Slashdot Mirror

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

What surprises me is: how can a country "of the free" have a property tax on a swiming pool?
At least that is what I get from your and other posts.
The only simple explanation I see is, the tax is based on the 'value' of the areal, which might be higher if there is a pool.

Yes, you've got it right. They tax the value of the property, which is supposedly higher if you put in the pool; at the very least that would trigger a revaluation in some jurisdictions. The same would happen if you added on a porch or a new wing. There is no "porch" or "new wing" tax, just a tax on the value of the property.

I don't know what it is you got from my other posts. I don't make the law, I'm just reporting what it is, which I've learned by taking a couple of night classes in IT related law that I took to keep up with new developments that might affect my work. Most of this stuff isn't new, however. The "open fields doctrine" dates back to 1924. The ruling that surveillance from the air does not violate the 4th Amendment dates from 1989 (Florida v Riley).

Unlike Switzerland, though, the US doesn't have much in the way of official laws that deal with such political reorganization and redrawing of political boundaries

Not quite true. It doesn't come up much, but Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution directly addresses this:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

So essentially if you want to change the territory of a US state, you have to get the agreement of Congress and the legislatures of all the states involved.

There's no such thing as a right not to be offended. Both of these run counter to freedom of speech.

...aaaand SCOTUS disagrees with your blanket statement. When you threaten someone, you lose all first amendment rights.

Have some kind of deep-seeded hatred towards (women, brown people, "others")? Try growing up a little bit.

Or not; the world will move on without you, regardless.

I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a "credible" vs. non-credible death threat. Specific details?

Perhaps you were looking for a legal definition of the term?

As Ms Sarkeesian lives in California, State Penal Code Section 422 would apply:

(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

It's more of a historical note than anything. Britain had classes, such as royalty and commoners.

In the US, we are all considered equal under the law.
More info here.

Fortunately for the GP, the odds are pretty high that any jury would have a few people burned by the telecoms industry.

> IANAL

If you were a lawyer, you might start by reading the law (statute).
  102 . Subject matter of copyright: In general ...
  b) In no case does copyright protection ... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery
from http://www.copyright.gov/title...

Also 499 U.S. 340, 345 "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates."

If the wording of the statutes are unclear, you would look at how the court has interpreted it. Feist v Rural was a Supreme Court case in which someone made an unauthorized copy of somebody else's phone directory. A list of phone numbers is simply facts, not a work of original authorship, the defendant claimed, and the court agreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

The court ruled "In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

Here is a standard one:

This electronic communication originates from Lawyer A&B, LLP. This
communication and any file transmitted with it contain confidential and
protected information, which may be subject to the attorney-client
privilege, or otherwise be protected against unauthorized use. This
communication is also subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521. The information herein and any file transmitted
with it is transmitted in this form based on a reasonable expectation of
privacy. See ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413. If you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any
retention, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by
immediate reply and delete the original message.

Emphasis added. There is nothing there about reading the message - that is assumed as there would not be a reasonable way to determine you are not the intended recipient.

And here you can read about what happens when you keep credit card statements sent to you when you are not the intended recipient.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

There's no doubt in my mind that if the Sony case were being heard today, the VCR would be ruled an infringing device.

First: If the judge has no discretion, what is the judge's purpose? If the jury (or the plea bargain) is the only deciding factor, then any clerk could apply the legislated punishment(s.)

Second: If a judge explicitly says your plea bargain or actual conviction does not rise to any level where it should ruin the accused's life, furthermore in some cases declines to even compromise the accused with a conviction by asserting adjudication withheld, and years later, the accused is still forced onto a sexual offender's list by law, without any further action by a judge or jury or any wrongdoing... your position is: This is ok?

Because that's precisely what we're talking about. No judge ever looked at specific cases and said "oh, I see risk here", it's just a rote action without any form of judicial process whatsoever. That's what SCOTUS said was ok. SCOTUS' reasoning, as the AC described for you above, is precisely that "registration does not constitute punishment [is not punitive]" and from there, fully informed of the numerous and significant punitive consequences of such a listing, the majority of 5 proceed as if any consequences the public sector metes out are completely irrelevant and essentially say "go ahead, fuck those people, and yes, doing so retroactively is fine."

To be fair, the SCOTUS decision we're talking about here (see reference below) was 6:3, with some very good and obviously correct dissents from the three non-concurring justices (Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer), but at 6:3, your life is just as destroyed as it is at 9:0.

The upshot of this is that yes, the government can put you on a list; all it has to do is state that the intent is non-punitive. That's the issue that's going to undermine any attempt to declare a person's listing on a no-fly list improper in any way. Government wants you on there? You're on there. End of story.

But here's the thing: If you decide it's ok to totally fuck without resort to due process a whole class of people YOU don't like, you can be pretty sure that eventually, someone will deem you in a class that THEY don't like, and the fucking will be similarly cheery, though the wailing, from your perspective, will seem oh-so-justified.

A hand-wave in Pastor Niemoller's direction is appropriate at this juncture.

Ref: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=538&invol=84

The Uniform Traffic Code has it in there, but many states delegate the responsibility to the municipalities. Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, and Ohio are just a few that I know of that address it at the state level (most have exceptions for children under the age of 13 or so). California, Texas, Utah and Oregon for example setup the law so that municipalities can do their own thing, but default that they follow the US-UTC.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_a...

Coworkers discussing salaries is a federally protected right http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_... Of course if you live in an at will work state you can get fired or anything or nothing so proceed at your discretion.

There is a quantifiable distinction between an employer (someone offering compensation in exchange for labor in any number of quid pro quo arrangements), a public accommodation (like public drinking fountains, public schools, etc) and a private group like a yoga studio or country club. This article should clear things up for you: http://blogs.findlaw.com/tarni...

That's right. If you're going to fire someone you need to think of a better reason than what they do on their own time outside of work.

If they are careful enough to not run afoul of HR rules regarding employee conduct and having a Hitler-free work place then you have to try writing them up for poor performance or transferring them to someone else's department. For the tricky situation where you have appointed someone as CEO without first checking on their background it is customary for the board to either set impossible performance goals and then replace him when he doesn't meet them, or politely ask him to resign in exchange for a small but undisclosed amount of cash.

If all else fails just wait until he goes into space and then forge his signature on a letter of resignation while he's off-planet. It can't possibly go wrong.

No offense taken. But you might want to read the statute. The statute is the authoritative source.

And you should know that the 9th has a reputation as the most frequently reversed circuit. In fact, one term in the 1990s saw 27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the supreme court. This sort of BS is why.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth...

Holy moly what were they thinking when they let someone waive their fourth amendment rights? How could any of the sheep we've created be able to make such an important decision?

That is the thinking behind Smith v. Maryland (*) -- if you share information with a 3d party, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (think about that the next time you talk to your doctor -- HIPPA be damned, the 3d party doctrine has already been applied to medical records (*)).

Smith was rooted in a set of facts where the police were investigating a single person for a specific crime in a situation where they could have definitely got a warrant.

However, by quote mining Smith v. Maryland for that 3d party doctrine, and divorcing that quote from its factual matrix, we end up with an interpretation where the NSA gets anything it wants with respect to information shared with a 3d party. This is true even if the factual basis is the complete antithesis of Smith -- the info the NSA collects is outside a specific investigation, unrelated to any specific person, and gathered in situations where a warrant most certainly would _not_ be granted.

This is how it works in the law. Take some fairly reasonable set of facts and enunciate a principal based on those. Next, divorce the principal from the facts. Profit (if you are fascist).

If you don't think this case will be quote mined, and this principal (that 3d party occupants can override the decision of a 1st party occupant) will become unhinged from its factual underpinnings, then applied to anyone anywhere anytime no matter how innocent -- you don't understand how law works in America. With this case, and your "hmmm -- makes sense" attitude -- you just got robbed, and you don't even know it.

* http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...
** http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Op...

Sorry if I sound like a troll (apparently someone thinks so), but I'm [sarcastically] making a point - I don't think Congress has the authority to prohibit actions solely because they might annoy someone (as many others here have said), or even if they probably, or definitely will annoy someone. There are lots of things about air travel that are potentially annoying, but that quality doesn't qualify them for governmental regulation. I think the recourses (for a passenger) against annoying cell phone talkers should be, in order:

1) ask the person to be quieter
2) ask the flight attendant to make the person be quieter

Flight attendants don't generally tolerate unruly behavior - part of their job is to keep the peace for the duration of the flight. This is why they have so much authority. It should be up to the airlines to set cell phone usage policy, and then up to the flight crew to ensure passengers aren't being unruly, in the same way they already do regarding other behaviors. It's not like a flight attendant, who can currently order an unruly passenger to behave or face penalties, would for some reason not be able to do so if that person was using a cell phone. The comparison to people having annoying loud conversations with the person in the next seat is apt.

Lots of things in life are annoying - that doesn't justify wielding the hammer of government against those things. Liberty requires tolerating a certain amount of obnoxiousness from our neighbors. And there's nothing "magic" about cell phones that gives government extra rights to regulate them as a nuisance.

You are over thinking this. (I suspect you watch too much TV).

The dog will sniff out your car as you park it on the street.
Or maybe your shoes as you walk down the street.

Dog hits in public places are legal probable cause.

WHY was the dog sniffing around that street need not be justified by anything more than Routine Patrol and training.
(regardless of that phone call from the DEA that suggested 2nd Ave would be a good place to train).

Wrong. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32

Your CCW instructor was wrong. Mere physical violence is not enough, it has to be physical violence that constitutes deadly force. And, it doesn't need to actually be under way, so he's wrong on that count as well. I strongly suggest you read the law for yourself. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32

Wrong. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32

In February 1992, Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee to go from McDonalds. Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew's car, which was pulled over so she could add sugar to her coffee. While removing the cup's lid, Liebeck spilled her hot coffee, burning her legs. It was determined that Liebeck suffered third degree burns on over six percent of her body. Originally, Liebeck sought $20,000 in damages. McDonalds refused to settle out of court. However, they should have. Liebeck was ultimately awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because she was found to be twenty percent at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages.

NSFW, but check out these burns and see if they look trivial. Also the documentary Hot Coffee wonderfully explains why this isn't a trivial lawsuit.

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn't doing him much good during the ten years he's serving for armed robbery.

In scanning through the case, the boss seemed to be a vindictive asshole who had him remove a sleeping bag he had in the break room to deal with sleep apnea, moved the copy machine close to his desk to interfere with his hearing aid, in addition to numerous other complaints. Sure, the dude surely could've done things to combat some of his issues (carpel tunnel can be mitigated with proper exercises), but the boss should probably not be a dick.

All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml). Also, they purchase helpful copyright extensions from our politicians so that nothing can ever fall into the public domain (see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html).

So, yes, a studio does deserve to profit from its creative work, and the people who participate should also get paid. But the studios should beware of wallowing in hypocrisy as they shout about having things "stolen" from them.

cite, please

AFAIK, the Supremes have ruled only on the metadata provided by '70's era pen registers, which provided only the time of calls and outgoing dialed numbers. The ruling was also based on an "individual's subjective expectation of privacy," something which would be reasonably present when an explicit privacy policy exists as part of the service contract (as it does with most/all phone services these days).

EO 12333 allows collection on US persons.

cite, please

AFAIK, the Supremes have ruled only on the metadata provided by '70's era pen registers, which provided only the time of calls and outgoing dialed numbers. The ruling was also based on an "individual's subjective expectation of privacy," something which would be reasonably present when an explicit privacy policy exists as part of the service contract (as it does with most/all phone services these days).

Why is the government delivering our mail anyway. That kind of work is much more efficient in the private sector.

Here's an interesting clip on the subject.

BRENNAN v. U. S. POSTAL SERVICE , 439 U.S. 1345 (1978)

~ newly freed pervs ~

Not all SOs are perverts.

Take a leak in an alley when you're 15? You can get on the list.

Get a little drunk at a football game your freshman year and decide to streak across the field? You can get on the list.

Children (and by children I don't mean teens but kids under 12 years old) shouldn't be working. They should be in school getting an education.

I respectfully disagree. Not only is working at a young age good practice, but you can't treat all children as some monolithic demographic - different children have different needs, and some of those children simply aren't cut out for schooling much past basic numeracy and literacy (and some not even for that). If you've got some retarded kid who is never going to do more than bag groceries and do manual labor their entire life, why waste their time in an academic environment? Wither thou vocational schools?

As I mentioned before, I can certainly see some basic limitations on hours, and I could even see some of that based on age (or height/weight, or some other standard), but child labor laws have gone way past the reasonable stage. Case in point:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/08/5-legal-issues-with-your-kids-lemonade-stand.html

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html
"Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena)."

Take a look at the indictment and you will find that she lied much more than once. In fact, profit/loss is not one of the things she was accused of lying about. It was all about what she knew, when she knew it, who she talked to and why she sold her stock.

Why is it that so many people don't understand what free speach really means? Freedom of Speach does NOT mean "I can say whatever I #$%%% well please wherever and whenever I want". http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/GBS/22-A

>And what rules were broken

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/GBS/22-A/350-a

Don't be a dumbass, there has been false advertising laws for years to deal with issues like this in meatspace. Lying out of your ass about products your are selling has nothing to do with free speech.

Food trucks may or may not be registered and inspected. That driver sharing with you might be this one. Still feel safe?

Unless you are on trial, you can not be incriminated by your own testimony at someone else's trial. You can not plead the 5th unless you are on trial yourself.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Findlaw says:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html
"At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried)."

No wonder she cried the 5th, which btw, I'm going to do next April 15th, when I sign my tax forms, and they are blank. "I refuse to answer these questions on the grounds that it might incriminate me"

Good luck with that.

and they have wide latitude in doing so

There may be some latitude, but not 'wide latitude'... to quote the ruling in the recent Yucca mountain decision against the NRC:

Our analysis begins with settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law. Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.

It goes on from there quite a bit, but then this is nothing new, the President has a long history of playing "catch me if you can" with policies and selective enforcement.

An interesting and informative quote; thanks for sharing it. However, in this specific case I'm not sure it applies, as Obama is basically saying he won't challenge state laws on the issue. Unless there is precedent saying that the executive branch must enforce federal law over state law (which there very well may be, IANAL), I don't think it's relevant.

As to the act itself, not whether it oversteps his authority, I am rather supportive. I do not smoke pot, and I feel anyone who does so is an idiot wasting his life, but, on the other hand, I feel the same about alcohol, and just take a look a prohibition to see how well that turns out. Any move to reduce government expense (and, indeed, generate income by taxing the stuff), while reducing overcrowding in prisons, and simultaneously reducing the wealth of criminal organizations, is in my mind a good thing.

However, if these actions do in fact overstep presidential authority, then I want to know exactly how and why, so that I can argue towards curbing them. Governmental power creep, however well-intentioned (as it almost always is), must be fought at every opportunity. Vigilance is the price of liberty

and they have wide latitude in doing so

There may be some latitude, but not 'wide latitude'... to quote the ruling in the recent Yucca mountain decision against the NRC:

Our analysis begins with settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law. Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.

It goes on from there quite a bit, but then this is nothing new, the President has a long history of playing "catch me if you can" with policies and selective enforcement.

I had not heard of these before and had to look it up. The privacy act ONLY applies to newspaper reporters, stemming from this incident:

"Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights." source

On a side note, when explaining the Privacy Act to the general public, Jimmy Carter is probably the only president ever to make this statement: "We have reduced the size of these Government files by more than 10 percent."

Do Pilots Rely Too Much on Technology?

Requirements for private level pilot's license (most common non-commercial license):

- Be at least 17 years old (16 years old for glider or balloon rating)
- Be able to read, speak, write and understand the English language
- Obtain at least a third class medical certificate from an Aviation Medical Examiner (except for glider or balloon)
- Pass a computerized aeronautical knowledge test
- Accumulate and log a specified amount of training and experience, including the following:
- If training under Part 61, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 61.109, requires at least 40 hours of flight time, including 20 hours of flight with -an instructor and 10 hours of solo flight (i.e., by yourself), and other requirements including cross-country flight, which include
  -Solo requirements:
- 5 hours of solo cross-country time
- One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nmi (280 km) total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points and with one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 50 nmi (93 km) between the takeoff and landing locations
- Three solo takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating control tower.

Night requirements:
- 3 hours of night flight training
- One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles (190 km) total distance
- 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport
- 3 hours of flight training on the control and maneuvering solely by reference to instruments
- 3 hours of flight training for cross country flights
- 3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test, which must have been performed within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test
- If training under Part 141, at least 35 hours of piloting time including 20 hours with an instructor and 5 hours of solo flight, and other requirements including cross-country and night flights
- Pass an oral test and flight test administered by an FAA inspector, FAA-designated examiner, or authorized check instructor

Requirements for a standard Class F Driver's License (General, varies from state to state):

- 16-21 years of age
- pass a simple written exam
- circle the block and parallel park

With more than 250,000,000 vehicles operating on public streets, it sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

What are you talking about? Self defense is an affirmative defense which means Zimmerman has to prove that it was self defense. Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant. The state just has to show there is reasonable doubt to his defense. If Zimmerman had said he didn't do it then the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. In this case he admits he did it.

From findlaw:

"To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free." (emphasis added).

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/what-is-an-affirmative-defense.html

Zimmerman has to prove it. The state just has to show doubt.

Martin didn't have to go home. If he felt threatened then Stand Your Ground says he has no duty to retreat and can confront the person. There are some states where one has to retreat, but Florida is not one of those states.

The Snowden revelations were that Verizon was telling the NSA the target phone numbers of who people were calling (and the NSA has asked for that information for about 300 individuals in total), and that web service companies had procedures in place to give information to the NSA when they got a warrant. How do you get from that to thinking that they're snooping on your text and emails?

So your AFISR buddies are scared and asked you to spread disinformation ?

So you can't explain how the Snowden revelations support the grandparent post's claims, so you resort to a personal attack.

The TRUTH is that NSA wants ALL telecom metadata

The TRUTH is that metadata is not the content of your texts and emails. The grandparent was not discussing metadata. He was discussing the actual data, which Snowden has not revealed the NSA to have.

Besides which, telecom metadata is not protected under the 4th amendment. Smith v. Maryland, 1979.

and will apply "legal rules" only while querying

Yes, that is called following the law and following the Constitution.

These are soldiers.

No they're not. We're talking about the NSA. They're nerds.

Again, it's not that I don't agree with you in principle, it's that the Supreme Court has closed the door on the "Limited Times" argument, not only in the infamous Eldred v. Ashcroft decision, but also in denying certiorari to the follow-up Kahle v. Gonzales 9th circuit decision. That's not to say that Congress can't pass an orphan works bill, hopefully it can and will one day, but trying to achieve that outcome through a Constitutional challenge is a non-starter.

If you already have legal obligations, the disclaimer is superfluous. I am not sure what you mean by risk management, but if your management scheme consists of using a boilerplate disclaimer then you are doing it wrong. Remember we are talking about emails going to unintended recipients. Not email going between business partners.

Relevant links from page one of the google search. In all email disclaimers are useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_disclaimer
http://www.economist.com/node/18529895
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-26/business/ct-biz-0826-chicago-law-20110826_1_disclaimers-legal-obligations-binding
http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/2012/03/that-disclaimer-at-bottom-of-your-email-is-unenforceable-lawyers-say.html

Actually a pardon is not law enforcement. It is specifically an executive order outside and above the law made for just such an occasion. Snowden must be convicted first, then the President can pardon him. The pardon does not stop anything. It simply supersedes it after the fact.

Not true. Most famously, Ford pardoned Nixon before he'd even been charged, and made it a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he might have committed while in office. Similarly, Carter granted a blanket amnesty to all Vietnam-era draft dodgers, which was effectively a pre-emptive pardon on a large scale.

The issue has even come before the Supreme Court. Andrew Johnson pardoned A. H. Garland in 1865, before he'd been charged with anything, and the Supreme Court held in Ex Parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

How can you pardon someone who hasn't been convicted?

It's been done, several times. Most famously, Ford pardoned Nixon before he'd even been charged, and made it a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he might have committed while in office. Similarly, Carter granted a blanket amnesty to all Vietnam-era draft dodgers, which was effectively a pre-emptive pardon on a large scale.

The issue has even come before the Supreme Court. Andrew Johnson pardoned A. H. Garland in 1865, before he'd been charged with anything, and the Supreme Court held in Ex Parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

See also
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/13/242

[today's captcha: "falsely"]

I consider removing hazards as maintenance. You are allowed not to. That I think that doesn't mean I have an ego that requires me always to be right. Do you have a problem with random people on the internet not agreeing with all your opinions?

Liability purposed is all there is. What other purpose could there be? "Looking pretty" I guess but it'd be very strange for a state to get involved at that level.

Anyway I found it:

"The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto." - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/SHC/1/d7/3/22/2/s5610 (CAL CODE 5610)

That some cities have decided to take on the responsibility doesn't change what the state law is. Of course it isn't surprising that CA voters have elected people to city government who have had the city take such responsibilities.

There's a number of different ways to 'toughen' drunk driving laws, and lowering the BAC level is only one of them.

1. Lower the BAC level - problem: Even .08 is low enough that a cop driving behind you can't tell whether you're inebriated or just tired, on allergy medication, old, new to driving or just a bad driver.
2. Impose confinement: Something like 30 days in jail for the first offense. Problem: High impact; you're normally putting an employed person in jail, which means they might lose their job, at which point you have to provide for the care of them and their family(or they're not paying taxes).
3. Impose fines: Already done; to the point that poor people can't afford them yet the really rich often don't care
4. Force them to have an interlock device: The difficulty in fooling the thing is limited to the expense of simply evading it by getting a different vehicle.
5. Expand the definition of 'DUI' - I've heard of people busted for DUI while sleeping in the backseat of their car in the bar parking lot. Their own driveway I can sort of understand, and parked on the side of the road nowhere near where alcohol is served is downright suspicious, but if the engine isn't hot... I've also heard of people getting DUIs on riding lawnmowers, though most of those are justified in my opinion. Once you get on a motorway with your John Deere you're subject to the rules of the road... The funniest, I think, are the ones where somebody got a DUI while riding a horse or bicycle.

Especially for #5, you start to have to question whether the law in question is actually 'for the common good'. If the law is intended to protect the drunk against his own actions, what sense does it make to force him to suffer more serious losses than he realistically would even in an accident?

Eliminating drunk driving is a complex affair, and I think we need to do more to reduce the heavy drinkers from driving drunk - not expand the definition again.