Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Canada vs US: Race for the stupidest interpretation for a serious crime
Posts
I also like the French approach where they have 2 classes of alcohol and you can legally buy beer/wine/cider etc. at a younger age than you can spirits.
Texas actually doesn't require you to be in your residence, just under the supervision of your parents.
It's negligence. Whether it's a kid breaking into their pop's wine cabinet or two siblings having consensual sex, if the parents know about it, they should put a stop to it. The guy who lost his kid to a hard lemonade should have checked the label on the bottle.
Giving a Mike's Hard Lemonade is reasonable grounds for a child to be taken away from their parents due to negligence? You are seriously agreeing with this?
Said friend had made a pitcher of screwdrivers when friends were over the night before and her daughter poured herself an OJ from the pitcher instead of the OJ bottle.
"This OJ tastes funny" was when she realized her what her daughter was drinking
I don't know what the punishment should be but there should be a punishment. The guy didn't intend to give alcohol to his kid but that doesn't let him entirely off the hook - he neglected to read the label on the bottle. Raising your hands and saying, "I didn't know!" isn't acceptable.
What if I wanted to be the cool uncle who lets his twelve year old nephew and his friends drink vodka on a camping trip? When the police show up and find intoxicated tweens, could I say I didn't know vodka contained alcohol? I just thought it was a funny-sounding beverage. Let me go, officers, and it'll never happen again!
Because trying to claim you didn't know Vodka has alchohol in it is totally the same as not being familiar with what amounts to a semi-obscure wine cooler that is labeled as lemonade.
Those are totally the same thing.
Let me find a picture of a Mike's Hard Lemonade. If the label doesn't do a good job of identifying itself as an alcoholic beverage, I'll change my mind and support the dad.
EDIT: OK, I'm on the Dad's side. Those labels were terrible.
Really? I was raised in a teetotalling household, and I knew somewhere around the age of 12 that "hard cider" and "hard lemonade" were alcoholic. How naive is this dad?
If the guy didn't frequent the bars very often and is as capable of tuning out commercials as I am I could totally see it.
It's really not that hard to imagine a scenario in which someone doesn't know mikes hard lemonade is alcoholic.
If an adult gave a seven year old an unopened pack of cigarettes because they honestly thought is was a box of mints, would you give them a pass?
http://www.pitara.com/news/news_world/online.asp?story=1
On top of which what does a hypothetical about a parent mistaking an unopened pack of cigarettes for a box of mints have to do with anything?
Makes perfect sense.
I'm pretty sure they'd catch on when the 'mints' have the consistency of mowed grass and cause vomiting.
In all honesty, the point I was trying to make with the '16 should be the legal drinking age' is that it is in developed countries (for beer and wine, at least), it is. I think the US has a thing with keeping young adults in a state of perpetual adolescence. What better way to mature than to find out 'I was drunk' or 'I wasn't thinking' is not a good excuse for ANYTHING?
What's more baffling is why you're ready to give teenagers/young adults the keys to a ton of propelled steel 3 to 5 years before they are supposed to be legally familiar with the effects of alcohol.
.... I blame this thinking on my German expat dad.
A girl in an old class of mine didn't even know cider could be alcoholic.
So we went out drinking, and she was well below her '8 shot limit' when she realized it was really, really hard to stay away from the ground.
Also, as was previously mentioned, I would hate to work for CPS. They can't know this was a mistake right off the bat. It's in a public place, etc., so they have to do something. Either way they're going to get criticized, so they may as well go farther and cover themselves.
The fact that "hard" is there is in no way inherently indicative of alchohol. If one were not familiar with the term as it applies to cider or lemonade it could reasonably be interpreted as simply a reference to the flavor of the lemonade. Which is kind of the point.
I absolutely agree that working for CPS is an incredibly tough job. The thing is "it's a tough job" is not a valid excuse for making a mistake. It's a good explination and makes why the mistake happened more understandable. It's still a mistake.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to ask about foods and drinks that have unfamiliar adjectives in them. I suppose that's an advantage of being moderately apprehensive of foods/drinks I've never heard of before. I really think it would be silly to think it was a reference to the flavor. What flavor would that even be? If there's an adjective you don't get, ask questions. It's there for a reason.
True. I wasn't implying it wasn't a mistake. I can just see why it can happen when you're in a situation dealing with the welfare of children.
Pepsi Max
Pepsi Kick
Gatorade- G2, Be Tough, Bring it, No Excuses
7up plus
a ton of root beer names
(etc)
"hard" lemonade can be easily mistaken for typical branding by corporate marketing looking to "punch up" thier product to grab the eye
also if you're not familiar with lemonade, perhaps lemonade could be served hard- carbonated, or more syrup, more/less sugar - and soft, which would be flat or have different levels of sugar or whatever
why am I making this argument
The more I think about it the more I wonder if I can somehow find a way to blame the entire situation on retarded marketing departments
Re criminalisation of child pornography - of course it's a crime. Even if you make the incredible stretch of believing that demand doesn't drive supply and that this stuff is shared freely, folks who possess it are still complicit in child abuse. They have evidence of a child being abused, possibly know who did it and know that it is going on. Obviously there are going to be innocent people who come across this stuff by accident, but intentional possession is a crime.
Whether Canada is particularly draconian about this, I don't think so. I read a child pornography case once and the accused was treated pretty tamely. Court made a distinction between downloaded files and files in the cache, made it clear that the Crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was under 18 or could reasonably be mistaken for someone under 18: R. v. Garbett (though the whole thing is pretty dumb - the image all of the fuss about had an address for a website, which presumably they could have easily followed-up on).
Oh, and the general fucked-up tendencies of prosecutors? I'm glad the rule here is:
Ok thats fucking insane, pretty much every teenager is guilty of this. Wont somebody please lock up the children???
The problem is that the way things work you're a criminal from just surfing 4chan. You have to asplode your disk with HDDErase* or some such program if you've ever frequented that site at length, because as we see in the OP they are being incredibly blind about this.
In any case, the bolded is the important part; intent is key and it is very obvious that someone who deletes it immediately and didn't actually search for it had no such intent, same thing if it was just in your cache.
* = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.
I don't think you're going to even show up on their radar if you stumble across a single picture . . . but maybe I'm completely ignorant to how all of this works and how much information an IP address contains or the information that is stored on a server you are connected to :shrug:
Man, it's best to assume that regardless of what tool you use to delete the shit, they have a better tool to recover it. Basically, they've got the NSA on speed dial...do you feel confident that you can out-do the NSA?
Delete the shit you don't want found, copy the rest to a new hard drive (only the logical data will go, obviously, leaving all the old physical traces behind), then destroy the old hard drive. Then scatter the pieces. Far and wide.
Oh, and somebody touched on it but regarding Mike's Hard Lemonade I'd say the bulk of the Mountain Dew family of drinks (there are like a dozen now, no?) sounds no more or less alcoholic than Mike's. I'd like to think that somebody would take a gander at the label and notice the "X% alcohol by volume" portion, but then if you think it's just bottled lemonade (of which there are several brands) then why would you?
It's one of those things that I think it incredibly stupid, and can't imagine myself doing (but probably only because I'm so familiar with teh drinkin'), but at that same time I know there are probably a dozen equally stupid things I can imagine myself doing.
I'd like to think so too, but I can see them busting you for downloading just once from a monitored source. I mean, they have no problem busting a John who may well be on his first and only visit to a hooker, no? Conviction's a conviction.
I'm just saying that if someone were to post something on these forums right now, the chance that anyone who innocently saw it (i.e. downloaded it automatically into their cache) would even register any kind of usable evidence, anywhere, is vanishingly small. I think you have to do something more than merely be the victim of a horrible RickRoll to even stand a chance of being investigated.
I'm pretty sure there was an incident where someone posted anonymous links to websites which they knew were being monitored. I'm pretty sure it probably happened on 4chan.
This is fucking obvious.
I love how you are suggesting that you took a kid from his family solely to cover your own asses.
You are really inspiring confidence in the CPS here....
This news story says otherwise.
You know dude, hiding a NSFW flagged website behind an innocuous link might get someone fired
I'd advise you both to remove that link, dudes.
My point was supposed to be that it's very easy to run afoul of laws through no fault of your own. I guess I did that too well. My bad.
Edit: That is not to say that I wasn't at fault, but that anybody clicking wouldn't be at fault. That link could be any hostile place on the net. I just didn't think it was so hostile. Again sorry.
Editx2: Checking rules seems to indicate nothing special about that site, but I'll err on the side of caution anyhow.
The DoD standard is three passes of random data written to the disk, although with the magnetic density of today's perpendicular-recording hard drives, one pass would be sufficient. You will, however, need to erase the entire disk, or bits of files might remain in the file system journal or Windows System Restore or something.
I thought DoD standard required the drive physically destroyed for Top Secret data no matter what? As far as I know recovering stuff from even a zeroed-disk these days is getting pretty impossible due to the densities though. Just not enough uncertainty allowed in the position of the magnetic writes.
I was referring for the standards for FOUO stuff like social security numbers, the standards for Top Secret or higher require them to physically destroy things like photocopiers and shredders, too.
regardless, while an electron microscope would maybe have recovered something from a zeroed disk back when a platter held fifty megabytes, it would be a bit of a stretch nowadays.