“Properly understood, his crimes encompass inviting total strangers into a scheme to defraud and obstruct, and joining in their criminal enterprises,” prosecutors wrote. “Dixon adopted a mercenary-like attitude towards the nation’s border security and the security of the nation’s secrets. He also acted with callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society – our children. . . . Dixon’s misconduct was purposeful, dangerous and it requires punishment.”
Apparently if you tell someone who claims their brother or cousin is a drug dealer, to tell their potential LEO boss that you don't know what your brother does, is a crime against children!
Reading the article, I 'think' he was aiding specific people that had committed crimes (gave methodology how to get around what they did)
Did you really read the article? From TFA:
However, the most incriminating evidence appears to have come from Dixon’s interactions with two undercover agents.
One agent was posing as a brother of a drug dealer, and apparently he told the agent to say "look I don't know what he does."
Of course the prosecutors brought up the fact that he supposedly taught 9 sex offenders. Although they offered no evidence that he taught them to hide crimes, and in fact in one instance he notified authorities.
Most infuriating was the commission's argument that a total recall was justified because Buckyballs have "low utility to consumers" and "are not necessary to consumers."
Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"
Being PC is costing the US quite a bit, both in terms of effectiveness and monetarily.
You know what would be cheaper, AND better? Be PC, don't profile anyone, in fact just get rid of security. No lines, no wait, no wasted money on machines that don't work. And let us bring our water on the plane.
.. I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right?
A government agent isn't going to stop a suicide bomber, but neither is the TSA. About time to do away with the security theatre nonsense.
I'm not ok with piracy.
I'm not ok with plagiarism or commercial piracy, but I'm fine with file sharing.
So you are ok with sharing, as long as the person sharing doesn't make any money off of it? I guess your argument is "if they didn't pay for it, then they wouldn't have given me any money for it, but if they paid someone else, I want that money." This is fine, except for the fact that many people would pay for it. But free is cheaper.
They did not patent the concept of targeting ads based on content. They patented a particular method for doing that.
And their particular method is different from the other methods how? Reading the patent, about the only thing that is different is that they use the reply as the content.
The method involves using keywords from the content. Applying some sort of weighting that meets a threshold, and a few other things. How does this method differ from a method to introduce advertising based on other content?
Surely figuring out the reply isn't novel. Surely looking for keywords isn't novel. Surely weighting isn't novel. There is some stuff in there related to email and databases, but the only thing that really matters is keywords and weighting and replies. I don't see how this is novel, or different than any other content based syste,
Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun.
While you may be right in your first assertion, your analogy is flawed. If you DID NOT know your friend brought a gun, and your friend shot and killed someone. You will be liable (well tried for homicide) in the guys death. Shoot, if the cops show up, and shoot your friend, you will be "liable" for his death. Basically if you are involved in a felony, and someone is killed, then EVERYONE guilty of the felony will be charged with homicide as well.
You're making a proactive effort to communicate with a driver in an unsafe way, on the other hand. You're sending them text messages. You know they're driving. You know the recipient is likely to respond, which means you're expecting them to respond.
"Hey Bob are you coming to the party?"
"Yep, on my way, driving down the freeway."
"Ok great. When you get here, go through the back door."
Now I expect bob to not answer my text or read it until he can safely do so. I've sent him a message I expect him to read when he arrives, or stops. But somehow I am responsible?
The driver has free will
. Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.
Or, I don't know, maybe we can pull over, stop the vehicle, and check the text message.
Or better yet, if the boss has "urgent" info that has to be answered right this second, or the guy loses his job. Perhaps the boss can CALL the person, rather than just text him and hope that the text gets to him. Cause you know, just because the text is sent, doesn't mean the driver gets it, and will get it right that second.
. Granted, there's a lot of reasons he could pass through and it wouldn't be noticed, but I'd think there's some protection.
Apparently measles is not strictly on the list, if I'm reading this right.
There is some protection, its called vaccines, and pretty much the rest of the US population has taken them. So why bother?
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn