Slashdot Mirror

Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world.

You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.

I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs

Does your absolute, unconditional version of "free speech" exist _anywhere_ in the known universe?

Yep. It's right there, in black and white. Notice the part that says, "no law..."? That's as absolute as it gets. None of the annotations are in the amendment. What has been written is very specific and not open to interpretation. But arguing with a gun is senseless. Wikipedia is not the constitution. If you want restrictions, then WRITE them in. Don't just change the scope of the meaning to suit your desires.

Well the real bitch of the create more jobs is the fact that businesses aren't held liable by their home nation for what they do overseas. If all of the trade nations got together and agreed to hold companies based in their lands liable for acts they commit elsewhere, and agree to only do business with nations that do that, we would be in alot better shape. No more Union Carbides and such

Actuaklly there is a way for foreigners to hold US businesses accountable though not many know about it, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, and it has and is being used. In Colombia groups have filed lawsuits against Coke in US courts for supporting the paramilitary and death squads. In Indonesia, people have sued Exxon for supporting military units that torture people. Now, that I know of the act has not been used against Union Carbide, which I'd imagine is the perfect case to be used in.

You might never know, period.

Calling it a monopoly would be akin to calling ANY BUSINESS a monoploy as you can only buy their product from them.

You seem to have quite a bee in your bonnet on this one. Whenever I get the urge to write in all caps, I go for a walk. Maybe you should try that.

The poster I was responding to was suggesting that CDs are like any other commodity. They aren't. You don't go buy a pound of CDs in the same way you buy a pound of butter. As I explained elsewhere, they're still somewhat subject to supply and demand, but not to the same extent commodity suppliers are.

As to the word "monopoly", you're basically wrong. As experts say in obvious places, copyrights, patents, and trademarks are all government-granted limited monopolies. That a monopoly is limited doesn't make it less a monopoly. If I have a monopoly on the world's beef, people can and will substitute chicken, but that doesn't mean I don't have a monopoly.

Yes, modern businesses make extensive use of these, but that's precisely because they're monopolies, and monopolies allow greater profit than commodities. I'm not even saying that's bad; there's a useful purpose behind all of them. I'm just saying that you can't think about the CD market in the same way you think about the butter market. Butter is pretty much butter, but Madonna is not pretty much Weird Al.

Most other countries have the Copyright on recordings go into public domain about 50 to 90 years

Currently. And that's longer than it once was. There are a lot of people with a lot of money working to change that. Remember, I said, "in practice, eternal." The question is, will we let them?

http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2 007/c050766.html

Actually, check out the fourth clause to the 14th amendment (popup alert!). Even if there was an issue with the budget of previous years, we're not even supposed to ask about it. There's probably even a law about citizens begging to know what's in the upcoming budget that makes it so danged expensive to run a democracy.

Want some more info from some guys who have done some digging? How about a true history of the American financial system?
Or just about anything on this page is enough to help give an American a reason to get pretty dang pissed off.

But enough of the tangent, yeah, the prez really does have the congressionally appointed and judicially backed power to do just what you say, even if it is intended to be a little sarcastic.

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a variety of court decisions give various powers to the federal government while others are reserved to the states or to the individual.

There is neither specification in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights for anything like the Real ID. States have any rights of that nature. There also is no precedent to give the Federal government anything like a Real ID authority.

So a constitutional amendment would be required to enact Real ID. That won't happen. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will throw out the federal government's attempts to enforce a Real ID and will affirm the various states' exclusive rights.

Only if this were true, however the USSC has already shown it will allow the feds to do whatever it wants so long as the government can twist it around and say it's all about interstate commerce. The feds used the interstate commerce clause when arguing before the USSC in the GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al case dealing with medical marijuana in CA and the USSC Justices agreed.

The summary left out the most important tidbit of information in this case: The police did not have a warrant for their actions.

Warrantless use of electronic surveillance to track movement is not new, and was upheld by SCOTUS in United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Read it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=case&court=us&vol=460&page=276 GPS is a new technological twist on binding precedent now more than two decades old.

In ProCD, who is the contract between, exactly? Do you have links to those two cases?

ProCD didn't really explore who the contract was between, but it was between the software publisher and the user. The precise nature of the retailer's involvement wasn't an issue in the case, so it wasn't looked into.

ProCD is here and Klocek is here.

Except that you don't need permission to run the software from the publisher, because 17 USC 116 says you can anyway.

You mean section 117.

ProCD was interesting anyway, because it actually dealt with public domain information -- telephone numbers -- rather than copyrightable software per se.

Your objection is interesting, but AFAIK no one's actually made it in court.

Apparently, he was convicted of a misdemeanor. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.6-42 2.95.html

Why run? He has been a fujitive for years? The worst he could get was a year in jail (bad) or a $5000 fine (bad, but doable, and probable). By running, he is now worse off than he was before.

Really, if he were to be somehow damaged by some so-called cult members, wouldn't that have happened by now? Did he really have anything to fear? Perhaps he confused Scientology with some other world religion that has an issue with critics and goes after their critics in a more, shall we say, personal way.

I think the Church of Scientology should drop the charges. Problem is -- they can drop the charges, but he is still guilty of running away from the Law. Say what you want about Scientology, you cannot screw with the Law.

I don't know if this is "any publicity is good publicity" or if its besmirching a firms good name. If the story and the facts are true, its not libel, but would you post as an AC?

Kris Hansen
Vice President, Sales

Kris Hansen is vice president of sales for The Planet. He is charged with consolidating and growing the sales force, while increasing revenue through new and existing channels. Hansen has an extensive track record of selling IT solutions to Fortune 500 and smaller markets, producing sales growth, driving new customer acquisitions, securing alliances, and leading and training sales teams.

He previously served as vice president of sales for the Western United States at Fiberlink Communications, a provider of secure policy enforcement software and managed security services. Hansen led business development activities, built new sales teams, and turned around under-performing territories. He drove revenue growth of the young enterprise organization from an $11 million telco model company into an $80 million organization providing software as a service, in less than five years. He holds a bachelors degree in business administration from Texas A&M University.

Joseph E. Horzepa, Esq.
General Counsel

Joseph E. Horzepa joined The Planet in 2006 and serves as its general counsel. He brings to the company a proven record of helping companies manage growth through the mergers and acquisitions process. Horzepa has extensive experience in financings, capital markets transactions, technology licensing, corporate governance and employment matters. Prior to joining The Planet, he was a founding partner with Horzepa Spiegel & Associates, a private firm specializing in corporate law. Prior experience includes service as general counsel for a number of emerging private companies in high-tech markets, including PentaSafe Security Technologies Inc., BBS Technologies Inc. and Paymetric Inc. Horzepa graduated cum laude from Brooklyn Law School and earned dual B.A. degrees in history and government from Wesleyan University. He is licensed to practice law in Texas and New York.

Looking these individuals up shows a particularly interesting "fact": J. E. Horzepa's address is
"666 Main St"? http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2176661_1
I can't think of any municipal planner of public businessman who would allow that address. Lawyers have a hard enough time with their image...

As an AAPL stockholder, I'd prefer to let Steve Jobs decide the timing of announcing new products, not some Web site trying to sell banner ads, claiming free speech.

Funny how the same /. crowd that though it was OK to have bloggers register with the US Government now become First Amendment absolutists when the law negatively impacts the intellectual property of the patent holder on AAC.

Now, go ahead and mod down that with which you disagree...

17 USC 1201(f) (DMCA)

Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

So it looks like if Alex DOES get sued he has a pretty plausible defense. I.e, he's getting code to run in kernel-mode so that he can get FOSS projects to work properly w/o having signed drivers. Granted if he gets sued he'll have to tell it to the judge whilst a well trained lawyer is saying exactly the opposite.

Sorry it took so long to drag this up, I knew I'd read it somewhere, but I didn't think to look in my Criminal Law notes until I did a search of my whole hard drive. The case is Cheek v. United States (1991) 498 US 192.

The basic facts of the case are this: Cheek was an airline pilot and a tax protester. He refused to pay income taxes on his wages from American Airlines because he believed that the 16th amendment did not apply to wage income (among other arguments, but this is the issue that we are discussing here). The IRS charged him with felony tax evasion and the case got all the way up to the supreme court. The particular issue is that of the mental state of a criminal defendant, but no court at any point during the process thought his substantive argument was anything less than frivolous. That said, here is the most on point quotation I could find in the case:

"Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. Such a submission is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position. " 498 US at 202.

Footnote 7 to Cheek reprints the seventh circuit's position on anti-income tax arguments:

The opinion stated, 882 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269, n. 2 (CA7 1989), as follows: "For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered `objectively reasonable' in this circuit: "(1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified, and therefore never came into being; "(2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally; "(3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment; "(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional; [498 U.S. 192, 199] "(5) the belief that wages are not income, and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws; "(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and "(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."

The theory is that even when US citizens are outside the country, they are still enjoying the privileges of citizenship, such as the fact that the US would help if they got into trouble, etc.

That is an old interpretation of the 16th amendment. The current Supreme Court interpretation "income" is in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (348 US 426) Which states that "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" are properly taxable by the Federal government. The IRS as adopted this definition in the tax code ( 61(a)). In plain terms this means "income" is anything that the government has not expressly exempted from taxation.

You may argue that this was not the original intent of the 16th amendment, and who knows you may be right, but it is the current constitutional interpretation of it by the United States Supreme Court.

In the US, [income] taxes are unconstitutional for any reasonable interpretation of the constitution.

Prior to 1913 you would be correct; however, quoting the 16th amendment to the US Constituition, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Meh, legal action... for communicating.. right. Sounds like a great world you're advocating there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241460.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ec omm/index_en.htm

Have you been living in a barn for the past 160 years?

I'll just make a couple last general points and leave it at that. (I'll leave you the last word, if you choose.)

Addressing the specific claim that, if a detainee is not a POW, then they must either be charged with a crime or released, consider this:

In Ex parte Quirin (1942), the Supreme Court held: "Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention ..." It then goes on to say that unlawful combatants are *additionally* subject to trial and punishment for war crimes or other crimes. It is not the case that, if the military fails to try them, they must be released. They can simply be detained. There is certainly no mechanism where, should the military be slow to try them, they are suddenly no longer subject to detention.

Also, addressing the specific claim that the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" was made up recently by the Bush administration for nefarious purposes, here we have in this decision from way back in 1942 that the Supreme Court recognizes a distinction between "lawful combatants" and "unlawful combatants".

One other interesting bit from this ruling, if there is any substance to making a distinction between "file" and "grant": "The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=CASE&court=US&vol=317&page=1

Please note, I am not arguing that al Qaeda detainees in Gitmo are exactly equivalent in all legally relevant respects to the defendants in this Supreme Court case or the other one a mentioned. I am simply arguing that these exceptions to the writ of habeas corpus do exist. Whether or not they should apply to Gitmo detainees, that is a very good question. But all I am arguing for the moment is that the grand, sweeping claims of Bush critics are wrong as a matter of law, and their conclusion that the Bush administration is acting in bad faith is unsupported by the facts.

There certainly is a legal contraversy to be hashed out. But to accuse the Bush administration of being lousy with crypto-fascists does not advance the debate at all.

elected politicians have only the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution, period

Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard!

I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.

May I recommend starting with the IRS.

You may, but it would be stupid to do so:

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Here's a bit of what the Supreme Court thinks the right of habeas corpus means:

The right to a writ of habeas corpus is certainly not granted to anyone detained by American forces anywhere for any reason.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=339&invol=763 [findlaw.com]

The Supreme Court ruled, in JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), that "These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States"

Here's a bit more:

Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian. Held:

1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 768-777.

[...]

Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security

[...]

The term "any person" in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us.

The right to a writ of habeas corpus is certainly not granted to anyone detained by American forces anywhere for any reason. Here's one such exception:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=339&invol=763 [findlaw.com]

The Supreme Court ruled, in JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), that "These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States"

Here's a bit more:

Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian. Held:

1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 768-777.

[...]

Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security

[...]

The term "any person" in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us.

The right to a writ of habeas corpus is certainly not granted to anyone detained by American forces anywhere for any reason. Here's one such exception:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=339&invol=763

The Supreme Court ruled, in JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), that "These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States"

Here's a bit more:

Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian. Held:

1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 768-777.

[...]

Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security

[...]

The term "any person" in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us.

Where's the censorship? Registering as a lobbyist sure as HELL doesn't restrict access or speech. All it does is label you as what you are. That's like saying states that ask for party identification when you register to vote are keeping you from voting.

Actually requiring registration for political speech is a violation of free speech. The UCCS Justices have ruled as far back as the early 1800s anonymousity is an importnat part of political speech, that if a person couldn't speak while remaining anonymous then they couldn't enjoy free speech. As one court ruled: ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . . . Here's a search of Findlaw on "anonymous speech" "first amendment". Most of them are comments or editorials, but some have USSC rulings.

Where's the censorship? Registering as a lobbyist sure as HELL doesn't restrict access or speech. All it does is label you as what you are. That's like saying states that ask for party identification when you register to vote are keeping you from voting.

Actually requiring registration for political speech is a violation of free speech. The UCCS Justices have ruled as far back as the early 1800s anonymousity is an importnat part of political speech, that if a person couldn't speak while remaining anonymous then they couldn't enjoy free speech. As one court ruled: ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . . . Here's a search of Findlaw on "anonymous speech" "first amendment". Most of them are comments or editorials, but some have USSC rulings.

A misplaced comma in a contract can give rise to a lawsuit. See, e.g., Crandon v. U.S., 494 U.S. 152, 110 S. Ct. 997, 108 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1990).

He lost? The US supreme court generally frowned on junk mail, see Rowan v Post Office

I once tried to sign up for phone service and they asked for my SSN, I gave it to them then they asked if my name was some other person's name. They had pulled a credit report using only the SSN and got the wrong one. I don't know if they mistyped it or someone actually used my SSN. I was so surprised I basically told them to fuck off and went with another company. In retrospect I should have immediately demanded an adverse action notice under the FCRA, so they would have to tell me what they found. (You have a legal right to do that.) But I didn't think of it at the time. I will do that in the future if something like that ever happens again, but so far it hasn't.

I can't judge the rest of your post, but this isn't quite true. The US federal government can exercise power over local gambling when it chooses. This is why sports betting is banned in 49 states by the federal government, although they allow sports betting in Nevada.

http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/ebl/20060213/20 060213lin.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590807.stm

Am I crazy?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?f riend=nytimes&court=us&vol=118&invol=394

If we are to remain free, we should be able to criticize the government WITHOUT revealing our identity.

The USSC, US Supreme Court has ruled that free anonymous speech is essential for democracy and is protected byt the First Admendment's Free Speech clause. Here's a PDF that names some of the cases ruled on.

Bush said this BEFORE he got caught doing wiretaps without warrants. I agree, wiretaps DO require warrants, but Bush has claimed that he doesn't need them (the quote in the parent post not withstanding) and he authorized a program of domestic spying without warrants. If you don't recall this, you are woefully uninformed.

Since you think the "liberal media" may be lying to you, how about a court decision regarding the program? The first TWO SENTENCES reveal that 1. the program exists and 2. the administration does not dispute that is exists. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/do cs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf [pdf link]

People that ignore facts on the basis that they were reported by the "liberal media" confuse me. About 2 seconds of research are all that is required to confirm much of this stuff. If you ignore facts because they came from the "liberal media" you are part of the problem; people in power can sit back and do what they like realizing that you are going to take what they say at face value and not take advantage of the resources at your disposal (the media) to see that they are lying.

Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple. You don't even need the media, the government's own documents the lie.

I was about to Google the law in California, out of personal curiosity, as to the rules of ownership of a copyright for works produced under certain employment circumstances. I found a very good article on Ownership of Copyrights, but sorting out who is right was giving me a headache.

I suspect the officer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on--but answering that question is going to require a peek at his employment contract, the work that was done, the other compensation or tools provided: in short, it's going to require lawyers and courts and judges to sort it out. Which is, sadly, the primary reason why we have lawyers, courts and judges.

Works Made by Employees A work created by an employee within the scope of his or her employment is a work made for hire. The employer for whom the work is made is the "author" of the work for copyright purposes and is the owner of the work's copyright (unless the employee and employer have agreed otherwise).

Example: As part of his job, John, an employee of Big Co.'s training division, created a training film using Big Co.'s facilities. Even though John created the film, Big Co. is the author for copyright purposes. Big Co. owns the copyright in the film (unless John and Big Co. have agreed in a signed contract that John owns the copyright).

The work made for hire rule does not give employers ownership of works made by employees outside the scope of their employment.

Example: Darryl, an engineer at Productions, Inc., wrote the script for Productions' newest multimedia work on his own initiative on weekends. Because Darryl did not write the script within the scope of his employment, the work made for hire rule does not apply. If Productions wants ownership of the copyright in the script, it must get an "assignment" (discussed in "Assignments," later in this chapter) from Darryl.

I guess Intel learned its lesson from its Intergraph experience. Here was a company that was brought back in business via its win against Intel in a IP suit: http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/13/132730.html

  little digging on our own part turned up ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986, which the American National Standards Institute adopted for home coffee makers. Standard 5.2.1 provides:

On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170 degrees F and 205 degrees F (77 degrees C and 96 degrees C).

The upper finished brew temperature limit assures that the coffee does not reach the boiling point which can affect the taste and aroma. The lower temperature limit assures generally acceptable drinking temperature when pouring into a cold cup, adding cream, sugar and spoon.

Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, unlawfully secretes, destroys, detains, delays, or opens any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail entrusted to him or which shall come into his possession, and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered by any carrier or other employee of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or the Postal Service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

3. Profit?

Show me [a law that applied retroactively] that was passed and executed and still stands up to judicial review.

Just one.

Ok. Tax laws changed after a house was sold changes taxes owed on house sale retroactively:

decision here

My car was searched, my phone lines are tapped, and I do own a gun, yet I never hired a lawyer to protect myself and I never did anything wrong.

You didn't answer any of the questions. This is your logic. And according to it you must be a terrorist-serial-killer with a side job as a drug runner. After all, comrade, the police don't pull over innocent citizens to search their cars!

Orion Blastar is a nickname and it is tied to my real name via paper trails and even things on the Internet.

Yeah, I checked out some of your other sites on the internet. And from them I'm getting the distinct idea you're about 16. So you're too young to legally own a gun.

Usually one hires a lawyer after they get sued or charged with a crime. So what is Jobs being sued over and what crime is he charged with? Can't answer that? Maybe you are the one with FUD here?

How does my inability to answer a question spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt about Steve Jobs? Do you even know what FUD is?

Steve Jobs may have one lawyer speaking for him right now, but Jobs and Apple have an army of lawyers on retainer.

Please remember that "Steve Jobs" and "Apple Computer, Inc." are separate entities. Therefore I was correct. "Steve Jobs" does not have an army of lawyers, as you stated.

I know that because they used them to sue the Bejesus out of Microsoft, and they used them to defend them from a Xerox lawsuit.

You're basing an assumption Apple has lawyers on retainer on two events that occured, what, ten years apart? I'm not disputing that Apple has lawyers on retainer but to base this on just these two cases is dumb.

Are you saying that Jobs and Apple only have one lawyer on retainer that handles everything for them?

No, you're just putting words in my mouth now. I have only stated so far that Steve Jobs has seeked the counsel of a single lawyer, not "an army" of them. I am sure Apple Computer has multiple lawyers, though. Also, Jobs just recently sought the services of this lawyer, as TFA says. So the lawyer is certainly not on retainer. I'll link that since you don't seem to know what the phrase means.

What FUD are you spreading now?

Once again, your accusation does not fit anything I have said. Your original post suggested the only reason Jobs would need a lawyer is because he was guilty, creating fear he might be in legal trouble. Then, you suggested that if some financial documents were falsified that others maybe too, this created uncertainty into the accounting of Apple Computer as a whole. Then you compared Apple Computer to a famous example of a corrupt corporation, trying to make people doubt whether Apple computer really had turned their fortunes around as it looked like they had on paper these last six years. The only one who has spreading FUD here is you.

Gee, Apple gave more money to executives than they should have, now where do you suppose that money came from

The money came from stock options. There's no "extra money being given to executives" to hide. What we are seeing here is what is known as a "Long Call" scenario for Stock Options. The date the stock options are granted the price is frozen so to speak at those levels. So later on, after the price has risen a considerable amount the executive can buy a bunch of stock at it's original, lower price, and reap a huge profit. It appears what happened here was the date of option granting was changed so it appears the share price was lower than what it actually was when they were granted. Any actual money would have come from selling the stock after buying it

...backdating stock options??

oh wait...

IANAL, but something about this tells me that a decent lawyer could find something to get this evidence dismissed against both parties due to improper police handling of evidence.

A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. ... And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, ... it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule's protections.

There are various laws in various places concerning what kind of permission is necessary before publishing photos depicting identifiable people. Many of them concern advertising only but some, Canada is maybe the most clear cut, cover anything that is published. Also if you read the TOS of most photo sharing sites you'll find that they require permission from everyone in the shot before it can be uploaded even if that is almost impossible to police.

But regardless of the laws, information wants to be free, or however the saying goes. I put up a photo of you withouy your cosent and by the time I get the order to take it down the facial search engines have crawled and cataloged it.

Interesting information. I knew about the older ruling but had forgotten. There was also the matter of Roe v Wade wherein the supreme court held an inherent right to privacy.

I doubt most people have ever heard of any Supreme Court rulings, other than Roe v Wade. I only found out about the SC ruling in the 1800s after searching through Findlaw. When I did I also found other cases on privacy, one in the 1880, one in 1892 or '93, one in the 1950s, and another one in 1968 or '69. The SC used the '68 or '69 ruling in Roe v Wade if I recall right. I now find that I wish I had saved those cases because it takes a while before I can find them again when I get into discussions on privacy. I do save them now just so I can easily find them again, I'll have them locally.

In case you're wondering like me why this wasn't already against the law, I looked it up and the relevant section of US code appears to apply only to bills and banknotes. I guess this also explains why those tourist-trap penny presses are also still around.

So far Dean has elected not to name and shame this business owner.