free speech zones' for decades, its called 'Hyde Park Speaker's Corner'.

Comment Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score 1) 202

a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms....
And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.

No, it does not. It means "well trained".

No, it didn't. It meant that the guns had been properly tested.

Comment Re:3 billion on a fan company? (Score 1) 208

don't get me wrong, i love their fans... but come on, it's a fan.
those exec and investors are dreaming if you think that market is that large.

Its not just fans, they also make pretty good heatsinks. A lot of those heatsinks are pure copper. So Zalman must get through quite a lot of the stuff and it isn't cheap.

For example, I used to have a dual CPU machine with two large Zalman pure copper heatsinks, the sort that are really big and have fins in a fan-out arrangement. In total there was about half a kilo of copper hanging off of that motherboard. They didn't even need fans on them, just the case fan was enough.

Manufacturing this shit must involve having a lot of copper stock.

Comment Re:Uncool (Score 2) 208

I am familiar with US / western bankruptcy law. This is Korea so your mileage will vary.

Well its Korea so it'll involve having a big meeting with everyone; the people at the top can't make a decision without consulting with everyone all the way down to the janitors.

Then they will all get very very VERY drunk.

Comment Re:Not a win (Score 1) 228

First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.

Muslim is a religious choice, and just like Christians or any other religion, there are those who are fanatical about it. They are dangerous, remember the holy crusades?

There are people who are fanatical who have nothing to do with religion at all, what group do you insult for them?
There's plenty of Muslims who live in Canada who are perfectly reasonable respectable people who are not violent who appreciate that you have your own way you live your life, and aren't coming to you to force you to change it, and just want to be respected for their way of life like any other religion.

For many many people being Muslim is NOT a choice; they are born into it. When they reach an age where they are rational enough to be able to decide whether they really want to be Muslim or not they are faced with the option of leaving Islam and being an apostate. The Koran specifies the death sentence for this 'crime'.

So no, unless you are a convert theres no real choice there.

Comment Re:don't use biometrics (Score 2) 328

The Judge isn't the trier of fact in our legal system, that's the role of the Petit Jury, but why bother to actually learn how it works when you can just spread FUD?

Judges can also issue rulings notwithstanding the jury's recommendation, as they do when they feel the jury SHOULD have reached a particular verdict, but didn't, when it seems likely the jury is performing nullification of a law. (I believe it's called non obstante verdicto.)

For example, a person is tried for possession of a pound of marijuana with intent to distribute, and the defense claims it was his own personal supply. The prosecution has a slam-dunk, has the defendant dead-to-rights, and the defense argues that marijuana shouldn't be illegal.

The jury returns a verdict of not-guilty, even after the judge instructed the defense counsel that they COULD NOT LEGALLY USE THAT DEFENSE, and the defense replied that the defense rests. The judge has the power to disregard the jury's incorrect, (even if morally right,) decision because it's legally wrong. I can't say how often that happens off the top of my head, as IINAL, but the guy who told me this IAL,... so for whatever it's worth...

They used to have a saying: it's not enough to hire an attorney; for best results, also spring for a jury.

Jury nullification might not be illegal but it'll get you into a lot of trouble in the USA.

Comment Re:Did they have a warrant? (Score -1, Troll) 206

If they had a warrant, then it is perfectly good police tactics.

If they did not have a warrant, then it is an illegal invasion of privacy.

They electronically entered his computer and that is no different than entering his home. The fact that he had to click on it is meaningless. The creation of the malware would be illegal, without the warrant.

Now, the police may not be smart enough (or ethical enough) to have asked for the warrant, but that is what is clearly needed.

The USA government is really no better than an organised crime syndicate. They steal cash from ordinary citizens in the guise of 'war on drugs' ("you have $400 in cash? Thats OBVIOUSLY drug money").

A warrant in that environment is worth NOTHING in terms of real legitimacy. It may make it legal but when your government is a bunch of robber-barons legality does not create legitimacy.

Comment Re:and they use cash businesses as examples (Score 1) 424

the cops will need a search warrant to enter the house. that takes some evidence and can be contested by the worst legal aid lawyers. this is why they are seizing from banks accounts, faster, easier, no warrant, very little legal oversight and the burden of the cost and time of getting money back is on the person who lost the money

I think its mostly from cars. They pull someone over, intimidate them into letting them search the car, find cash and declare it drug money.

Slashdot Top Deals

I program, therefore I am.

Working...