Happy New Year, folks!
Mike Andrews
to the perfection of an Old Guard spitshine, the wind is blowing
as though the only thing between here and the North Pole is a
barbed wire fence -- and that blew down. The forecast is for
Lots More Of The Same, and I have to ork today.
So Happy New Year to all of us, from me. I think Satya and
Suresh (.in and .hk) are the first of us to experience 2002, so
this is to them first, then sequentially around the planet by
latitude.
Here's to us! Who's like us? Damn' few, and they're all dead!
--
The issue needs to be about doing the right thing, not about having
the contractual right to do a questionable thing.
-- A. Murphy, in nanae
David P. Murphy
> It's about 18 F (-8 or so C), the roads are glazed and polished
> to the perfection of an Old Guard spitshine, the wind is blowing
> as though the only thing between here and the North Pole is a
> barbed wire fence -- and that blew down. The forecast is for
> Lots More Of The Same, and I have to ork today.
You'll notice that I haven't moved to .ok yet --- and never will.
> So Happy New Year to all of us, from me. I think Satya and
> Suresh (.in and .hk) are the first of us to experience 2002, so
> this is to them first, then sequentially around the planet by
> latitude.
The first practical use of the map! Looks to me like it's Bogdan,
Peter, James, Rob, Rob, Suresh, and stevo. Satya is (currently)
in California.
> Here's to us! Who's like us? Damn' few, and they're all dead!
Not to worry, we've got Connor & Patrick and others in training.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
systems programmer ftp://ftp.myths.com
mailto:d...@myths.com (personal)
COGITO ERGO DISCLAMO mailto:Murphy...@emc.com (work)
Jamie Bowden
> It's about 18 F (-8 or so C), the roads are glazed and polished
> to the perfection of an Old Guard spitshine, the wind is blowing
> as though the only thing between here and the North Pole is a
> barbed wire fence -- and that blew down. The forecast is for
> Lots More Of The Same, and I have to ork today.
We don't get a couple of the usual holidays off and get Christmas Eve and
New Years Eve instead. I got nine days off for the price of three, and
haven't been contacted by work for the duration. Yay.
> So Happy New Year to all of us, from me. I think Satya and
> Suresh (.in and .hk) are the first of us to experience 2002, so
> this is to them first, then sequentially around the planet by
> latitude.
>
> Here's to us! Who's like us? Damn' few, and they're all dead!
Yeah yeah yeah. Happy fuckin' New Year already, ya Bastards.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Derek Balling
Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
> So Happy New Year to all of us, from me. I think Satya and
> Suresh (.in and .hk) are the first of us to experience 2002, so
> this is to them first, then sequentially around the planet by
> latitude.
ITYM longtiude. :)
Unless the earth's rotation took a radical turn for the bizarre when I
wasn't looking. ;)
D
sh
> The first practical use of the map!
As one of the firsts to experience 2002, all I can say is:
"RUN! Save yourself! Stay in 2001 - at least you know how's
that year been."
It may well be too late for the .eu monks, but the .us monks
can still save themselves [1].
On a completely different subject, a Happy New Year to you all,
and may all your lusers either die or acquire a clue, and may
your PHB get the boot. Once this's settled - the rest will fall
into its place easily.
Bogdan "last year rained to the last day" Iamandei
[1] Anyone volunteers to run counterclockwise, around Earth?
--
I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire
off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark
near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.
Mike Andrews
: This was supposed to be my day off, as I think I've told you before.
: Went to bed 9:30 last night. Woke up 9am this morning.
:
: 9:10 shower.
: 9:40 finish thawing, out of shower.
: 9:50 reading email. email from work. "hope youre reading email today.."
: 10:05 -
: Go into work. Reboot <linux box> that went down.
: boss: "oh, while you're here, can you bounce <other box>?"
Nice to know that other folks use "bounce" the same way we do.
: me: sure.
: <bounce other box>
: <get page, <big alphaserver> is down>
: <go start the 15-minute boot process on big alphaserver>
: <finish booting alphaserver>
: <go to lunch>
: <come back>
: boss: "<rs6k> has been down since thursday, they just bothered
: to tell us.. can you please take a look at it?"
You omitted the ritual denunciation here.
: <send corefile to compaq for alphaserver>
: boss: "oh , btw, that rs6k will need a monitor and keyboard"
: <haul 20" ibm monitor w/cable, rs6k kb/mouse, out to truck>
: <haul equipment 3 blocks away to other building>
: <get equipment up steps and into building>
: <spend 20 minutes trying to get card access into PBX room>
: < get access into pbx room>
: < .. rs6k has no video card ..>
: <go back to office>
: <find laptop, install redhat>
: <go home, get serial "connect anything to anything" cables>
: <go back 3 blocks to work>
: <haul laptop over to other building>
: <connect up laptop, no response from serial console>
: <say fuck it, go home>
: by this time, it was 6:15. My normal working day is 9am-6pm.
:
: Boss said "please, take wednesday off. I'm sorry."
: Needless to say, I'm now at home resting after my "day off".
I got home and found that a cat had removed the taped-on cover
over the UPS power switch and _then_ stepped on it. <fx: sound
of fans winding down>. The NASRaQs are busily mirroring their
files or whatever the hell they do when they wake up after being
klonked on the head. That'll take another hour to finish, after
which the damn things'll _look_ ready, but not be for some
indeterminate time.
And I've been farkling around with <UI deleted> at home, too, and
found that <UI deleted> doesn't work on the particular release of
non-LoseMe I'm running, so I can't take the FlashMem cards from
my camera and just plug 'em in, mount the "disk", and copy the
files from it. *sigh*
: Bought a Vornado space heater for the wife. Wow. Nice. I need one
: for under the desk here in the computer room (as if the sunblade 1000
: doesent generate enough heat already.. I just need to duct it down to
: my FEET...)
It's definitely space-heater time here: high was 29F, low was 14F
here this morning, and overnight low here is expected to be the
same. Snow starting tomorrow evening and lasting through Wed. The
cats are PO'd because I won't let them out, and I won't let them
out because they've all shown fence-hopping tendencies.
--
From RFC 1925: "(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However,
this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead."
Mark C. Langston
>
> Here's to us! Who's like us? Damn' few, and they're all dead!
>
That'd explain the rampant unemployment, then.
--
Mark C. Langston
ma...@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> So Happy New Year to all of us, from me. I think Satya and
> Suresh (.in and .hk) are the first of us to experience 2002, so
> this is to them first, then sequentially around the planet by
> latitude.
Satya's stateside now - someplace in .ca.us I think.
-srs
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian + suresh <@> hserus dot net
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Sysadmin
Paul Boven
<andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org> wrote:
> I had to laugh at the news the other day. They went straight from
> a story about the helicopter into one about a scuba diver being
> rushed to hospital. No mention of any burns, though.
Yeah, bushfire-time is a dangerous time to be diving allright.
Happy new year to you all.
Regards, Paul Boven.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
| I still cry sometimes when I remember you |
| I still cry sometimes when I hear your name - Ilse de Lange |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Boven, <p.b...@chello.nl> PE1NUT QRV 145.575 |
---------------------------------------------------------------
~
Stuart Lamble
>that are unlikely to have any monks (GMT+11), then us in Oz (& some
>Russians as well) at GMT+10.
^^^^^^
I very much hope that you're ignoring DST when you write that. Because
Melbourne is currently at GMT+11, and 1 Jan 2002 12:00am +1100 is when
most Melbournians (and, presumably, Sydneysiders too) celebrated...
Stuart "pedantic is my middle name" Lamble.
--
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. The competent, of course,
make it their *first* resort.
Mike Andrews
: On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:00:05 GMT, andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org
: (Andrew Dalgleish) wrote:
:>Christmas Island Kiribati is GMT+14 without DST, but probably no monks.
: <wide-eyed-innocence>
: What, you mean the guys at .cx don't actually live on the island? I'm
: shocked...
: </>
Of Couse We Do. And all the folks at .cn live in the PRC.
Come over and we'll watch the pigs fly south. Bring an umbrella.
ObElementOfTruth:
I've heard that the King of .to wanted to annex some islands
about 1 RCH west of the dateline, just so .to would be the
first to ring in the new year.
If you don't know what RCH stands for, then you haven't been a
military Monk or associated with them. It matches "Red C* Hair".
--
I don't need speed-reading,
I need speed-bookcase-building.
(with thanks to Nancy Lebowitz)
Dan Holdsworth
<d...@myths.com>
>Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
>> It's about 18 F (-8 or so C), the roads are glazed and polished
>> to the perfection of an Old Guard spitshine, the wind is blowing
>> as though the only thing between here and the North Pole is a
>> barbed wire fence -- and that blew down. The forecast is for
>> Lots More Of The Same, and I have to ork today.
>
>You'll notice that I haven't moved to .ok yet --- and never will.
That description currently describes large parts of .uk also; the
usual seasonal problems are hitting us [1] along with a few new
ones too.
Busines as usual, really...
[1] What is it with SUV lusers and ice; 4WD and a couple of tonnes of
metal do _NOT_ make you invincible...
--
Dan Holdsworth PhD da...@supanet.com
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion
Dan Holdsworth
<pet...@zip.com.au>
>mi...@mikea.ath.cx (Mike Andrews) elucidated thusly:
>
>>It's about 18 F (-8 or so C), the roads are glazed and polished
>>to the perfection of an Old Guard spitshine, the wind is blowing
>>as though the only thing between here and the North Pole is a
>>barbed wire fence -- and that blew down. The forecast is for
>>Lots More Of The Same, and I have to ork today.
>
>Hmm. Funnily enough, according to our local HeadBushfireGuy, what we
>really need right now here in Sydney, Australia is _snow_.
>
>What we have, however, is heat (36degC, 97F), wind (15knots dry westerly
>gusting to 20 by the sea, 30-40 out west), and an almost complete
>absence of airborne moisture (5-10% rel. humidity). The forecast is
>surprisingly terse "Dry. Hot westerly winds slowly easing this evening.
>A Total Fire Ban is in force."
>
>Oh yes, and approx. 100 bushfires currently ablaze throughout the state,
>and surrounding Sydney, with new ones just started in suburban
>north-west Sydney and southern Canberra this afternoon. 150 homes
>destroyed so far, over 300,000 hectares (about 750,000 acres) of
>bushland burnt out. There are over 10,000 emergency services personnel
>fighting the blazes, some of which started nine days ago.
You lot have been in the country how many hundred years so far, and the
notion of "non-flammable house" hasn't occured yet?
I mean, you're in a place that ranges from "uncomfotable warm" to
"bloody hot", and you're _not_ living underground yet?
Zebee Johnstone
Dan Holdsworth <da...@supanet.com> wrote:
>
>I mean, you're in a place that ranges from "uncomfotable warm" to
>"bloody hot", and you're _not_ living underground yet?
>
Consider "rock"
Consider "water table"
And for a number of areas, consider "earthquake"
Better to build cheap houses that burn and can be quickly rebuilt.
Zebee
Mike Andrews
: You lot have been in the country how many hundred years so far, and the
: notion of "non-flammable house" hasn't occured yet?
: I mean, you're in a place that ranges from "uncomfotable warm" to
: "bloody hot", and you're _not_ living underground yet?
They're "more British than the British" in some ways, Dan.
<reply type='speculative>
Of course one lives in above-ground structures. What'd'ye think
we are? A bunch of ruddy aboriginal troglodytes?
</reply>
--
"Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason
to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule
number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle".
-- unknown, but _very_ sharp
Zebee Johnstone
Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
><reply type='speculative>
>
>Of course one lives in above-ground structures. What'd'ye think
>we are? A bunch of ruddy aboriginal troglodytes?
>
></reply>
Pre-settlement Aborigines were not a cave dwelling people. HUnter
gatherers even in the coastal regions who lived in bark huts.
Easy to make, and easy to replce when they burned down.
The advantage they had over the whitefellas was they didn't tend to
stay in one place and accumulate Stuff, so when the inevitable fires
came (some of which they deliberately lit) they could just bugger off
out of there till it regrew enough to be harvestable.
Dunno it works when your tribe gets to be over 4 million and wants to
watch TV though.
Zebee
Arthur van der Harg
>Dunno it works when your tribe gets to be over 4 million and wants to
>watch TV though.
Not when they want to have cable.
Arthur
Satya
>If you don't know what RCH stands for, then you haven't been a
>military Monk or associated with them. It matches "Red C* Hair".
So, not Royal Corpse^H of Hackers?
--
Satya.
st...@madcelt.org
> In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:57:49 GMT
> Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
>><reply type='speculative>
>>
>>Of course one lives in above-ground structures. What'd'ye think
>>we are? A bunch of ruddy aboriginal troglodytes?
>>
>></reply>
> Pre-settlement Aborigines were not a cave dwelling people. HUnter
> gatherers even in the coastal regions who lived in bark huts.
> Easy to make, and easy to replce when they burned down.
> The advantage they had over the whitefellas was they didn't tend to
> stay in one place and accumulate Stuff, so when the inevitable fires
> came (some of which they deliberately lit) they could just bugger off
> out of there till it regrew enough to be harvestable.
In, around and under Coober Pedy they DO live under ground. As for the
chances of fire here? There are a good number of plants that need fire
to germinate their seeds. What does this tell you about the mentality
of people who live in the 'leafy green suburbs of Sydney' ?
About 15 years or so ago, here in wa.au we had a bush fire in the centre
of the state. The fire dept looked at it, said "there ain't no one living
in it's path, let it burn it's self out" From memory it burned about one and
a half million acres, most of which was basically deadlands anyway.
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
"When life hands you a lemon, make batteries
....then go electrocute someone."
Stuart Lamble
>Of course, we always said, if you don't like the weather in .ok, just
>wait an hour; it'll change.
I thought that was .melb.vic.au?
--
"You didn't slay the dragon?!"
"It's on my to-do list, now come on!"
-- Shrek.
Stuart Lamble
>These fscking morons are lighting
>fires. Dozens of them. The latest blaze up in Sydney's north which
>threatens hundreds -- if not thousands -- of homes is suspected of being
>deliberately lit. Firefighters are having to go back into areas which
>were contained because these brain-dead imbeciles are starting new
>fires. And they're talking about interventions, and _maybe_ juvenile
>detention.
>
>Bah. Take everything they own, including the clothes on their backs,
>put it in a pile, and make them set it alight. Make them watch until it
>burns to ash. For repeat offenders, take them up in a chopper and drop
>them in the middle of a bushfire (parachute optional).
>
>Regards,
>
>Pete -- there's stupidity, and there's stupidity causing death or damage
>to others. One's occasionally funny, the other's unconscionable.
Amen. The thing that has me riled is that the police have caught a number
of these juvenile numbskulls, and let them go with a caution.. because
they're not "of age" yet. My response? Bullshit. They're old enough to know
what they're doing. I can accept -- BARELY -- the first couple of fires on
the basis of "we didn't know that the consequences would be that bad". But
there comes a point when these stupid twats couldn't NOT know. (think about
it :)
Bob Carr(sp?), the Premier of NSW, seems to have the right idea. Make 'em
join in the cleaning up of the damage. Make 'em meet with those who have
been burnt. Make 'em meet with those who have lost property, or even loved
ones, as a result of the fires.
Then see just how fscking funny they think it is.
If they decide to do it again -- as far as I'm concerned, they should be
thrown in there with a damp towel to beat out the flames. If you're
feeling generous, throw in a tub of water as well.
I'd argue that home owners that failed to clean out the fuel around their
home (dead wood, etc.) are negligent, and as such, share some of the blame..
but it's far too much of a stretch to say that they're as culpable as those
who actually set the fires. Maybe 5-10% for the homeowners, and 90-95%
for the firebugs.
Morons. (the juveniles, that is, not the homeowners.) There just isn't
a word strong enough to express my feelings on this matter.
Ralph Wade Phillips
"Peter Williams" <pet...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:89j73u48o3org94i2...@4ax.com...
>
> Bah. Take everything they own, including the clothes on their backs,
> put it in a pile, and make them set it alight. Make them watch until it
> burns to ash. For repeat offenders, take them up in a chopper and drop
> them in the middle of a bushfire (parachute optional).
Eh. If the clothes on their backs are burning, what are the chances
of repeat offenders?
RwP
Satya
[kids lighting fires]
>Then see just how fscking funny they think it is.
They'll still think it's funny, if they're as fuckheaded about it as they
seem to be.
--
Satya.
Alexander Schreiber
Just make sure they are wearing lots of synthetic fibers when you
enlighten them.
Regards,
Alex.
--
q: If you were young again, would you start writing TeX again or would
you use Microsoft Word, or another word processor?
a: I hope to die before I *have* to use Microsoft Word.
-- Harald Koenig <koe...@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> asking Donald E. Knuth
Rob Adams
>>Oh yes, and approx. 100 bushfires currently ablaze throughout the state,
>>and surrounding Sydney, with new ones just started in suburban
>>north-west Sydney and southern Canberra this afternoon. 150 homes
>>destroyed so far, over 300,000 hectares (about 750,000 acres) of
>>bushland burnt out. There are over 10,000 emergency services personnel
>>fighting the blazes, some of which started nine days ago.
>
>You lot have been in the country how many hundred years so far, and the
>notion of "non-flammable house" hasn't occured yet?
You mean us whitefella (Balanda in the local dialect), about 2
actually.
>I mean, you're in a place that ranges from "uncomfotable warm" to
>"bloody hot", and you're _not_ living underground yet?
Tha would be Coober Pedy
(http://www.walkabout.com.au/fairfax/locations/SACooberPedy.shtml)
Rob.
--
ADVISORY: The email address contained in the header of this posting is
a legitimate address; it is used to harvest email addresses so that we
can email you our own email message containing advertisments. To stop
yourself getting on this list use robadams(at)dingoblue{dit}net(dit)au
Rob Adams
>About 15 years or so ago, here in wa.au we had a bush fire in the centre
>of the state. The fire dept looked at it, said "there ain't no one living
>in it's path, let it burn it's self out" From memory it burned about one and
>a half million acres, most of which was basically deadlands anyway.
Pretty much the same as we here in nt.au, there are fire control
zones, outside these zones they are left to burn.
Mike Andrews
: ObLuserRant: Very few things make me really angry. In general I'll
: bitch and moan about apparent trivia because it's pretty rare that I get
: pissed off enough to actually have a good rant. The behaviour of a
: depressingly large number of juvenile delinquents around the state at
: the moment did it for me this time. These fscking morons are lighting
: fires. Dozens of them. The latest blaze up in Sydney's north which
: threatens hundreds -- if not thousands -- of homes is suspected of being
: deliberately lit. Firefighters are having to go back into areas which
: were contained because these brain-dead imbeciles are starting new
: fires. And they're talking about interventions, and _maybe_ juvenile
: detention.
: Bah. Take everything they own, including the clothes on their backs,
: put it in a pile, and make them set it alight. Make them watch until it
: burns to ash. For repeat offenders, take them up in a chopper and drop
: them in the middle of a bushfire (parachute optional).
As I think I mentioned earlier, the penalty for arson in Japan
from medieval times until rather recently was to burn the
arsonist's family alive before him, then to kill him v-e-e-e-r-y
slowly and painfully. Family in this case, IIRC, included parents
and siblings, wife, and children. "Think of it as evolution in
action."
Here in the States, our legal system (at least in Oklahoma, and
in some other states as well[1]) has the option of trying juvies
as adults when the crime merits it in the opinion of the court
and when the prosecutor so requests. I think that these kids most
likely would be tried as adults if the venue were the USofA.
[1] IIRC, one of the deep-South states electrocuted a 14yo
boy (or was he just 11) for a particularly heinous
murder. I don't condone it; I just note it.
--
"If God had intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates."
David P. Murphy
> I mean, you're in a place that ranges from "uncomfotable warm" to
> "bloody hot", and you're _not_ living underground yet?
It's them hobbits, sir, they've already living in their holes with the
silly round doors and they're insisting they've got occupants' rights.
Got no room left for us to move in.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
systems programmer ftp://ftp.myths.com
mailto:d...@myths.com (personal)
COGITO ERGO DISCLAMO mailto:Murphy...@emc.com (work)
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> [1] IIRC, one of the deep-South states electrocuted a 14yo
> boy (or was he just 11) for a particularly heinous
> murder. I don't condone it; I just note it.
There was the Jamie Bulger case in the UK, where two eight year old kids
murdered another eight year old kid ...
I wonder what said redneck state would have done about that ...
-srs
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > There was the Jamie Bulger case in the UK, where two eight year old kids
> > murdered another eight year old kid ...
Urgh.
> > I wonder what said redneck state would have done about that ...
> The question was raised as to whether they knew what they were
> doing was wrong. I thought it was simple. They made sure they were
> out of sight when they killed him; they knew it was wrong.
Putting both kids into a mental asylum might have helped. No, not the usual
gentle counseling variety with child psychologists, something out of "One Flew
Over The Cuckoo's Nest", or maybe the hospital run by the nuns of St.Mary of
Bethlehem [1] in London a couple of hundred years back.
-srs
[1] a.k.a. Bedlam (the cockney [mis]pronunciation of Bethlehem). Chains and
shackles, and calming down fractious patients by feeding them croton oil ...
ah, those were the days.
Kevin Martin
news:ub_Y7.11797$8e6.175...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
> Here in the States, our legal system (at least in Oklahoma, and
> in some other states as well[1]) has the option of trying juvies
> as adults when the crime merits it in the opinion of the court
> and when the prosecutor so requests. I think that these kids most
> likely would be tried as adults if the venue were the USofA.
s/tried as adults/shot/
Certain parties would have us believe this to be "barbaric." Insert
appropriate Goldman quote about "You keep using that word."
Mike Andrews
: mi...@mikea.ath.cx (Mike Andrews) wrote in
: s/tried as adults/shot/
IMHO, the magnitude of the crime is sufficient to warrant trial
of each juvenile "alleged perpetrator" as an adult. Certainly it
would be warranted for any of the children accused of setting a
fire that killed someone, but I think it is equally warranted
incases of massive property destruction.
Their parents should be put on trial as well, for neglect and any
other charges that happen to fit their having raised a danger to
society.
In all cases, a verdict of guilty should have the convict,
whether child or adult, working for YEARS to pay off the fines
and compensation to the victims. It would be OK with me if the
government were to pay it out from current cash, and then tell
the respective convicts how long they have to pay it off, and at
what rate of interest.
--
In every civilization, software will advance to such a level that to the
average manager, a desktop environment looks like a game of memory. And
they always cheat.
Pin van Riezen, in the Monasery
Andrew Ruthven
Lionel <n...@alt.net> wrote:
>Word has it that on Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:06:27 GMT, in this august forum,
>mi...@mikea.ath.cx (Mike Andrews) said:
>
>>So Happy New Year to all of us, from me. I think Satya and
>>Suresh (.in and .hk) are the first of us to experience 2002, so
>>this is to them first, then sequentially around the planet by
>>latitude.
>
>that are unlikely to have any monks (GMT+11), then us in Oz (& some
>Russians as well) at GMT+10.
We're currently on GMT+13 because of daylight savings.
It is possible that I was the first monk to see the first sunlight of
the new year. For some demented reason I sat on the roof of my flat
with some friends[1] and watched the sunrise.
Then I slept. I still haven't recovered...
[1] Including my flatmates.
--
Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand
Systems Engineer, Connections Inc Ltd --> www.connections.net.nz
At CIL: pu...@connections.net.nz
At Home: and...@etc.gen.nz
Rik Steenwinkel
persuaded newsservers all over the world to carry the following:
} da...@supanet.com (Dan Holdsworth) wrote:
}
} >You lot have been in the country how many hundred years so far, and the
} >notion of "non-flammable house" hasn't occured yet?
}
} You mean us whitefella (Balanda in the local dialect), about 2
} actually.
Funny. 'Belanda' is the not-so-flattering Indonesian word for
Dutchman, or more generically, whitey.
--
// Rik Steenwinkel # VMS mercenary # Enschede, Netherlands
Joe Moore
> > [On punishing kids as adults]
> Certain parties would have us believe this to be "barbaric." Insert
> appropriate Goldman quote about "You keep using that word."
barbaric: In the manner of a barber.
That'll show them kids. Give 'em a haircut.
--Joe
--
When you find yourself on the cutting edge of technology, remember:
The trailing edge is sharper than the leading edge.
Rob Adams
And now said murderers are to be sent to .au to re-settle, I thought
.uk stopped sending us their flotsam some decades ago..
Rob Adams
>On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:31:24, Rob Adams <roba...@ozemail.com.au>
>persuaded newsservers all over the world to carry the following:
>
>} da...@supanet.com (Dan Holdsworth) wrote:
>}
>} >You lot have been in the country how many hundred years so far, and the
>} >notion of "non-flammable house" hasn't occured yet?
>}
>} You mean us whitefella (Balanda in the local dialect), about 2
>} actually.
>
>Funny. 'Belanda' is the not-so-flattering Indonesian word for
>Dutchman, or more generically, whitey.
Same root, the first whiteman to appear in this region was Dutch
Traders, they introduced themselves to the locals as 'Hollander'.
I was told this by an Aboriginal, I have no evidence of its
correctness.
Mike Andrews
: Suresh Ramasubramanian <dev...@hserus.net> wrote:
:>Mike Andrews [alt.sysadmin.recovery] <Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:48:58 GMT>:
:>> [1] IIRC, one of the deep-South states electrocuted a 14yo
:>> boy (or was he just 11) for a particularly heinous
:>> murder. I don't condone it; I just note it.
:>
:>There was the Jamie Bulger case in the UK, where two eight year old kids
:>murdered another eight year old kid ...
:>
:>I wonder what said redneck state would have done about that ...
: And now said murderers are to be sent to .au to re-settle, I thought
: .uk stopped sending us their flotsam some decades ago..
Well, .gov.au _could_ have said no.
Maybe they're going to train the kids as politicians. It'd fit.
Alan J Rosenthal
[big fires in Australia]
>IMHO, the magnitude of the crime is sufficient to warrant trial
>of each juvenile "alleged perpetrator" as an adult. Certainly it
>would be warranted for any of the children accused of setting a
>fire that killed someone, but I think it is equally warranted
>in cases of massive property destruction.
Not that I disagree with any of the above, but the part which comes next
is where I part company from most people's opinions about law and order.
I don't think it's those kiddies' faults that no one has been killed yet,
so I don't think that they should get any legal credit for that fortunate
circumstance. Fires this large often kill significant numbers of people,
and a "reasonable man [sic]" would know that while starting the fire.
It's not in the kiddies' hands any more, and they deserve none of the credit
for the lack of loss of life so far.
I think that this viewpoint is simply the flip-side of failing to imprison
people for deaths caused by accident in the absence of negligence.
People should be judged by what they themselves do, not by whether or not
some third party saves the life of the intended murder victim, etc.
Jamie Bowden
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <dev...@hserus.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Andrews [alt.sysadmin.recovery] <Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:48:58 GMT>:
> >> [1] IIRC, one of the deep-South states electrocuted a 14yo
> >> boy (or was he just 11) for a particularly heinous
> >> murder. I don't condone it; I just note it.
> >
> >There was the Jamie Bulger case in the UK, where two eight year old kids
> >murdered another eight year old kid ...
> >
> >I wonder what said redneck state would have done about that ...
>
> And now said murderers are to be sent to .au to re-settle, I thought
> .uk stopped sending us their flotsam some decades ago..
ObOldJoke: An American woman going through Autralian customs was asked:
"Do you have a criminal record?"
To which she responded:
"Do you still need one to get in?"
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Arthur van der Harg
<roba...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Same root, the first whiteman to appear in this region was Dutch
>Traders, they introduced themselves to the locals as 'Hollander'.
>
>I was told this by an Aboriginal, I have no evidence of its
>correctness.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Dutch East Indies trade was conducted by
the VOC[0] and they originated from the province of Holland that was a
part of the Republic of the United Netherlands. So they were absolutely
correct in identifying themselves as Hollanders. As is so often the case
the brand apparently became a generic identifier.
In Indonesia most white people were Dutch, hence the name Belanda (just
the Indonesian twist on Hollander) for white person. If that is used
pejoratively then it's most likely because Indonesians don't have much
reason to like Hollanders.
Arthur
[0] Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, United East-Indian Company
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In <slrna37o1...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au>, on 01/03/2002
at 04:38 AM, s...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au (Stuart Lamble) said:
>Amen. The thing that has me riled is that the police have caught a
>number of these juvenile numbskulls, and let them go with a caution..
>because they're not "of age" yet.
I've felt for a long time that we need to revive the venerable
institution of the stocks and the pillory for such crimes. Possibly we
should throw in the public whipping post.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Reply to domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me.
"He was born with a gift of laughter,
and a sense that the world was mad."
Maarten Wiltink
>On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:31:24, Rob Adams <roba...@ozemail.com.au>
>persuaded newsservers all over the world to carry the following:
>
>} da...@supanet.com (Dan Holdsworth) wrote:
>}
>} >You lot have been in the country how many hundred years so far, and the
>} >notion of "non-flammable house" hasn't occured yet?
>}
>} You mean us whitefella (Balanda in the local dialect), about 2
>} actually.
>
>Funny. 'Belanda' is the not-so-flattering Indonesian word for
>Dutchman, or more generically, whitey.
I would not be surprised if Malay(sp?) and $AU-ABORIGINAL-LANG(sp!?)
were related to such an extent that those are the same words.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Maarten Wiltink
[...]
>I don't think it's those kiddies' faults that no one has been killed yet,
>so I don't think that they should get any legal credit for that fortunate
>circumstance. Fires this large often kill significant numbers of people,
>and a "reasonable man [sic]" would know that while starting the fire.
>It's not in the kiddies' hands any more, and they deserve none of the
credit
>for the lack of loss of life so far.
>
>I think that this viewpoint is simply the flip-side of failing to imprison
>people for deaths caused by accident in the absence of negligence.
>People should be judged by what they themselves do, not by whether or not
>some third party saves the life of the intended murder victim, etc.
You're saying arson, especially setting *big* fires, should be
equated to attempted manslaughter (perhaps in addition to the
destruction of property). And you're saying no time off for
_attempted_ crimes just because the shmuck failed.
The reasoning certainly appears sound. And it's certainly at
variance with any judicial system that I know of. I wonder
why (no troll). It may be related to the differing rewards on
wanting to, conspiring to, trying to, and getting to <insert
your favourite heinous act here>. Is wanting to set fire to
the IRS office punishable anywhere outside Oceania?
Some time ago, there was an "imaginary legal situations" quiz
show on television here. One of the questions was if taking
something that you don't know is yours is theft, the answer
was "no". Apparently, attempted theft is something else.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> "SR" == Suresh Ramasubramanian <dev...@hserus.net> writes:
> SR> There was the Jamie Bulger case in the UK, where two eight year
> SR> old kids murdered another eight year old kid ...
>
> Err, no. The perpetrators were 10, the victim was 2. I am surprised
> that you know enough about the case to remember the victim's name but
> not the fact that there was a significant age gap. Actual names are
> the last detail I retain about an incident.
Numbers are the last thing I remember about _anything_. I'm lousy at math (not to say allergic to it, in some cases)
-srs
Mike Andrews
: The reasoning certainly appears sound. And it's certainly at
: variance with any judicial system that I know of. I wonder
: why (no troll). It may be related to the differing rewards on
: wanting to, conspiring to, trying to, and getting to <insert
: your favourite heinous act here>. Is wanting to set fire to
: the IRS office punishable anywhere outside Oceania?
By "wanting to <foo>", DYM "harboring an unexpressed, unacted-
upon desire to <foo>"? Or saying, perhaps once, "I'd like to
<foo>."The two are different, and a conviction on the first
requires mind-reading. The second, for some values of <foo>,
is good for a vacation behind bars here in the USofA.
E.g., it is a _bad_ idea to say "I'd like to kill
$PUBLIC_FIGURE." It is even a bad idea to say "I'd like to see
$PUBLIC_FIGURE dead." That is especially true if $PUBLIC_FIGURE
is in, or related to anyone in the Federal, state, or local
governmental service. Similarly, it is a bad idea to say "I'd
like to <do $BAD-THING> to $BUILDING or $GOV_AGENCY." now,
and People Will Look Very Carefully At All Your Past Life While
You Languish In Jail if you do so.
: Some time ago, there was an "imaginary legal situations" quiz
: show on television here. One of the questions was if taking
: something that you don't know is yours is theft, the answer
: was "no". Apparently, attempted theft is something else.
I'm beginning to think that Joe Average and Jane Average are not
merely unthinking, but also that they're incapable of the act.
--
"A lady came up to me on the street and pointed at my suede jacket. You
know a cow was murdered for that jacket?' she sneered.
I replied in a psychotic tone, 'I didn't know there were any witnesses.
Now I'll have to kill you too." --Jake Johansen
Mike Andrews
: They're not related, but it is almost certainly a loan word picked
: up from the trepang fishing trade.
Eeeeeeeewwwww. IIRC, trepang is dried sea-cucumber and/or dried
sea-cucumber innards.
--
[Once in a lifetime opportunity] is simply a veiled reference to the
staff contract termination procedure, which involves a sunny wall,
a single cigarette and some middling to average marksmen...
-- Dan Holdsworth
J. Michael Looney
andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org says...
>Now that is just plain daft. Why is the penalty different just
>because they crossed a completely arbitrary line drawn on a map?
>
>So if I were to kidnap a child and cross a state line to take them
>to the nearest McD's for lunch I get the death penalty, but if I
>stay where I am and feed them into a wood chipper I don't?
In my state, you get it either way. ICBW, but I think all states touching
.ok.us are death penalty states as well.
If you don't cross the state line, it's not a federal offense. Crossing the
state line makes it where not one, but 2 states might want to try you for the
offense. As a rule that means the feds get you instead.
Jay Maynard
>- The Lindberg Act, that called for the death penalty on interstate
>kidnapping cases irrespective of whether the child is harmed.
Consequences are easy to avoid: don't do that.
>- Accessories in an armed robbery where someone gets killed are held
>guilty of the murder irrespective of whether they actually did it.
There are no accidents during the commission of a crime, and those who help
a killer are equally responsible.
>- "Three strikes and you are out" type legislation where you can be
>locked away for 10 years for stealing a slice of pizza.
Since when is stealing a slice of pizza a felony? Those laws, in every case
I'm familiar with, apply only to felonies - and those who get put away for
life under them usually have a much longer rap sheet than three crimes, in
no small part to the legal system plea-bargaining early crimes from felonies
down to misdemeanors.
Again, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
>So I would be very surprised if there was any legal impediment to the
>Australian legislature passing a law along the lines of "The penalty
>for arson is X" where X is also the penalty for attempted
>manslaughter, actual manslaughter or even murder.
In the US, where we have a written Constitution to measure such things
against (the Fourth Amendment provisions about "cruel and unusual
punishment", and the jurisprudence that has grown up around it over the
years), the answer to such a question is relatively straightforward. In the
British Commonwealth, where such things as Constitutions are ridiculed and
regarded as unnecessary, there are no checks at all on the legislative
processes, and so the Aussie legislature can do such a thing easily.
(BTW, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, at least about the
Aussie legal system. I promise not to take offense, as I am always willing
to be educated where I am genuinely ignorant.)
Robert A. Uhl
Dalgleish wrote:
>
> > - The Lindberg Act, that called for the death penalty on interstate
> > kidnapping cases irrespective of whether the child is harmed.
>
> because they crossed a completely arbitrary line drawn on a map?
It's a federal law, and the federal government cannot generally get
involved unless two states are.
> So if I were to kidnap a child and cross a state line to take them
> to the nearest McD's for lunch I get the death penalty, but if I
> stay where I am and feed them into a wood chipper I don't?
If you were to kill the kid in a state without the death penalty, yup.
And if it's a federal kidnapping case and the law is still on the
books and the court determines that death is appropriate, then yes,
you might possibly die.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
In the UNIX world, being dependent on a GUI is the same thing as not
being a sysadmin. --BigZaphod
Robert A. Uhl
>
> >- Accessories in an armed robbery where someone gets killed are held
> >guilty of the murder irrespective of whether they actually did it.
>
> There are no accidents during the commission of a crime, and those who help
> a killer are equally responsible.
Never seen a heist movie, huh:-)
Seriously, though, one is not _automatically_ complicit of a crime.
In other words, merely committing a robbery in which one's accomplice
kills another will not automatically get one found guilty of being
guilty of murder. It's sure not going to help, of course.
I was a jury member on a case in which we were presented with a range
of options from conspiracy to first degree murder for a fellow who had
not actually committed the murder. It was our job to determine
whether or not he was guilty of anything, and if so which crime(s) he
was guilty of.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Gun control: the theory that a woman found raped and strangled in an
alley is morally superior to a woman explaining why her attacker got a
fatal bullet wound.
Omri Schwarz
> Andrew Dalgleish <andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> : They're not related, but it is almost certainly a loan word picked
> : up from the trepang fishing trade.
>
> Eeeeeeeewwwww. IIRC, trepang is dried sea-cucumber and/or dried
> sea-cucumber innards.
Abbo cuisine.
<paul hogan>
Well, you can live on it, but it tastes like shit.
</paul hogan>
And yes, I know the guy's a tosser.
--
Omri Schwarz --- ocs...@mit.edu ('h' before war)
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering: "Noise is principally
due to the presence of the patient." -- R.F. Farr
Omri Schwarz
> In article <uxell4t...@jach.hawaii.edu>, Frossie wrote:
> >
> > IANAL, but surely this is quite possible. It has nothing to do with
> > imagined success or failure of a criminal - the legislature in most
> > western countries is free to name a penalty that addresses the
> > seriousness, rather than the result, of a crime.
> >
> > Examples (I can only think of US ones at the moment) that I know of
> > hopefully not urban legends):
> >
> > - The Lindberg Act, that called for the death penalty on interstate
> > kidnapping cases irrespective of whether the child is harmed.
>
> Now that is just plain daft. Why is the penalty different just
> because they crossed a completely arbitrary line drawn on a map?
Never mind that. What's worse is that it deprives an
interstate kidnapper of any incentive to hand his victim
over alive.
Matthew Crosby
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>On 05 Jan 2002 11:42:26 -1000, Frossie <fro...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>>- The Lindberg Act, that called for the death penalty on interstate
>>Australian legislature passing a law along the lines of "The penalty
>>for arson is X" where X is also the penalty for attempted
>>manslaughter, actual manslaughter or even murder.
>
>In the US, where we have a written Constitution to measure such things
>against (the Fourth Amendment provisions about "cruel and unusual
>punishment", and the jurisprudence that has grown up around it over the
>years), the answer to such a question is relatively straightforward. In the
>British Commonwealth, where such things as Constitutions are ridiculed and
>regarded as unnecessary, there are no checks at all on the legislative
>processes, and so the Aussie legislature can do such a thing easily.
>
>(BTW, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, at least about the
>Aussie legal system. I promise not to take offense, as I am always willing
>to be educated where I am genuinely ignorant.)
You are almost totally wrong. Sorry. The vast majority of the
commenwelth countries have written Constitutions of one sort or
another, (of course with varying levels of actual enforcement and
value. Plenty of dubious tinpot dictatorships are in the
Commonwealth). And please find me ONE commenwealth country where the
idea of having a constitution is ridiculed? Your statment makes
utterly no sense. You MAY be thinking of Britain, which has a
complicated constition consisting of a mess of different acts of
parliment, traditional rights and judicial history, but even there it's
the case. Sure, the British constitution, by asserting parlimentary
supremacy is a little easier to change, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
exist, and the US one has, ah, 26 Amendments right? (including such
freedom preserving ones as the 17th. Of course, funny how they didn't
need a new amendment to start the War On Other Drugs, you'd think they would
if the Constitution was so set in stone, eh? I guess that's progress.)
Furthermore, in particular re rights a number of commonwealth countries
have constitutions that actually have some number of teeth. They may
be a _different_ set of rights to the US (DO NOT BRING UP GUNS.
PLEASE.), but such examples as the Canadian charter of rights and
freedoms or the Australian constitutional guaruntee of trial by jury
(yes, I know that's technically just for federal issues, well so was
the US's until the 14th amendment) or the implied freedom of political
speech (which is roughly roe-versus-wade type logic, but whatever).
(BTW, if we are going to be nitpicking, it's not really called the British
Commonwealth)
Besides, in practice, a constitution is worth how people treat it. The
current US constitution hasn't stopped civil forfeiture (yet), took
about 60 years to finally get at the Comstock law (and that was a
matter of chaning mores anyway), had no effect whatsoever on the
interning of citizens of Japanese activity, and need I remind you of
the quote "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now
if he can."? And of course, the shifting interpretation of the
commerce clause is well known everywhere. (And no, nor did the
Australia constitution stop plenty of activities elswhere either. I am
not ragging on the US, just pointing out that evrey country has it's
dubious judicial incidents)
As an aside, and this isn't a slam at you Jay, but why is it that so
many Americans seem to have this bizarre idea that the whole rest of
the world is some sort of fascist dictatorship? I find it an
amazingly surreal mindset, particularily given there are areas where
the US quite frankly lags a lot of places...and believe me, there are a
pile of US laws (such as the anti-sodomy laws in many states) that an
awful lot of people can't believe could be on the books. Some of it
seems to be caused by certain gun-advocy type stuff (which is usually
wrong, for example I was once told quite seriously that all gun
ownership in Australia had been banned in 1974 and therefore it was a
FascistDictatorship(tm), news that will come as a suprise to the person
or two I know in Oz who have guns), a lot of it weird urban legends (I
remember one person posting to Soc.culture.australian many years ago
when I still read it asking quite seriously if it was true all
Australians had tattoed bar codes on their forheads), the rest
is....what? I sometimes feel that some of these people are living in
an alternate universe (the fact that the ones expressing this point of
view have often never left the US may be seen as an illustration of
something I suppose).
Or to put it another way, I can't think of ANYTHING that's legal in the
US that isn't legal in at least a few other juristictions (yes, even
guns, there ARE juristictions with even loser gun ownership laws), and
I can think of quite a few things that are illegal in almost all of the
US and are legal in plenty of other places... bizarre sodomy laws down
to stupid things like buying proper cheese (which you still can't
legally do in the US). I've lived in various places, and frankly I
don't feel any freeer in the US, and there are ways I feel less
free...the fact that "optional" photo-ID is required to do so many things,
or the ubiquitous nature of the ID number^W^WSSN.
--
Matthew Crosby cro...@cs.colorado.edu
Disclaimer: It was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >- "Three strikes and you are out" type legislation where you can be
> >locked away for 10 years for stealing a slice of pizza.
>
> Since when is stealing a slice of pizza a felony?
You're right, he overreached. You can go away for *life* in some
states for getting in a fight in a bar.
> In the US, where we have a written Constitution to measure such
> things against (the Fourth Amendment provisions about "cruel and
> unusual punishment", and the jurisprudence that has grown up around
> it over the years),
Eighth Amendment.
> the answer to such a question is relatively straightforward. In the
> British Commonwealth, where such things as Constitutions are
> ridiculed and regarded as unnecessary, there are no checks at all on
> the legislative processes, and so the Aussie legislature can do such
> a thing easily.
The advantage the U.S. has over those countries is that our
legislature and court system have to be a bit more obvious about it
when violating our rights. This tends to slow them down a bit. A
small bit.
Want an example? See Maryland v. Craig. Sixth Amendment, null and
void where prohibited by judicial fiat. <*spit*>
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Uhl
>
> As an aside, and this isn't a slam at you Jay, but why is it that so
> many Americans seem to have this bizarre idea that the whole rest of
> the world is some sort of fascist dictatorship?
I figure that it's a matter of which rights one is willing to have
stomped upon. I hate our intoxicant policy, loathe our safety
policies (seatbelt laws, pasteurised cheese, raw eggs &c.) &c., but I
am willing to trade those for such things as arms-bearing, more free
speech than is common, trial by jury &c. Others no doubt draw the
line differently. I think that a lot of it is what one is brought up
with. A European might roll his eyes at our practices; I certainly
roll mine at much of his.
In other words, all states suck. Mine sucks least for my purposes.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
"How do you explain bikini underwear and chocolate
sprinkles pressed between pages 102 and 103 of the
Canterbury Tales? It must have been quite an evening."
Frossie
(whoops, if you see this twice, it's a bug)
"JDB" == J D Baldwin <INVALID...@example.com> writes:
JDB> In the previous article, Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>> >- "Three strikes and you are out" type legislation where you can be
>> >locked away for 10 years for stealing a slice of pizza.
I said that.
>> Since when is stealing a slice of pizza a felony?
Jay Maynard allegedly said that but my newswerver doesn't have it.
JDB> You're right, he overreached.
JDB said that.
It's difficult to follow the point given the missing attributions and
posts, but I was relating an incident I read in the press where
someone was given a 25-year sentence (not 10 as I initially stated)
for exactly that. While googling for a reference I found
http://www.famm.org/fammgr97/p7b.html
which suggests that it was later reduced to 5 years in that particular
case.
Another sub-thread that partially propagated to my site seemed to
suggest that what I said[0] is not possible in the US because of the
constitution in general and the prohibition against "cruel and unusual
punishment" in particular. But in the US, the constitution is subject
to interpretation, and it's someone's job to do exactly that: it's
called the Supreme Court. In US Supreme Court decisions, the standard
interpretation seems to be that "cruel and unusual" is a prohibition
against intentional torture[1]. Nowhere have I seen it stated that it
impedes heavy sentencing for felonies.
While it has been argued that mandatory sentences and removal of
judicial discretion in sentencing is unconstitutional in the US, the
published arguments have been in the context of State rights, not any
rights the offender might have.
A UK example I can think of is the bypassing of habeas corpus for
terrorist suspects that allows (allowed?) *suspected* IRA members to
be held for very long periods (indefinitely?) without trial. Also,
both in the US and the UK certain classes of drug dealing have
sentences that the legislature has set to be similar in duration to
manslaughter, so I don't see why arson would be legally different.
*Note* that I did not take a view as to whether all this is a good
thing or a bad thing, but that I don't believe that there is a legal
impediment to it.
[0] briefly, legislature in western countries is legally able to name
penalties it thinks appropriate, so there is no legal impediment known
to me that would prevent the penalty of arson to be that of
manslaughter.
[1] I refer my honourable colleagues to _Closed Chambers_ by Edward
Lazarus that (a) is top-notch non-fiction writing (b) compulsive
reading and (c) has a good account of the "cruel and unusual"
clause and its interpretation in the context of decrepit electric
chairs etc.
Frossie
--
Joint Astronomy Centre, Hawaii http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~frossie/
Cuteness can be overcome through sufficient bastardry --Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Pim van Riezen
> (... there ARE juristictions with even loser gun ownership laws),
I hope these laws specifically handle prohobition of said losers to own a
gun?
Pi
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In <a1d4e1$of7$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, on 01/07/2002
at 09:37 PM, cro...@nag.cs.colorado.edu (Matthew Crosby) said:
>As an aside, and this isn't a slam at you Jay, but why is it that so
>many Americans seem to have this bizarre idea that the whole rest of
>the world is some sort of fascist dictatorship?
Probably for the same reason that a lot of non-Americans[1] have weird
ideas about America. It's not even a recent phenomenon.
>stupid things like buying proper cheese
Where is that illegal? I see imported chees all over the place.
[1] There are also Americans with weird ideas about Americans. I
suspect that there are Europeans with weird ideas about Europe, but
that the percentage is not as high[2].
[2] TGIAGOTOSOTP.
Robert A. Uhl
(Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>
> >stupid things like buying proper cheese
>
> Where is that illegal? I see imported chees all over the place.
I believe he meant unpasteurised cheese. Which is, of course, the Way
God Meant It to Be, as we all know:-)
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Who does not love wine, women, and song,
Remains a fool his whole life long.
--Johann Heinrich Voss
Matthew Crosby
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>In <a1d4e1$of7$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, on 01/07/2002
> at 09:37 PM, cro...@nag.cs.colorado.edu (Matthew Crosby) said:
>
>>As an aside, and this isn't a slam at you Jay, but why is it that so
>>many Americans seem to have this bizarre idea that the whole rest of
>>the world is some sort of fascist dictatorship?
>
>Probably for the same reason that a lot of non-Americans[1] have weird
>ideas about America. It's not even a recent phenomenon.
Oh, yeah. Don't get me wrong, lusers are everywhere.
I really was more curious about the origins of the meme; I know a lot
of it is the "US is the freeest" stuff American schools love instilling
in their kids. Let me tell you, talking of fascism, the entire idea of
the pledge of allegence gives me the willies...
Heh, I suppose for balance I should talk about some of the cluelessness
I've seen about the US. Such classics as the "everyone has a gun"
meme, the "I'll get shot!" meme or the "The US has no safety net" meme,
or.... Heck, my sister, who's LIVED here has bought into the
US-is-great-satan idea to an extent I find baffling. She once claimed,
with a straight face, that she'd rather be poor in Bangladesh then New
York. I pointed out to her such things as the fact that New York in
fact has a (state) constitutional right to shelter so you can sue them
to give you shelter (and people do) but no, she seems to believe that
the US is one step above Soylent Green. Oh well. And when I see
contintental Europeans talking about how rascist the US is in the same
breath as comlaining about immigration, well...
>>stupid things like buying proper cheese
>
>Where is that illegal? I see imported chees all over the place.
Everywhere in the US. It's illegal to sell raw-milk cheese under a certain
age. Since pasteurization makes a cheese significantly worse, it means
there is a whole range of good cheses you can't legally get here.
(I know, it sounds silly, but the fact remains that I look good chese
wheras I'm not into, say, guns, so the cheese ban effects me personally.
There are a pile of great cheeses I'd _love_ to be able to buy in the US
but can't)
Robin Munn
<ru...@latakia.dyndns.org> wrote:
>In article <3c3b13aa$5$fuzhry$mr2...@news.patriot.net>, Shmuel
>(Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>
>> >stupid things like buying proper cheese
>>
>> Where is that illegal? I see imported chees all over the place.
>
>I believe he meant unpasteurised cheese. Which is, of course, the Way
>God Meant It to Be, as we all know:-)
I first parsed that as "the Whey God Meant It to Be".
What does it say about me that my brain sees puns that aren't there?
--
Robin Munn
rm...@pobox.com
Arvid Grøtting
> What does it say about me that my brain sees puns that aren't there?
It suggest
- that you may indeed have one, and
- that you fit in here. We all do.
--
A reply comes back, from a... errm... it
Arvid doesn't sound A and it doesn't sound I.
Must be a human.
Dima, in a.s.n-n r
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Everywhere in the US. It's illegal to sell raw-milk cheese under a certain
>age. Since pasteurization makes a cheese significantly worse, it means
>there is a whole range of good cheses you can't legally get here.
>
>(I know, it sounds silly, but the fact remains that I look good chese
>wheras I'm not into, say, guns, so the cheese ban effects me personally.
>There are a pile of great cheeses I'd _love_ to be able to buy in the US
>but can't)
Can you give one or two examples of which cheeses fall in this category?
presumably all the Brie/Camembert/Chevre styles?
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>A UK example I can think of is the bypassing of habeas corpus for
>terrorist suspects that allows (allowed?) *suspected* IRA members to
>be held for very long periods (indefinitely?) without trial. Also,
>both in the US and the UK certain classes of drug dealing have
>sentences that the legislature has set to be similar in duration to
>manslaughter, so I don't see why arson would be legally different.
Apparently, since a short while ago the US can now do the same if they
think you're a terrorist.
Jasper
Jay Maynard
...if you're not an American citizen.
Jamie Bowden
And it still has yet to be tested in a court of law. There is a huge
precedence of case law establishing the same rights for all in criminal
courts, citizen or not. I believe this derives (but I'm not a lawyer, go
ask one) from the Constitution specificly mentioning which rights are for
the citizenry only (ie voting, holding public office, etc).
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Geoff Burling
>hopefully not urban legends):
>
>
of time had passed after the act of kidnapping (a time somewhere between 24
and 72 hours), it was presumed that the kidnappers had either taken the victim
across state lines or otherwise crossed state lines in the act of avoiding
being caught for the crime.
That the penalty for being convicted for kidanpping by a Federal court has
varied between execution & imprisonment for many years is a fact.
This law was passed at a time when the power of the US Federal government
was being extended into many areas it had not been before thru the interstate
commerce act. Examples include the laws making it a federal crime to rob a
bank, & the Mann act -- which made it a crime to transport people across
state lines for the express purpose of prostitution.
A professor in my college days once mentioned that one of the first successful
prosecutions under the Mann act against a madam & pander/pimp who took their
working girls on a vacation in thanks for their efforts. This vacation involved
a visit to a destination -- IIRC Mount Rushmore -- that was in another state.
Apparently, this was the first time that any the girls had been out of their
home state while persuing their career.
Geoff
--
Jasper Janssen
>On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Jay Maynard wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:48:02 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
>> >On 07 Jan 2002 17:51:44 -1000, Frossie <fro...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>> >>A UK example I can think of is the bypassing of habeas corpus for
>> >>terrorist suspects that allows (allowed?) *suspected* IRA members to
>> >>be held for very long periods (indefinitely?) without trial. Also,
>> >>both in the US and the UK certain classes of drug dealing have
>> >>sentences that the legislature has set to be similar in duration to
>> >>manslaughter, so I don't see why arson would be legally different.
>> >Apparently, since a short while ago the US can now do the same if they
>> >think you're a terrorist.
>>
>> ...if you're not an American citizen.
>
>And it still has yet to be tested in a court of law. There is a huge
>precedence of case law establishing the same rights for all in criminal
>courts, citizen or not. I believe this derives (but I'm not a lawyer, go
>ask one) from the Constitution specificly mentioning which rights are for
>the citizenry only (ie voting, holding public office, etc).
By the time it gets to the Supremes, you'll already have been rotting in
jail for years.. I'm gonna stay in europe for a while.
Jasper
Mike Meredith at home
ru...@latakia.dyndns.org (Robert A. Uhl) writes:
> policies (seatbelt laws, pasteurised cheese, raw eggs &c.) &c., but I
> am willing to trade those for such things as arms-bearing, more free
> speech than is common, trial by jury &c. Others no doubt draw the
With the exception of bearing arms, the UK has freedom of speach
(to an extent, probably roughly the extent to which you have it
in the US), and trial by jury.
Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
speach.
Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
particular freedom that Europeans tend to lack (the right to bear
arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
foolish.
> In other words, all states suck.
Definitely.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Mike Meredith at home <h...@port.ac.uk> wrote:
> > policies (seatbelt laws, pasteurised cheese, raw eggs &c.) &c., but I
> > am willing to trade those for such things as arms-bearing, more free
> > speech than is common, trial by jury &c. Others no doubt draw the
>
> With the exception of bearing arms, the UK has freedom of speach
> (to an extent, probably roughly the extent to which you have it
> in the US), and trial by jury.
The US has rather stronger free speech protections -- most notably an
extreme aversion to "prior restraint" -- but I'd agree with your
"roughly" assessment.
Trial by jury has been severely eroded in the U.S. in recent years; it
wouldn't surprise me to find that some aspects of this right are more
strongly protected in the UK just now. It's probably about the same
level of "freedom" in general.
> Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have
> freedom of speach.
Try installing PGP on your home system in France, then write the local
prefect a letter to the effect that you have done so. Write us a
postcard from le clinque.
> Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
> particular freedom that Europeans tend to lack (the right to bear
> arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
> foolish.
I don't know about that. Let's say there are N parameters of freedom,
and the first N-1 are roughly equivalent between the two countries.
In the remaining parameter (RTKBA), the U.S. is dramatically "freer"
than Europe and the UK. (Whether this "freedom" is a good thing is a
question we can take elsewhere.) To me, that means the U.S. is
"freer" and Europe is "less free." Where is the foolishness?
Note that I'm talking about individual freedoms in the "civil rights"
sense. Throw things like various social programs in, and a rather
different picture emerges.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In <slrna3ploi...@joan.burling.com>, on 01/10/2002
at 06:14 PM, llyw...@agora.rdrop.com (Geoff Burling) said:
>the Mann act -- which made it a crime to transport people across
>state lines for the express purpose of prostitution.
My understanding is that it didn't explicitly say prostitution but
used the vague wording "for immoral purposes".
David P. Murphy
> In other words, all states suck.
If they didn't, we'd all migrate to the good one, and then
there'd be no need for a monastery.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
systems programmer ftp://ftp.myths.com
mailto:d...@myths.com (personal)
COGITO ERGO DISCLAMO mailto:Murphy...@emc.com (work)
Matthew Crosby
J.D. Baldwin <baldwi...@panix.com> wrote:
>In the previous article, Mike Meredith at home <h...@port.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
>> particular freedom that Europeans tend to lack (the right to bear
>> arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
>> foolish.
>
>I don't know about that. Let's say there are N parameters of freedom,
>and the first N-1 are roughly equivalent between the two countries.
>In the remaining parameter (RTKBA), the U.S. is dramatically "freer"
>than Europe and the UK. (Whether this "freedom" is a good thing is a
>question we can take elsewhere.) To me, that means the U.S. is
>"freer" and Europe is "less free." Where is the foolishness?
Ah! But you are assuming that there are no N that apply to Europe but
not to the US. Ignoring social programs, things like right to privacy
(which _I_ consider a civil right), much looser drug laws (ok, only in
some of Europe, but even the UK has more or less decriminalised pot).
Women can go topless on most European beaches, is that a freedom? (A
certain percentage of "top-free" crowd in the US feels so, to the point
they litigated it to legality here in New York State). Is that a
freedom? I can drive any speed I want on the Autobahn, is that a
freedom? (even Montana no longer has "prudent and reasonable", and I
assume that everyone remembers the 55MPH everywhere speed limit). I
can buy cheese I want, is that a freedom? And the fact remains, I need
photo ID to do a lot more things in the US then I do in a lot of other
countries. Is that freedom? There's a suprisingly long list. The
problem with your argument is that you are taking the status quou in
America, and saying if America has it, it's a sign of freedom, if
America doesn't, it's not. That's just like Microsoft saying "Windows
95 is a better operating system then Unix because it has a button
labelled 'start', a registry and it runs Microsoft Word", and is just
as invalid an argument. More to the point, you are assuming a) that
there are no M freedoms that apply to other countrues and don't to the
US (which is quite obviously not true), and b) The US is equal to other
countries on all of those N, wheras I would also say that's not true.
Then there's how does one judge Freedom, but that's a HUGE argument.
(And btw, there are some measures, such as economic freedom, where
places like Hong Kong are generally consdiered to rank much higher then
the US).
Finally, there is the isse of de-facto freedom. The US is great on
de-joure freedoms which then get eroded de-facto. For example, there
is no government film ratings. But 99% of movies out there refuse
to show unrated movies, so de-facto, whether a movie can be seen or not
is at the whim of the MPAA, an un-elected quango. Americans seem to love
pointing to this and saying "ah, but they are not the government, ergo,
they can't opress us" which misses the point of reality. (And yeah,
I know you can buy unrated DVD's and the like, let's ignore that for
the sake of argument).
Robert A. Uhl
>
> Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
> particular freedom that Europeans tend to lack (the right to bear
> arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
> foolish.
Hence why I wrote that I have more of the freedoms I care more about
in the US than elsewhere. Others no doubt find that the UK, or
Australia, or France provide more of the freedoms _they_ care more
about.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
There is a strong tendency in the USA to equate democracy with freedom,
and to describe our system of government as a democracy. I consider
these commonly-believed fallacies two of the clearer failures of the
public school system (or successes, if you want to subscribe to paranoid
conspiracy theories). --Brandon Blackmoor
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>With the exception of bearing arms, the UK has freedom of speach
>(to an extent, probably roughly the extent to which you have it
>in the US), and trial by jury.
"No country with an Official Secrets Act has any business lecturing the US
on freedom." -- Tom Clancy
The US government is categorically prohibited from preventing publication of
anything that is not 1) classified in the name of national security and 2)
something the person proposing to publish it has been specifically advised
is so classified and that publication of which can lead to criminal
penalties. The UK can ban publication of anything it wishes, before the
fact. I do not consider that freedom of speech; it is only freedom of speech
that the government approves of.
>Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
>speach.
Horse exhaust. Any country that has a law prohibiting speech denying the
Holocaust does not have freedom of speech.
>Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
>particular freedom that Europeans tend to lack (the right to bear
>arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
>foolish.
However, when citing examples, it would be better for your argument to cite
examples that actually prove your point.
>> In other words, all states suck.
>Definitely.
This one I won't argue.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>(even Montana no longer has "prudent and reasonable", and I
>assume that everyone remembers the 55MPH everywhere speed limit).
I remember the 55 MPH limit all too well, unfortunately.
Montana no longer has "prudent and reasonable" because of another freedom
that that law infringed: It is a principle of American law that a person
must be able to determine unambiguously whether the conduct he is about to
engage in is legal or not. THe Montana limit failed that test, and so was
thrown out.
Matt Olson
> Montana no longer has "prudent and reasonable" because of another freedom
> that that law infringed: It is a principle of American law that a person
> must be able to determine unambiguously whether the conduct he is about to
> engage in is legal or not. THe Montana limit failed that test, and so was
> thrown out.
Technically, this applies to American tax law; objectively, it does
not.
All Nations Suck(tm).
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matt "rivethead" Olson, speaking for himself.
"A man said to the Universe: 'Sir, I exist!' / 'However,' replied the Universe,
'the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.'"
-- Stephen Crane
Jay Maynard
<andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> The US government is categorically prohibited from preventing publication of
>> anything that is not 1) classified in the name of national security and 2)
>> something the person proposing to publish it has been specifically advised
>> is so classified and that publication of which can lead to criminal
>> penalties.
The UK can limit things that do not pertain to national security, and has no
review mechanism.
><tinfoilhat>
>As in the usa. Anything the current gov does not approve of could
>easily be falsly classified, but you won't know that, because it is
>classified.
></tinfoilhat>
Not true. Things that may be embarrassing, but not related to national
security, cannot be classified.
>You either have complete freedom, or you are just pretending.
>I do not know of *any* country which has complete freedom of speech.
The US is closer to that ideal than any other country.
Mike Andrews
: I remember the 55 MPH limit all too well, unfortunately.
: Montana no longer has "prudent and reasonable" because of another freedom
: that that law infringed: It is a principle of American law that a person
: must be able to determine unambiguously whether the conduct he is about to
: engage in is legal or not. THe Montana limit failed that test, and so was
: thrown out.
Ooooohhhhh! That may open up one loophole, but close another, if
it establishes a nationwide precedent.
While one no longer has to drive at a speed that is "reasonable
and proper"[1], which may be considerably lower than the posted
limit, it _also_ means that the cop writing the ticket no longer
has to hand-write "in exess of reasonable and proper speed" on
each speeding ticket for it to be valid. Yes, people contested
them because the cop didn't write that in, and won.
[1] Using the Oklahoma statute's language.
--
The only sensible way to estimate the stability of a Windows
server is to power it down and try it out as a step ladder.
- Robert Crawford, in the Monastery
Mike Andrews
: The US government is categorically prohibited from preventing publication of
: anything that is not 1) classified in the name of national security and 2)
: something the person proposing to publish it has been specifically advised
: is so classified and that publication of which can lead to criminal
: penalties. The UK can ban publication of anything it wishes, before the
: fact. I do not consider that freedom of speech; it is only freedom of speech
: that the government approves of.
And the way the "D-notice" worked is that you were told, IIRC,
that you ought not to publish the thing and you couldn't tell
anyone else _why_ you didn't publish it. Censorship and gag order
in one small, neat, disgusting package.
:>Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
:>speach.
: Horse exhaust. Any country that has a law prohibiting speech denying the
: Holocaust does not have freedom of speech.
Nor does any country in which law prohibits the performance
of the musical and/or operatic works of Richard Wagner. And
_that_ prohibition has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the
survival of the nation.
And the sigmonster has its own comment on freedom of <foo> wherever:
--
From RFC 1925: "(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However,
this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead."
Alan J Rosenthal
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>My understanding is that it didn't explicitly say prostitution but
>used the vague wording "for immoral purposes".
Has a defense lawyer ever presented evidence arguing that prostitution is not
immoral?
-- aj "so long as you insist upon payment in advance" r
Alan J Rosenthal
>> Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have
>> freedom of speach.
>
>Try installing PGP on your home system in France,
Those regulations were all dissolved two or three years ago, n'est-ce pas?
Whereas the regulations against your telling _me_ about cryptography have only
been largely relaxed but not dissolved. Right?
The exact details aren't as important as the conclusion that these
various countries are all in the same ballpark. Every State teeters
upon the precarious balance between personal freedoms on the one hand,
and on the other hand the need for law and order as interpreted by vastly
wealthy tyrannical puppet masters who don't personally have to suffer the
consequences of their lunatic regulations.
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>With the exception of bearing arms, the UK has freedom of speach
>(to an extent, probably roughly the extent to which you have it
>in the US), and trial by jury.
>
>Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
>speach.
>
>Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
Trial by jury is a "freedom"? How does that work?
As far as I can tell, trial by jury is certainly no better a system than
the Napoleonic-derived ones in use here..
Jasper
David DeLaney
><andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org> wrote:
>><tinfoilhat>
>>As in the usa. Anything the current gov does not approve of could
>>easily be falsly classified, but you won't know that, because it is
>>classified.
>></tinfoilhat>
>
>Not true. Things that may be embarrassing, but not related to national
>security, cannot be classified.
Unless someone says they are, like the Precedent. Or an influential Senator.
Or some such. Once it's classified, you can't unclassify it without knowing
what it is, etc., etc., by which time it's too late.
Perhaps you mean 'cannot legally be classified', which is a whole different
kettle of carping...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Trial by jury is a "freedom"? How does that work?
> As far as I can tell, trial by jury is certainly no better a system than
> the Napoleonic-derived ones in use here..
We _had_ trial by Jury in India, till about the 1960s. Then, after a rather
embarassing fiasco in the so-called "Nanavati Case" (where the young wife of a
retired Indian naval officer teamed up with her boyfriend to murder her
husband, but the two were let off by a Jury for all the wrong reasons). After
that, god knows why, with common consent (judges and the bar association both)
decided to dispense with the entire idea of using a jury.
-srs
Jasper Janssen
>Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>: Horse exhaust. Any country that has a law prohibiting speech denying the
>: Holocaust does not have freedom of speech.
Mmyeah. Can I say, in the US, that All Dem Niggas and Djoos Are
Responsible For The Recession, We Should All Beat As Many Up As Possible?
I remember hearing some muttering about "hate speech" laws...
>Nor does any country in which law prohibits the performance
>of the musical and/or operatic works of Richard Wagner. And
>_that_ prohibition has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the
>survival of the nation.
Which country would that be, exactly?
"For over 50 years, there has been an informal ban on the public
performance of Wagner's works in Israel, although it is occasionally
played on Israeli state radio."
All the Googlies say that it is a custom/tradition, rather than law. If
you still feel this is better than in the US, I give you movie ratings.
Jasper
Charles Herbig
> In article <slrna3kps...@latakia.dyndns.org>,
> ru...@latakia.dyndns.org (Robert A. Uhl) writes:
>> policies (seatbelt laws, pasteurised cheese, raw eggs &c.) &c., but I
>> am willing to trade those for such things as arms-bearing, more free
>> speech than is common, trial by jury &c. Others no doubt draw the
> With the exception of bearing arms, the UK has freedom of speach
> (to an extent, probably roughly the extent to which you have it
> in the US), and trial by jury.
Well, I'm not too sure about that. I can call someone a murdering scumbag,
and if it's this guy happens to be a convicted murderer, there's nothing in
the world he can do since, in the U.S., the truth is a defense against slander
and libel. AFAIR, the U.K. still has problems with the truth in these cases.
The only exception I know of was a guy writing stuff that was sympathetic to
Nazis wasn't able to ruin a historian who called him on it.
Even better, you can't clobber me for saying completely outrageous shit unless
you can prove that a) I completely disregarded reality, and b) you can prove
that my statements caused you actual harm.
So, yes, I consider the U.S. to be more free WRT speech since it's a hell of a
lot easier to call a scumbag a scumbag.
> Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
> speach.
Suuuure, no trial by jury, and a less than monumental guarantee of freedom of
speech is much more free than the U.S.
To paraphrase someone whose name my beer-soaked brain can't be arsed to
recall, "Take all freedoms from me except freedom of speech, and I will regina
ll the rest."
> Freedom covers a very wide range of things, and picking on one
> particular freedom that Europeans tend to lack (the right to bear
> arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
> foolish.
Well, if it were only so limited, I might agree with you.
>> In other words, all states suck.
> Definitely.
But, of course, my State sucks less than yours!
--
Charles Herbig her...@cts.com
Strange Feline Consulting Cat-Herder Extraordinaire
Rev. Chas, Pope of the Temple of Occupied Mexico
Mike Andrews
: Jasper Janssen [alt.sysadmin.recovery] <Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:01:44 GMT>:
I've never understood why supposedly learned people are so often
willing to discard the baby along with the bathwater. And didn't
that decision require an election? It should have: it potentially
affected everyone in India.
--
" ... a language is just an dialect with an army and a navy."
-- Paul Tomblin, in a.s.r.
Mike Andrews
: X-No-Ahbou: yes
: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
:>My understanding is that it didn't explicitly say prostitution but
:>used the vague wording "for immoral purposes".
: Has a defense lawyer ever presented evidence arguing that prostitution is not
: immoral?
I don't see how evidence can be presented regarding a judgment of
value, and "immoral" is IMHO a definite judgment of value.
--
Canada's 4 seasons, of course, being Almost Winter, Winter, Still
Winter, and Construction.
-- Rob Chanter, in the Monastery
Jay Maynard
>Not really. Just say something that is considered to be politically
>incorrect, and see just HOW free you are in the US.
I'm perfectly free to say anything of the sort, and the government cannot
stop me or punish me for it.
>Or say something like "I want to kill the President" - or, as a more
>recent example showed, even something like "I'd like a couple of
>stamps without the american flag on them".
I'm not familiar with the second example...but the first falls into the
category of "death threat", and that is not protected speech - in any
country that I know of.
>Land of the free? You've got to be kidding...
People from .de *especially* have no business lecturing people from .us
about freedom of speech. Come back when you can legally deny the Holocaust
there. (Note that I do not consider that a Good Idea; it's just that the
only truly free method of dealing with that is to counter it with other
speech showing why the speaker is wrong.)
Olivier Galibert
> On 12 Jan 2002 14:30:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler <juergen....@web.de> wrote:
>>Or say something like "I want to kill the President" - or, as a more
>>recent example showed, even something like "I'd like a couple of
>>stamps without the american flag on them".
>
> I'm not familiar with the second example...but the first falls into the
> category of "death threat", and that is not protected speech - in any
> country that I know of.
http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc120801.html
ObTroll: In the US, you can say whatever you want, but never, ever
piss off a corporation.
OG.
Erwan David
> People from .de *especially* have no business lecturing people from .us
> about freedom of speech. Come back when you can legally deny the Holocaust
> there. (Note that I do not consider that a Good Idea; it's just that the
> only truly free method of dealing with that is to counter it with other
> speech showing why the speaker is wrong.)
Humm... can we say that a country in which it seems normal to have
military court without defender and without possibility of appeal to
be an ideal ?
--
Là je trouve les new où j'apprends que je suis un mouton et que les
loups sont aux aboits (?), il faut protéger mon PC mais je suis nul.
-+- LP in le Neuneu Pète un Câble : Un mouton au pays des PC -+-
Mike Meredith at home
Lionel <n...@alt.net> writes:
> Word has it that on Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:27:23 +0000, in this august
> forum, h...@port.ac.uk (Mike Meredith at home) said:
>
>>Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
>>speach.
>
> Arrgh! - The disease is spreading beyond America!
What? Were you under the impression that bad spellers only exist
in the US ? For the record it was just me being tired and sloppy
--- I prefer to spell it the right way.
Mike Meredith at home
It's an outdated Anglo-Saxon prejudice that certainly was a
freedom at the time. When the judiciary was the state (absolute
monarchies), trial by jury in theory prevented the state abusing
power.
Mike Meredith at home
Charles Herbig <her...@cts.com> writes:
> Well, I'm not too sure about that. I can call someone a murdering scumbag,
> and if it's this guy happens to be a convicted murderer, there's nothing in
> the world he can do since, in the U.S., the truth is a defense against slander
> and libel. AFAIR, the U.K. still has problems with the truth in these cases.
I've just googled for info, and it seems that "Fair comment" is a
legitimate defense for libel. Sounds like printing something that
is true can't be found to be libel (although I'm hardly an
expert).
Besides which, libel laws don't (in theory) restrict freedom of
speech --- you have to publish something (thus having you say)
beforehand.
>> Some parts of Europe lack trial by jury, but most (all?) have freedom of
>> speach.
>
> Suuuure, no trial by jury, and a less than monumental guarantee of freedom of
> speech is much more free than the U.S.
At no point did I say that Europe is more free than the US. I
merely pointed out that assuming that Europe is *less* free may
not be valid.
Ralph Wade Phillips
"Olivier Galibert" <gali...@zalem.puupuu.org> wrote in message
news:slrna40j8l....@zalem.puupuu.org...
> In article <slrna40ihg....@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
wrote:
> > On 12 Jan 2002 14:30:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler <juergen....@web.de>
wrote:
> >>Or say something like "I want to kill the President" - or, as a more
> >>recent example showed, even something like "I'd like a couple of
> >>stamps without the american flag on them".
The first became illegal after the Lincoln assasination. The second
isn't illegal - the local Rose Society ALWAYS asks for "Rose" stamps for
their mail. I also look for other items - I've been a flag waver all my
life, and I don't need to stick in on my mail.
Nor do I need to put a flag on my car, IMPROPERLY, to show my
"patriotic spirit". Bah.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the second example...but the first falls into the
> > category of "death threat", and that is not protected speech - in any
> > country that I know of.
>
> http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc120801.html
So - a once-time incidence becomes "you cannot"? Huh. I won't
comment on that save to say, "But, it WAS news - and that people can breath
isn't. Ponder carefully on the differences."
>
> ObTroll: In the US, you can say whatever you want, but never, ever
> piss off a corporation.
Depends on the size of it. NEVER piss off the lady that writes the
checks, nor the receptionist that handles your messages, though.
RwP
Mike Meredith at home
INVALID...@example.com (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>
> In the previous article, Mike Meredith at home <h...@port.ac.uk> wrote:
>> arms) to say that Europe is less free than the US is slightly
>> foolish.
Perhaps I should have said "considerably less free" there.
> I don't know about that. Let's say there are N parameters of freedom,
> and the first N-1 are roughly equivalent between the two countries.
> In the remaining parameter (RTKBA), the U.S. is dramatically "freer"
If N is reasonably large, then the RTBA (what's the K for
anyway?) parameter doesn't add significant value. If N is quite small
then yes it does.
Of course that's dependant on each N being equivalent in value
which I strongly doubt. Personally I doubt that RTBA has
significant value (and I'm not talking about other issues with
widespread gun ownership).
> "freer" and Europe is "less free." Where is the foolishness?
The foolishness is in *assuming* that Europe is significantly less
free than the US.
> sense. Throw things like various social programs in, and a rather
> different picture emerges.
Well some of them are a good idea, but they're hardly freedoms.
Alan J Rosenthal
>I can call someone a murdering scumbag,
>and if it's this guy happens to be a convicted murderer, there's nothing in
Fine, but suppose he ISN'T a convicted murderer?
The fact that he then has a legal recourse indicates that you don't have pure
freedom of speech in the USA.
And what about child pornography, for example? Aren't laws about that a
limitation on freedom of speech?
I'm not suggesting that child pornography should be legal, nor should libel,
nor hate speech, nor death threats, nor shouting IIS in a crowded machine room.
Quite to the contrary, I'm in fact suggesting that just about everyone
seems to agree that SOME limitation on freedom of speech is appropriate.
But it seems to be only Americans who furthermore proceed to argue that
that particular limitation on freedom of speech is somehow not "really"
a limitation on freedom of speech and you/we still have freedom of speech
even with that restriction.
I agree that once you start limiting freedom of speech, even in some really
restricted circumstances, then you open up quite a can of worms and all
sorts of nasty things may happen. However, I disagree that failing to limit
freedom of speech in some ways is an option, and I also disagree that it
is an option which the USA has taken.
Lionel <n...@alt.net> writes:
>jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) said:
>>"No country with an Official Secrets Act has any business lecturing the US
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>on freedom." -- Tom Clancy
>>
>>The US government is categorically prohibited from preventing publication of
>>anything that is not 1) classified in the name of national security and 2)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And the difference between thse two things would be what, exactly?
I think that most people posting in this thread don't realize that when things
are classified under the Official Secrets Act in the UK, they claim that they
ARE classified for reasons of national security. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Of course the classification often is for reason of embarrassment rather than
security, or other shadier purposes. I doubt that this differs in the US.
Remember that almost all of the people making these decisions are a bunch of
pointy-haired megalomaniacal control freaks, as I believe I posted yesterday.