During the time you waited to collect your $6000 in rebates they overcharged you at least $15000.

I can think of at least one reason they sat on it. It's a great retention strategy.

I wonder if there are any emails floating around the office that put it in so many words... If a disgruntled AT&T employee is reading this - here's your chance for a handy leak. Anonymously send the parent poster your boss's email telling you and your coworkers to use these tactics. (Even if you're in a different department - it'll be enough to get the ball rolling.)

Strange, I just asked at the store and they said it was sold.

There are many people who want you to think a license is required, but I don't see any proof of it.

The point is that you're using the pedantically narrow definition of ISP to explain why Rackspace SHOULD NOT have CC protection. By a literal definition, one the law would use, it does provide internet services. It does take other people's data and move it around. It does, roughly speaking, the same things a usual ISP would do, but instead of end-users it hosts servers. So? Why is that difference important?

There's nothing special about dealing with end-users that gets you CC protections/obligations, it's merely about third-party goods or data.

You're trying to hide behind definitions, as if it's what the courts are going to use to decide the issue. Yes, you're right about common usage. Hallelujah indeed. But in touting that you miss the larger picture, yet again.

Wow, so maybe we shouldn't make the decision to kill a group of people walking on a city street with those optics then?

That video shows just how sloppy the US Military is. They put no effort into identifying the crowd. They were looking to shoot before they even saw the camera, let alone misidentified it.

Those tactics might work in the desert with tanks, but they aren't appropriate for hunting "insurgents" in a city. Blowing up innocent people in the name of stabilizing their country is accomplishing exactly the opposite of our goals.

Shit like this is why half the insurgents are insurging, we're cold-blooded killers and we'll lie about anything for PR. If anyone in the rescuers family was on the fence about the USA's occupation they're going to be, violently, on the other side now.

We can't be a bully or we've merely prolonged the problem. We have to take all care to avoid their civilian casualties like they were our own, or we'll merely be temporarily pacifying our eventual destroyers.

It's amazing how the USA has healed old wounds in the area - the invasion is the only thing that ever could have made the Iraqis thankful that Iran is developing nukes.

Hello, retard. The videos are of the mass killing of innocents. That's not propaganda, it's the truth. The USA is flying above third-world countries blowing rescuers away and firing missiles into civilian occupied buildings.

The only thing that might justify it is YOUR propaganda, that tries to paint these killings as part of a larger and more justified action. However, that's been shown to be a total lie.

No, it's the very model of the logic that's used against us. "You did it to me, so it's okay for me to do it to you." And it's really pretty reasonable. We have to treat them how we want to be treated (even while under investigation for terrorism).

If it's okay for you to declare war and kill innocent people, why isn't it okay for Osama to do it? Arguably he didn't even start it. And the people he killed payed taxes to the USA war machine, which as we can clearly see - blows away innocent people and covers it up.

BTW, There's a difference between starting a war on false charges, as the USA did, and going in to help stabilize the area and keep it from turning even worse, as the rest of the world is doing.

Do you have a better summary? "If he has reason to suspect you'll re-offend, or flee justice, or harm yourself, ..."

Sure, but the issue isn't wrongs that aren't punished but things that aren't wrongs that are punished. The problem is laws that create victimless crimes.

Don't try to redefine what I'm talking about and making it look like a minority opinion. Our system of law is ultimately permissive, in that what isn't forbidden is assumed to be permitted.

I didn't improperly combine the two - it was an option for you to list either something you'd refuse to enforce, OR to obey.

An example of an order you'd refuse to obey (I'd hope) would be to shoot someone because they're Jewish, but it would likely also serve as an example of something you'd refuse to enforce.

Even if you were correct and I had fallaciously conflated "enforce AND OBEY", it wouldn't be a strawman. That'd be if I presented a weakened version of your argument and attacked it.

Hilarious. No, in MY hypothetical there are no drug laws. Thus we don't need robots to enforce them. It's somewhat less dystopian that you make it out to be.

Yeah, because to you arrested by a jackbooted thug or arrested by a nice guy are the only two options. You can't consider that because all our nice guys refuse to enforce a law that we might reexamine it and you might not get arrested at all.

Hopefully the effort-bar would be a bit higher for a SWAT team member who was afraid his squad would accidentally kill someone while executing a no-knock warrant.

Does that even mean anything?

Is there anything they'd refuse to do because of personal values? If not they'd commit atrocities and justify it as following orders. We've decided that even on the field of battle the standards are higher than that.

There are multiple sections to that video, in the first the apache pilots discover a group on the ground and assume they're the ones who had been doing the shooting. They think they see an RPG but don't bother getting a better image, despite these streets being used extensively by the civilians whose city the war is being fought in. Furthermore, despite proof from after the event that the video was not enough to distinguish a weapon from a camera, these events aren't seen as a mistake and no changes have been made to prevent it from happening again.

Even if, and there's no reason to assume they are, those men the reporter was with were the insurgents currently being sought, no efforts were taken to link them to the attack before killing them all.

In the second they destroy a vehicle full of rescuers, calling them compatriots of the slain though independent sources verify that the man was driving his children elsewhere and they came across a pile of bodies in the street - in Iraq, usually the work of a roadside bomb - and stopped to help the survivor. The rescuers, despite crew expectations, were not seen to handle a single weapon (let alone collecting weapons as was feared) and when they were prepared to drive off, could have been followed, or at worst been stopped by disabling the van with a single round instead of trying to kill all the passengers.

Finally, the building they fired the missiles into was occupied by non-insurgents (even if you assume the people seen with guns were insurgents and didn't just leave via the back door). They were not under pressure at the time and could have monitored the building until troops arrived and cordoned it off, but they took the expedient route.

Murder, murder, and murder.

There are vague excuses but nothing that would stand up if used by anyone else. If you even performed a citizen's arrest on a car thief on the same evidence they had on the rescuers (ie, incredibly circumstantial) you'd be locked up. And yet our military and ardent supporters can't even admit we made a mistake, let alone that it was a horrible one.

Wow, no. Do you seriously think you've said anything to that effect?

"Harm to themselves or others" is a reasonable five-word summary of the standard for what police officers use to determine who gets taken into custody and who does not. What other standard do you think is used and do you really think it's much different in intent?

Yes, when relying on a social welfare network some of your actions can place a burden on others.

When you get around to charging rock climbers for their higher use of hospitals than some more sedentary hobby, but giving them a rebate for the exercise, then it's reasonable to talk about the cost of drugs. But until then it's generally accepted that you have a right to self choice, even if your choices are destructive, or more likely merely appear that way to others.

Yes, but innocent until proven guilty is the principle we strive for even if as you point out - the system has flaws.

How is it a strawman?

And if there's no order these policemen would refuse, yes.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

No idiot. I do not. I'm not saying ISP generally means something else. I'm not saying you'd be wrong to use it thusly.

Nope, you again. You're the one going on about Alice and Bob without understanding the real CC status of what you'd term ISPs. Where you aren't technically wrong you're just so far off topic as to be doing a credible impersonation of Grandpa Simpson.

This is demonstrating that one of us doesn't listen well...

I know the difference between a hosting provider, a traditional end-user ISP, and a backbone provider. But I don't see which differences you think are relevant to different CC status.

Which technologies specifically?

Note, when people defer to you in matters of terminology they aren't "learning" because you aren't right, they're letting the special guy have his way.

That you get so worked up about the sanctity of the term ISP just makes it clear how insular your world is. You can't even imagine the meaning of something changing, or that it isn't locked to what you think it should be.

You're incapable of shutting up and discussing CC related issues because all you've got is this authority-on-stuff-that-doesn't-matter routine. You're a one-trick pony, and your trick is better served by a jargon glossary.

Exactly. Pointless semantics. "Judge" means different things in different contexts. A policeman judges traffic safety even if he doesn't preside in judgment at a trial.

Call it deciding though, if it makes you feel better.

Duh, yeah. For the class of crimes where it's reasonable to let someone go before trial the policeman has leeway in making the call, based on the circumstances and their experience.

Refusing. And either do a reduced subset of the job (policemen who'd investigate murders but not victimless crimes would still be valuable) or quit.

Are you seriously proposing that they should strap on a gun and go force someone to do something they honestly believe is wrong?

I don't think it's a very hard thing. Most of our law comes from the same small set of principles - something is harmful to others and only therefore illegal, you can't be found guilty without evidence and a trial, etc.

Only some laws go beyond this. Drug-seizure laws in the USA let police seize what might be drug-related property and makes the owner fight to get it back. Obviously "race"-based laws would be unjust.

If you can't think of a law, even hypothetically, that you would and by modern standards should refuse to enforce or obey you're a dangerous sociopath.

That's the problem with standing armies. Why bother building it if you're not going to use it?

Defense gets a lot of focus because if you can't defend yourself nobody is going to care what your opinion is. Only when they can't walk over you will they bother to talk. Not that the defense needs to be killing machines. It needs to be chosen in response to the actual threats.

Some problems aren't for solving. Hitler didn't have a problem with the Jews/gays/etc that talking would help.

The soviets killed millions of "their" people while we had them bottled up. Also they developed nukes and weren't really very bottled.

If we'd left the Nazis in Poland(? France? Most of Europe?) and tried to bottle them up, even if effective, it would have led to the complete extermination of their victims.

If there's a cheaper way of solving the problem, no. And a vast majority of times there is. But some people set out to kill others for "no good reason" and as such can't be talked out of it.

Note also that asking an economist about the value of human life is likely to get you a useless answer.

I think we should turn most of our armed forces into a national guard. For real defense - not attacking. And turn most of the rest into peace-keepers who we let the world have a large say in the distribution of, to keep actual peace and not enforce our favorite warlords, to make the world a safer place and generally reduce the chance of needing to go to war.

I see North Korea's dictator (and others) as a threat we shouldn't leave. He kills "his" own people and holds the lives of millions of SKs hostage (as well as some actual SK and Japanese kidnap victims) to keep his position. We don't leave armed snipers in the mall simply because it's cheaper than sending someone in to get them. The problem is that because he's declared himself the head of a sovereign state our governments feel compelled to go to war instead of acting against him and his power structure directly (or they feel they'd endorse a shoot-the-leader policy) so even if we did anything we won't do it without killing tens of thousands of draftees and bombing civilians - and then we'd probably just put the dictator in jail.

Ummm, hello. The drives don't automatically report koran-burning content. They had to go looking. It wasn't hard, but it took a deliberate action.

You give your data to the phone company too, and you expect them not to look at it even if it's easy to do so.

Neither does the hosting provider. They just move it from a hard drive to a wire instead of one wire to another.

What's the critical difference here that you think suggests they need separate legal coverage?

Of course you're totally unwilling to actually talk about why the differences are important. You're hung up almost totally on the terminology. Of course, it's the easy part for you to learn.

Bullshit. I pointed out that I knew what you meant but that you were being overly exclusive with your terminology. If you had a point underneath your pedanticism you could have made it. Instead you do your level best to avoid a useful discussion and instead focus on enforcing your definitions.

So, do something new for once and say why a data-host shouldn't get CC-like immunity but a data-transporter should. Why, as in how does it benefit society.

I'm sure you would. But you're an pedant without a clue of the larger situation. Exactly the type who'd run around making disastrous decisions. Some day you'll learn that memorizing a list of terms, without understanding exceptions, is useless.

You're just pissy that I know more than you. I know what you're saying, but I also know when it's not true or useful. I know enough not to insist on the term ISP as if it matters because it's not a legal term, or a precise technical term, nor does it directly map to the subject at hand. It's a convenient label, when it is, and nothing more.

Thank god someone called the internet cops.

Of course, a warrant is an order for someone's arrest. I'm talking about when that officer wasn't told to arrest someone specifically. Just people they encounter in their job who don't need to be held in jail to compel their appearance.

Pointless semantics. A police officer "judges" if he has room to merge into traffic.

It's their call on arresting someone for the vast majority of cases handled, if not sections of the criminal code. Most people are adequately handled administratively.

Yes. My words from the first post weren't intended to be an absolute list of possibilities. Skipping out on court is roughly "harm to others".

Look at it from a financial point of view instead of some weird utopian angle. If the police don't think you're a threat why waste money paying to hold you?

But back to the real issue.

Do you seriously believe a police officer (or anyone?) should enforce a law they feel is unjust? (Not just factually wrong, like a too-low speed limit, but in a human-rights abuse way.)

I'm not the one who let it get this way, but yes, if it is so warty that nobody in good conscience can support it then nobody should be enforcing it. Like jury nullification, a check against abuses. We should be paying attention to this as we add laws, and to retire obsolete ones.

But yes, I will absolutely say that nobody should support, enforce, or let be enforced, a law they believe to be unjust.

No, the Canadian criminal code.

Arrest without warrant by peace officer
495. (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant
(a-c) [everyone]

Limitation
(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for
(a-c) [most anything]
in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,
may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

Look at the phrase "no reasonable grounds to believe". It is the police's job to judge the intent of people, based on the circumstances and experience, where possible.