Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 110

Conducting a monetary transaction intended to conceal the proceeds of a crime is the very definition of Accessory after the fact. His question was about a monetary transaction where he's been told that it's the result of a crime.

As a general rule you are not required in some states to report crimes you are aware of (though in some you are, know your states law!). But if you assist the perpetrators in the crime, such as through concealment or laundering of funds you are an accessory after the fact. Your link doesn't explain very well that accessory after the fact doesn't just apply to concealing the crime (it implies this) as laundering the funds or assisting in disposal of assets where you know of the crime makes you an accessory. You can be an accessory by doing anything that assists the criminals in their crime.

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 110

Knowledge of a crime without reporting it is called accessory. Even if they tell you about the crime after they've done it you are still an accessory after the fact.

So yes, if someone tells you've they've committed a crime or are going to commit a crime you are obligated to report it to law enforcement and refuse the transaction. To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid.

This is basic common knowledge, you can't help people commit crimes. It's ok to be ignorant of their crime (but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away) but if they tell you about intended law breaking and you proceed then you are an accessory to their crime. And in some states if that was a felony you are now also on the hook for everything they did because in most US states all participants in a felony can be convicted of every criminal action. For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 3, Informative) 203

They aren't stupid, they bit copy (dd) the device when it's seized. Now a local police agency might not do this but anything involving the fed's is going to be copied the second they get their hands on the data, even if it's encrypted. This is directly to prevent challenges on data integrity and to prevent dead man switches.

Comment Re:You have more freedom than you think (Score 2) 455

For $8000 if you tried to live on it completely self-sufficient you'd be dead in less than 3 days.

Much like my own home state Utah there is land just as cheap, and it is so cheap precisely because it's only value is grazing cattle every few years. There is little to no water, the climate is adverse to growing anything but desert grasses. You couldn't subsistence farm this land with all the money in the world to get you started. In other words, it's cheap because it has little value just as the market shows.

I ran into a fool like you many years ago that claimed there is no population limits, after all look at all that open land out there in the desert. Are you completely ignorant of what it takes survive and farm?

Comment Re:What a mess (Score 4, Informative) 455

You forget:

1. Loves dictators, frequently praises them (including Saddam).
2. Want's to change the 1st amendment to remove public criticism of public figures; under Trump it would be illegal to criticize him.
3. Plan's to end all criticism of rights abuses by other nations. No longer will the US be there pointing out regimes that are torturing and murdering their people.
4. Will refuse to come to the aid of our NATO members if they aren't spending enough on defense basically making the US a liar and untrustworthy.
5. Believes all foreign diplomacy is based on money.

To be honest, i wouldn't be surprised if Trump wants to rewrite the constitution to remove all freedoms and I fully believe he would send American soldiers to die because some foreign leader insulted him.

Comment Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score 4, Insightful) 278

Historically, the "good" ones are silent when Islamist terrorists act.

The funniest part about this is how you would even know this, do you attend your local Mosque?

The fact is almost all Western Mosques and Imam's routinely condemn terrorist attacks and terrorist sponsoring groups. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. And the most ironic thing about it is you wouldn't expect your own church congregation and priest to attack and condem acts of Christian violence around the world. For example where was your condemnation when the Christians of the Central African Republic went on a rampage murdering all Muslims including women and children? Where was your public statement? Oh they don't represent you, do they? So why would you expect radical Islamic militants represent all muslims?

You are a fucking bigot.

Comment Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score 3, Informative) 410

There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.

This is an absolute fabrication. You are a liar and a bad one at that.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...

There are 10 scientific paper linked at the bottom of that CDC page that affirmatively show a statistically significant connection between secondhand smoke and the conditions and problems listed. The smokers lungs only filter about 10% of the pollutants contained in the tobacco smoke, the rest remain in the second hand smoke and will be absorbed partially by the next person that inhales the smoke.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 410

Anyone that reacts to a VP pick is a dumb fuck. VP is literally the most meaningless position in our government. The person shines a chair for 4 years and has only two constitutional responsibilities. To vote if the senate ties and to fill in if the president dies (last time this happened was more than 50 years ago) which effectively means they only have one job, a job that happens about as often as a president dying. Almost every vice president goes all 4 years without doing either constitutional role, in effect doing nothing for 4 years.

Who someone's VP is should play absolutely no role in anyones selection that isn't planning to kill that president or isn't GW Bush and dumb enough to give Cheney actual say. The color of the socks you wear when you vote should have more role in the choice than who the VP is.

Comment Re:South Park episode (Score 1) 195

You can absolutely sign away rights, anyone that told you that you can't is full of it.

Courts aren't going to throw out clauses you agreed to no matter how "unfair" they are. They will throw out clauses that are illegal as a matter of law. For example, that first born clause is illegal because it's not legal to sell people. As the clause is illegal as a matter of law it's term can't be enforced and if the contract isn't severable (most are) the whole contract would be void.

If you think you can't be held to some contract that signs your rights away you are sadly mistaken and you will be very sad when the courts enforce it.

Comment Re:Law and Equity (Score 2, Informative) 195

You are significantly mistaken. The courts don't throw out "unreasonable" contracts people willingly agree to. You are perfectly able to sign rights away and most of the US courts will uphold that quite willingly and enforce it. In all but California you can sign away your right to be employed in the only field you are qualified to work in (non-compete clauses), only in Cali are these clauses illegal specifically because they were made illegal by the California legislature.

Now this first born clause would be thrown out for a very simple reason. It's not legal to sell babies, any clause that purports to do so is void as a matter of law. In general any clause that purports to sell people is not legal because you can't own a person in the US. This is the reason slavery contracts aren't legal even if both parties are willing.

As a general rule, the only contract clauses that will be tossed after willingly agreeing to them are clauses that are illegal as a matter of law or if you were under duress or mentally incompetent when the contract was signed. I'd happily sign a contract with a first born clause because there is no way such a clause would be upheld, the other stuff not so much.

The courts don't care if you read the contract or not, you signed it, you will be held to it. And clicking X is signing it in the US.

Comment Re:"Controversial" donors? (Score 4, Informative) 106

He was pestered by the press because he refused to repudiate it the day before.

David Duke is famous to everyone that is old enough to remember 1994 (I realize you might not have been born yet). He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake, his connections to white supremacists (he was a grand wizard of the KKK, not just a member) and his heading of a current white supremacist (sorry white nationalist) organization are all well known facts with anyone that's older than 20. He's got his own page with Southern Poverty Law and all the racist tracking groups.

David Duke is about as well known of a white supremacist as you can get, there are very few people in his "movement" that are as famous as him. The claim that Trump didn't know who he was is absolute horseshit and the fact that he failed to repudiate the donation and DEFENDED duke during the first interview is what brought the media storm. A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country.

Comment Re:read the polls (Score 2) 644

Trump cannot win the election if he doesn't win ~35% of the Latino vote. This is an absolute mathematical certainty. The only reason Bush beat Gore was because he was able to score iirc 31% of the Latino vote. Because of the changing demographics of the US electorate the percentage of Latino voters the GOP needs increases with each presidential election. During the 12 years Obama has been president that's increased more than 5%. It increased 3-4% during Bush and a smaller percentage during Clinton. This is going to accelerate with each election because Latino's make up an ever increasing portion of the electorate.

This is why Trumps narrative to attack Latino's while appealing to white voters is so fucking short sighted. He's basically guaranteeing he cannot win and at the same time doing potentially decades of damage to the Republican chances by alienating the fastest growing demographic in the US.

Here's something to scare you, in two more elections the GOP will lose Texas if they can't get Hispanic voters. As by 2024 the registered voters in Texas will be 40% Latino. Once Texas falls to the Democrats the republicans will never hold the whitehouse again while you are alive as they will have the electoral college votes without even campaigning.

Comment Re:read the polls (Score 2) 644

As everyone on the democratic side has been saying for a year now, it's all about the electoral college math.

To win all the democratic nominee has to do is take every state the Dem's have won for the last 12 presidential elections and pick up either Ohio or Florida and they're guaranteed to win. The election math is against Republicans and they have to be very careful if they want to win the whitehouse.

The only way the democrats can lose is to alienate the Latino vote, Bush won enough of that vote to win, Trump has no chance at all. In fact he'll get the lowest Latino votes a Republican president has ever received. The Republicans might have been able to win with Cruz or Rubio to draw the Latino vote, but that's not going to happen now. This is the Democrats election to lose as that's the only way the Republicans could win at this point.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.

Working...