The only province in North America not crippled by the recession is Alberta, and it has a government program that turns those who are unemployed into self-employed entrepreneurs (I know, because I took it).
I'm Albertan also. What is this program please? Got a link?
Re: Re: Re: Taxation without representation... Again...
I agree, and in an ideal world, this is the way it would be done.
This may be a bit unreasonable on my part, but I am an idealist. Putting up with this atrocious conduct is just painful, and we should NOT be expected to put up with it. They should not be able to get away with this.
They assume too much, and I'll boycott the whole shootin' match before I'll go their way.
I don't even like dancing. It's the principle of the thing.
It is the government's prerogative to raise taxes.
No. It's the government's job to do what we tell them to do (within reason, constitutionally constrained). There's lots of ways to fund that which don't include taxation (user fees, fines, donations, ...).
While I don't believe a tax on dancing is likely to incite insurrection ...
Were I a small businessman trying to keep a small tavern afloat, and they hit me with something as corrupt as this, I'd be looking to emigrate to somewhere more sensible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are not the global dictator.
You need a way to stop/limit child pornography, illegal drugs (or not?), organized economic crime, damaging or criminal trojan/virus creators/users etc. etc.
It seems to me there are, broadly speaking, two approaches. One is to let each country have its sovereignty and make its laws, or let countries enforce their laws within other countries' borders.
This question is what I'm thinking of too.
... though it still does seem somewhat questionable to think that the US government can bring criminal charges against a foreign company with no physical presence within the US.
I don't get this. There must be *some* way for a country to seek redress when someone outside their borders break their laws. Looking at this from the perspective of a systems geek, this seems very messy (no surprise there). Ideally, I'd see the solution like this:
- Some country notes that "someone" elsewhere is breaking its law (via the Internet).
- That country's "DoJ" contacts the authorities in that other country and requests they prosecute that "someone."
- If that second country finds that "someone" is breaking *their* law, they prosecute or extradite that "someone."
Why the !@#$ would the US DoJ (or any other country) want to do otherwise?
- Some Muslim country is offended that I have a cartoon of Muhammad on my wall (I don't, but just sayin' ...).
- My country responds that that is not illegal here.
- I'm not bothered, but that Muslim country and my country may need to discuss amongst themselves.
Sometimes this reads like they have to know just how much bullshit they're pulling...
Same here. I thought they might have gained a modicum of clue when they plead the Fifth, as stupid as that move was. Now, they're just digging a deeper and deeper hole, and handing the judge more and more ammo (or is it rope?).
Prenda, the slo-mo train wreck that just keeps on giving. Quite a show.
I'd like to think that law enforcement is above attempting such tricks, but unfortunately that might just be naive these days.
Yes, you are naive. There's nothing wrong with the time honoured practice by the police of lying to prospective perps. It doesn't hurt anyone as long as it doesn't try to act as evidence in court. They do it all the time to elicit information. Sometimes, suspects need to be threatened to cough up the truth. I see nothing wrong with that, as long as it's the truth they're after and it doesn't descend into physical torture.
A) rm is not going to cut it against forensic techniques
That's why we have encryption. As long as you're not in Britain, they don't get your encryption key.
B) after the subpoena arrives is too late. You can go to jail for destruction of evidence at that point.
That was just a suggested course. There's far sneakier ways to implement it. "Your honour, I didn't even login that day. How could I have destroyed evidence?" Well, via a cron shell script that checks whether you've "touch"ed that file less than 24 hr. ago and if not, deletes it.
Besides, it's abundantly clear that judges and juries are utterly clueless about technical computing gibberish like this. Good luck educating that imbecile IQ level jury you picked, Mr. Prosecutor.