Slashdot Mirror

Here's the actual legislation if anyone wants to look through it. Seems like a pretty bullshit law. If you refuse to submit your device to search, it's an automatic 90-day suspension of your license.

Bruce66423 opined:

Shooting the guy who entered while she was dressing would have helped educate him and others for the future...

Prompting 110010001000 to demand:

Shooting him for what? It is hotel property. You gun nuts are bizarre people.

I'm guessing you are either a European or someone who's completely unfamiliar with the so-called Castle Doctrine as it applies to Nevada's self-defense law (NRS 200.120):

1.Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2.A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a)Is not the original aggressor;
(b)Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
(c)Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

I direct your attention to the use of the phrase about legitimate targets including those who enter a dwelling "in a surreptitious manner" with "manifest intent" to do harm to the occupant(s).

If the person who let himself into the woman in question's room without knocking was visibly armed and not wearing a police uniform or prominently displaying the badge of a sworn law enforcement officer, it would have been absolutely reasonable for her to respond to that intrusion with deadly force. She could have (and her lawyer undoubtedly would have) claimed that she took the sudden, unannounced and uninvited intrusion of an armed man into her private room as in immediate threat to her life, and responded to it with deadly force. Since there was only one exit from the room - and the intruder stood between her and it - she would have been entirely justified to do so, under Nevada state law.

The cops might arrest her, and the DA might even be stupid enough to charge her for the shooting, but no Nevada jury would convict her of a crime for it - not even manslaughter.

Mind you, I speak here as a person who does not own a gun, who considers the Second Amendment poorly-written and badly in need of an update, and who thinks the NRA's executive suite is a treasonous hive of dangerous lunatics that desperately needs to be the focus of a criminal conspiracy investigation with regard to its egregious practice of funneling website visitors to its black money PAC site, in flagrant contravention of prohibitions on such shenanigans by federally-certified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, public benefit organizations.

But as for responding to armed intrusion with deadly force, it's not insane. It's the way the law works in many states in this country. And, as a former resident of Vegas, I can tell you that the casual disregard of laws protecting personal privacy is a fixture among hotel/casino security personnel there. The mobster mentality pervades its entire "hospitality industry" - and, believe me, the Clark County Sheriff's Department (the Strip is not actually within the city boundaries of Las Vegas proper) is happy to enable and support that attitude.

I'm just sayin' ...

It is a long established fact that Yucca Mountain is not suited as a nuclear waste deposit.
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwast...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Why don't you just change flags and advocate for Solar and Wind and Pumped Storage?

Ok, I guess its more than I thought, roughly half of them now, notably including Nevada: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs...

Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada.

Not sure about California, but in Nevada trespassing is a misdemeanor, per NRS207.200: "Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary, (b) willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor" and "A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods (c) fencing the area" (FYI, NRS 200.603 deals with spying into homes)

Also note the part about burglary. It can be argued that deliberately entering to take pictures of proprietary items constitutes burglary so this could be treated as a felony.

Trials are different than allowing manufacturers to sell driverless cars or allowing the general public to drive them. Even the Nevada law just instructs the DOT to set safety standards for driverless cars, which they have not yet completed.

This is bunk. The safety standards are dictated by federal law which is already in place.

The law instructed the Nevada DOT to "regulations authorizing the operation of autonomous vehicles on highways within the State of Nevada". And the Nevada DOT regulations have been written: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC...

Maybe you got Nevada confused with California. The California law has instructed the DOT to set standards by 2015. Those aren't written yet. Currently, Google in California is operating under NHTSA guidelines which allow for testing of autonomous vehicles. Why are these guidelines in place? Maybe the NHTSA realizes that autonomous cars are safer than drivers?

Except the bulk of news from Fukushima is backed up by independent expert Arnie Gundersen.

Arnie is an energy advisor with 39-years of nuclear power engineering experience. A former nuclear industry senior vice president, he earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was a licensed reactor operator.

Of course if you believe the corporations, governments and their employees involved will tell you the whole story, you won't get much information information about all that has been leaked, and what the people of Fukushima REALLY thinks of their government, so will most probably dismiss the whole thing.

However, such blank dismissal is just cognitive dissonance, nothing else. But just stay with the blue pill, you probably won't be able to deal with conflicting information anyways.

Btw, NO, US is not checking imported foods from Japan for nuclear radiation. Hillary Clinton signed agreement on that AFTER the Fukushima disaster to ensure everything from Japan continues to be imported regardless of hazards. Look it up.

I was thinking the same thing, but I'm going to speculate that these will only be legal to use by fully sober licensed drivers, at in the foreseeable future. I can't see the government condoning their use by incapacitated or underage persons, at least in the US, where even our left wing is fairly conservative by global standards. The gov't will always want a person "behind the wheel" to hold accountable. Even Nevada's new law requires "a driverâ(TM)s license endorsement for the operation of an autonomous vehicle on the highways of this State." http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB511_EN.pdf

In other words, don't hold your breath.

Speeding is travelling to quickly for the prevailing conditions. That speed may or may not be above the speed limit, whatever it is set to.

The speed limit is not "the safe speed". It is the legal limit of speed. Just because you are legally permitted to travel at up to 30mph on a street, doesn't mean it's safe to do so.

A minor nitpick, but.. "speeding" is exceeding the legal speed limit, which may or may not be the POSTED speed limit. Legal definitions do exist for this, and "speeding" usually means something. In some states, speeding is merely exceeding the posted speed limit. In many others, there are additional limitations on speed which define speeding differently.

In California, there are three ways you can be "speeding":

1. Violation of "basic speed law": going faster than the conditions safely allow
2. Violation of "prima facie" speed limits: going too fast around schools, rail road crossing, senior centers, and anything else specifically pre-defined by law
3. Exceeding the posted speed limit

Because "speeding" is legally defined, somebody (in CA) can not be "speeding" unless they are meeting the above criteria. In CA, you're legally speeding if you're going 65 mph on a highway at night in the rain and fog with 50 feet visibility unless you can demonstrate that this was safe.

Nevada also has the basic speed rule so "the safe speed" is also "the legal limit" as long as the safe speed is equal to or below the posted limit.

In most states that law is already in effect. The problem is that it's seldom enforced.

In Nevada (the state from TFA), the law is: "If any driver drives a motor vehicle at a speed so slow as to impede the forward movement of traffic proceeding immediately behind the driver, the driver shall...drive in the extreme right-hand lane". NRS 484B.627

But it arguably isn't impeding if other cars are able to get around by passing on the right. That makes it difficult to enforce this law. But if it were illegal to pass on the right, then cars couldn't get around a vehicle in the left lane, and that would give the law some teeth.

I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel.

I also thought so, being not a L. However someone above already corrected both of us. The hotel industry is regulated by the innkeeper statute. I remember seeing it posted in hotel rooms. This means that state laws control the hotel industry, and individual hotels have little say in what is and what isn't allowed. As the comment above points out, a guest is free to do pretty much anything that is legal.

It's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel

As you say, it's irrelevant.

unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed

Per the innkeeper statute, the hotel has no such right - see NRS 651.080 in the link above.

You've got to be kidding. Here in the USA, the law is for the rich and their lawyers.

Which, of course, is why the IRS has an entire section dedicated to starting a business and why Nevada also provides the same. Heck, Nevada even has an FAQ, and the IRS gives you a checklist. I'm willing to bet that, if you hit your local Chamber of Commerce, you'll find information there, too. Heck, even my local university has online resources available for new businesses.

For the rich and the lawyers indeed.

You've got to be kidding. Here in the USA, the law is for the rich and their lawyers.

Which, of course, is why the IRS has an entire section dedicated to starting a business and why Nevada also provides the same. Heck, Nevada even has an FAQ, and the IRS gives you a checklist. I'm willing to bet that, if you hit your local Chamber of Commerce, you'll find information there, too. Heck, even my local university has online resources available for new businesses.

For the rich and the lawyers indeed.

People have built many devices to keep count and it's always considered a felony to use them in the state of Nevada. In fact, many devices are a felony to even OWN... Here come the iPhone police, oh joy.

Naturally, this piques my curiosity (and gives me the urge to go out and purchase or build such a device just so I can own something that is illegal in another state). But after reading the statute in question, I am not really clear on what specific items are a felony to own. The only section that stands out in that regard is NRS 465.080, which outlines materials prohibited because they can be used to make counterfeit coins, chips, tokens, etc.

Lead and lead alloys are on that list, so technically you could get arrested if you're found with a lead fishing weight in your pocket. (Yeah, I know, lead is being replaced by tungsten and other metals for sinkers.) If two or more items from the prohibited list are on your person (say, a torch and a pair of tongs), that permits a "rebuttable inference" that you intended to use them for cheating... and not, say, lighting charcoal for your hookah. I'm assuming a "rebuttable inference" means that you're allowed to provide a rebuttal to the claim you're using the items for cheating, presumably by telling the authorities what you were really using them for.

So anyway, I'd really like to know what devices are actually a felony to own.

The rest of the statute is just as scary sounding. Casino employees are permitted to detain and question anyone suspected of cheating. In what other state of the Union would a non-cop or other non-state, non-federal employee be permitted to do such a thing? They don't even have to worry about civil or criminal liability for conducting such questioning or for detaining someone against their will. Any "evidence" seized does not have to be returned if the case goes to trial, and can be disposed of even if it isn't produced in court. Devices seized which don't result in charges, but which are considered prohibited devices, are still retained by the Gaming Board and destroyed by them.

So, probably not a good idea to take your iPhone into any casino just to be safe, because even if you're deemed innocent, you might not get your property back.

NRS 465.088 Penalties for violation of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive.

1. A person who violates any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished:

(a) For the first offense, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

(b) For a second or subsequent violation of any of these provisions, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. The court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph, or grant probation to the person convicted.

REF: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-465.html

I live about 90 minutes from Las Vegas and I can tell you the state of Nevada is serious as a heart attack about cheating. There are repeat offenders serving LIFE without parole for creating and distributing cheating devices and schemes.

Counting cards in your head is not illegal, but if you do master the art of counting cards without being detected, you can be refused entry at the whim of the casino, just because you are too good at the game... They can walk up and ask you to leave and never return and you must do so. They can also put you face, vital statistics, and biometrics (for facial recognition) in a database shared with other casinos.

Enjoy your stay

You are correct that the app itself isn't "illegal" in a general sense, but it is a crime to possess it inside of a casino in the state of Nevada:

It is unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or possess with the intent to use, any device to assist: (2) In keeping track of the cards played

CRIMES AND LIABILITIES CONCERNING GAMING

Replying a second time because I forgot to include the link. Here is the full text of the regulation in question.

Yes and no. The law says that you have to encrypt when you send personal data. The definition of encryption is pretty broad but the definition of personal data is very narrow so you could have a web site which is unencrypted except for the part where the customers identified themselves.

Overall, I don't see the problem with this. That they allow weak encryption is a red herring. Strong encryption will also comply with the ruling and so most people will use that. Weak encryption is often better than nothing. There are loopholes, but those can be closed later. This looks like a good start.

Yes and no. The law says that you have to encrypt when you send personal data. The definition of encryption is pretty broad but the definition of personal data is very narrow so you could have a web site which is unencrypted except for the part where the customers identified themselves.

Overall, I don't see the problem with this. That they allow weak encryption is a red herring. Strong encryption will also comply with the ruling and so most people will use that. Weak encryption is often better than nothing. There are loopholes, but those can be closed later. This looks like a good start.

In Nevada we handed all power over to the Feds when we were made a state.
ref - Paramount Allegiance clause of the Nevada State Constitution
  http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html#Art1Sec2

Sorry.

I don't think blast charges oxidize with the atmosphere do they? Doesn't seem like that would mix fast enough. Torpedoes don't seem to have any trouble. As for regolith, "Portable antitank weapons have become more powerful, more reliable, and more available worldwide since the early 1980s. Many of these weapons are capable of penetrating 20 to 40 inches of armor plate steel" (cite). For that matter, anything that gets all the way from the earth to the moon is going to arrive with plenty of momentum. Maybe they could just drop a DU rod out of the probe before initiating deceleration for the landing?

Not in Nevada.

See NRS 205.275:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec275

"Knowing that it is stolen property; or Under such circumstances as should have caused a reasonable person to know that it is stolen property." is the standard.

Also, the is the question of intent that goes with any crime except "strict liability" crimes (of which there are few - usually things such as speeding and other regulatory offenses and the special case of age of consent laws in some jurisdictions).

As regards stolen property, if you get convicted, you likely deserve it. "Whaddya mean those 300 free diamonds were jacked?! Idda neva have guessed! :)" Uh huh.

P.S. What you say might be true in some jurisdictions I grant you - but not all.

For at least 72 hours after the last known contact.

In Nevada, his goods aren't up for taking until 90 days!

I'm not going to respond to your entire post, because you're just plain wrong. However I will point out a couple of things.

Would you rely on this driver to be present for your malware to stay hidden?

Of course. Why wouldn't I? I would exploit the hell out of everything like this that I could. When Sony's original (that we know of) rootkit was put out on those audio CDs, it was not very long before malware that exploited the fact that being named $sys$stuff would make it disappear completely off of Windows's radar. Duh.

If malware could do it, so can I. Maybe I stick my important data in there.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Do an end-run around the OS API yourself. Also lose the ability to back that data up, open it from most applications, etc. It's better to simply encrypt it, but you know, if that's really what you want to do, go for it.

The intent does matter.

So if I write a nasty computer virus with the intent of studying it, and it manages to accidentally get out in the wild and infect half the world's computers, does that mean that it's not a computer virus because I didn't mean for it to cause any harm? No, as I said, what counts is what it does.

Oh look you have lock picking tools, go straight to jail.

As a matter of fact, unless you are a locksmith, you can go to jail for possessing lockpicks. For example, according to Nevada law (and I'm chopping parts out for clarity, the original is here:

Every person who has in his possession any picklock or implement commonly used for the commission of burglary, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ in the commission of a crime, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. The possession thereof except by a mechanic, artificer or tradesman at his place of business, open to public view, shall be prima facie evidence that such possession was had with intent to be used in the commission of a crime.

Many other states have similar laws.

A "rootkit" as has been referred to for years is so named because it grants a non-authorized user "root access". In this case it's "Administrator" access, but the principle is the same... A rootkit is a piece of software that grants a non-authorized user admin level access. That's all.

If Wikipedia's description of a rootkit is inaccurate, yours is just plain laughable. The thing that distinguishes a rootkit from other malware is precisely the fact that it hides itself from users and/or the OS by altering or bypassing the API. Windows has had many security holes over the years that grant administrative access to a machine. By your definition, any malware that exploits a security hole would be a rootkit. Try telling that to any competent systems administrator and they'll probably mock you for not knowing what the hell a rootkit is.

Oh, so you'd prefer radon 220 that causes lung cancer, or what about radium 226 that causes bone cancers - it has a quite modest half life of only 1600 years, or thorium which cause birth defects, or what about the benign noble gases like xenon, argon or krypton that decay into something deadly or iodine 131 or ceasium. Did you know that pressurised water reactors are allowed too purge these gasses into the atmosphere 20 times a year as part of normal operations as officially permitted by the NRC or would you prefer to maintain your illusion that the ageing nuclear reactors in the U.S will be a squeaky clean source of electricity for your EV-2. That 's not fearmongering, thats understanding the operational issues.

No, it's FUD.

The longest-lived isotope of radon is 222Rn, with a half-life of 3.8 days. Gaseous emissions of nuclear power plants are sequestered and allowed to decay for some time before the result is emitted. Compared to the natural release of radon from the underground natural decay of uranium, the additional release of post-sequestration radon is negligible. The gas consists primarily of actual fission products (at least, those which are gaseous at atmospheric temperatures) and any gases which result from the coolant reacting with various particles. More radon is actually released during the mining of uranium than from nuclear power plants, but that release is still low compared to natural release (have you checked your basement for radon, just in case?), and the health risk to workers at uranium mines can be mitigated.

Radium is also a solid at atmospheric temperatures, and is a precursor to radon, meaning the emission of radium is minimized by the nuclear process. Any 226Ra produced by the nuclear reaction (though the concentration is known to be trace, if any at all) would be contained within the fuel rod or pellet. As with radon, most radium uncovered in the nuclear power process results from mining, not the operation of the power plant, and so the radium can be fully contained at the mine site.

you mean Yucca mountain that had a earthquake of 7.4 on the Richter scale in the early '90's. ... That's not fearmongering, that's called understanding what a political solution looks like.

Still FUD. It's not even true. The 7.4 earthquake happened near Landers, California, more than 200 miles away. It triggered an aftershock of 5.6 centered about 8 miles from the site, an event considered to be of the greatest significance to the site in the past 20 years.

Yeah, like the way they had to cool down av reactor housing with garden sprinklers because the river levels were so low during the heatwave, such forward planning and preparation for an event that can induce a meltdown.

More FUD. Had the power plants' internal temperatures reached unacceptable levels, it would have (by law) been shut down, so there was never any danger of a radiological accident occurring. The plants were operating normally, and the concern was simply that the plants would have to be shut down in the midst of a tremendous heat wave that had already claimed the lives of a number of elderly and ill citizens. They were taking whatever measures they could think of to keep that particular plant operating, but they would have shut it down had conditions required it.

Like First Energy "safe" who persuaded the NRC to delay inspection of safety components past the due date only to find that a pressure vessel had corroded through 6 of it's 6 1/2 inch thickness. If you are going to operate these devices safely into thier old age then you have to increase the safety inspections, and that is not profitable for the operator. profit vs safety what a great tradeoff. That is not fearmongering, that is called considering yourself lucky if you were in Toledo on new years day 2002.

FirstEnergy

In at least one jurisdiction (Nevada - NRS 193.330) any attempt to commit a crime is still a crime. There doesn't need to be any damages for a crime (just for civil), else how could they prosecute for drug possession and other victimless crimes where there are no damages.

In Nevada, attempting to commit a crime is automatically a crime.

NRS 193.330

If you really had any knowledge of nuclear-related science, you'd know that anything with a "many many thouseands of years of lifespan" in terms of nuclear waste is very very mildly radioactive at all, and mostly harmless.

Apparently, some people who claim to know about "very very mildly radioactive at all, and mostly harmless" nuclear waste plan to spend 100 billion dollars to store to for a while.

Yucca Mountain: Stolen twice from the Native Americans, the second time to test nuclear weapons and securely store nuclear waste and RNC email servers. Brought to you by Bechtel and SAIC, two names you can trust for pork laden, incompetently managed, environmentally damaging, covert and spooky projects. You may remember Bechtel from such hits as The Big Dig (a joint venture with Parsons who helped exaserbate the decay of Iraq by taking 200 million and not building even one of the hospitals or clinics they were supposed to), stuff in Iraq, Papua New Guinea, Mexicali, Bolivia, Humboldt Bay, San Francisco and Iraq and India and other stuff in other places. I am not going to say anything else bad about SAIC because I am afraid of them... He, he, ahh - Just kidding!

First, Solar PV cells seem to be net energy positive in relatively short order. This summary estimates 2-4 years with new technology coming online to make the energy payback about a year. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37322.pdf

This was one of the first hits to come up in searching google for "pv net energy".

Second, I find it laughable that you complain about large governmental solar subsidies without mentioning subsidies for storage of nuclear waste. Just look at the Yucca Mountain project http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/loux05.htm (And in this age of eternal terror, the government and nuclear industry are curiously silent about the additional cost of aedeqately protecting such waste sites for thousands of years...)

Even worse than jury duty, however, is the fact that poll duty is for three consecutive years.

You mean two consecutive elections, right? Since we have elections every 2 years... (I'm not contradicting you, just making your information clearer for the ones who doesn't know the Brazilian voting system).

By the way, I'm really envious of the null vote system; Nevada has something similar, a NOTA (None Of The Above) option, but with no teeth, since NOTA cannot "win" an election. I have a feeling voter turnout would be higher in the US if we had the option to throw out all the crooked candidates instead of choosing the lesser evil.

Text from the Nevada law:

Does Nevada have a "None of These Candidates" or "None of the Above" option on the ballot?

Yes, NRS 293.269 requires that ballots for statewide offices, President, and Vice President permit a vote to express a choice of "None of These Candidates." However, only votes cast for named candidates are counted in determining the nomination or election to these offices.

If it were not for fear mongering fools like you, places like Yuca Mountain [wikipedia.org] would already be in use and would have already prevented radioactive contamination;

Let me get this straight, you want to store nuclear wastes in a place where there are faultlines and have experienced earthquakes? Here'a a link fromthe wiki page you provided, Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain. That is NOT safe storage! Hell, CA with a history of earthquakes can't make their buildings earthquake proof.

Well, the Digital Universe Foundation has filed for nonprofit status, so it's a little misleading to call it a corporation.

Most non-profit organizations (including Digital Universe) *are* corporations so it's not at all misleading. And according to your website you *are* a nonprofit, and have been since 2004 ("The Digital Universe Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 2004."). According to https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAcce ss/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?CorpID=536438 there is a Nevada Domestic Non-Profit Corporation called "Digital Universe Foundation" with JOSEPH P FIRMAGE as director. It sounds to me like you've filed for income tax exemption as a 503(c)(3) charity, and that you already are a nonprofit corporation.

i think its more then about time for some changes to the whole copyright rules.

I mean lets look at the past.. How many times has the industry been caught "price fixing"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing which is a felony?
here's a link to one settlement http://ag.state.nv.us/agpress/2002/02_0930b.pdf
Sorry, IANAL but isnt there a ruling that if you abuse your copyright you risk losing it? I suppose price fixing is not abusing it?

Industry is more then willing to accept the terms of any contract up front, but then want to revise it over and over again when it suits them.

I recall reading that mickey mouse was suppose to be turned over to the public domain. However, disney still makes a pile of cash off it so they apply for an extension of the copyright. This extension is granted and something which should now belong to the people is still off limits. Didn't the people live up to their end of the deal? They granted and enfoced exclusivity for the terms of the contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law

Next, how much money do these people think is "fair" for their work? I never watch "lifestyles of" because it just infuriates me to see how for a few months of work, they earned MILLIONS of dollars.

As they say, if you dont beleive in something, boycott it. i cant tell you when the last time i went to a move was. I just dont see why i should hand over a decent chunk of cash for some sequal/prequal (starwars) or remake of a TV show i watched as a child (dukes of hazard). maybe if they came up with new original material and stop rehashing things people would go more often?

Umm, no, you'd burn up over a gallon keeping the engine RPMs up.

Which you'd need to do, or else say good bye to power steering and power brakes (very bad). (*)

Going downhill in drive would work.

On the way to California from Nevada I was going down hill, 75 mph, no foot on the gas and no power from the engine. The car idles at about 1K RPM and it was being turned at about 1.5K RPM by gravity, and the temperature gauge was dropping below the point at which the thermostat was set at.

Infinity mpg. Of course going back over the hill the other way probably used as much extra energy as going down the hill saved.

(*) I read an interesting story, perhaps a post on Slashdot where someone coasted down a hill at over 100 mph in neutral. The engine fuel was cut due to overspeed, and with it in neutral and no gravity backfeeding power to the engine, RPMs dropped to zero, and power steering and brakes were lost. I don't think you can even engage an automatic transmission with no RPMs from the engine. Very dangerous, but the person avoided a crash.

Of course, a proper overspeed prevention system would restore fuel when RPMs were about to go below idle.

Also, in Nevada, coasting in neutral or with the clutch disengaged is illegal.

NRS 484.459 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484.html#NRS484 Sec459

Firefox ignores the anchor, so you have to scroll down manually. Should file a bug report I guess.

YuccaFuckingMountain Project and the two big spook companies behind it; working hand-in-hand, synergistically to create the most highly secured place on earth where they and their friends can hide nuclear waste or anything else they want to hide.

What about these:

• Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository
• Yucca Valley earthquake surprised experts
• Desert Earthquake Hits Near Yucca Mountain, Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
• 4.4 earthquake hits near Yucca
• Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain
• Yucca Mountain Earthquake Today!

There's a number of other stories and articles about how earthquakes affect Yucca Mountain.

Disproportionately High scentence:
In nevada, where I live, stealing a DVD from walmart would cost me $250 plus attourney's fees maximum. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-597.html#NRS597 Sec860

I know that topic is about pre-releases, but 3 years is pretty goofy...

The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."

Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...

Or make it illegal using STATE or LOCAL laws. Heck murder is almost always prosecuted under STATE law, not FEDERAL (with some exceptions, e.g. on military bases, civil rights, terrorism, naval waters, etc)

The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."

Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...

Or make it illegal using STATE or LOCAL laws. Heck murder is almost always prosecuted under STATE law, not FEDERAL (with some exceptions, e.g. on military bases, civil rights, terrorism, naval waters, etc)

Check out the testimony of Paul Misener, Amazon's VP of Global Public Policy, as he reminds Nevada legislators who questioned Amazon's failure to pay sales tax that Amazon solved its Washington and Georgia tax problems by closing fulfillment centers in the two states.

Fianlly, someone did the right thing. Viva Las Vegas!

Luckily we have a court system which will decide its not a violation according to the law, despite what the SEC says.

The definition of when the quiet period begins and what is allowed to be said isn't fully codified by law. Law is required to be precise (that is one reason why it is so verbose (*) and extensive). Laws where a reasonable person (in theory) can't tell if they are violating them are unconstitutionally vague. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if even if people or lawyers looking at the statutes can't come to a consistent opinion, then the law is vague. A law must specify what one needs to do / refrain from doing to be in compliance.

The court system does still work if the side that is legally right has a lot of money. And Google does. But they appear to be right - the SEC can't extend the restrictions of a quiet period beyond the law.

In general, an agency can't write the law, enforce things that aren't in the law, or come up with any interpretation of the law they want. Unless that agency is the DEA (and even then, they get a lot of that power because Congress wrote the Controlled Substances Act to give them that power).

I do support the SEC in general, I don't like losing money in the market, and I'd really HATE losing money due to illegal activity, but this doesn't appear to be the case here.

(*) Here is an example of how verbose law needs to be. This is the law that says one must drive on the right in Nevada.

Fixed speed limits are a crock anyway, how does it tell the difference between driving on an icy covered road in a blizzard, and a clear day with dry roads and unlimited visibility, with no traffic? Driving 50 in the first case may be suicide, yet it is legal.

No its not (definitely not in Nevada, almost assuredly not in any other place). Here it is called "driving too fast for conditions" which is a 2 point violation. The law is NRS 484.363

Nevada Revised Statutes
3. Any merchant who has reason to believe that merchandise has been wrongfully taken by a person and that he can recover the merchandise by taking the person into custody and detaining him may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for the purpose of informing a peace officer of the circumstances of such detention, take the person into custody and detain him, on the premises, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time. A merchant is presumed to have reason to believe that merchandise has been wrongfully taken by a person and that he can recover the merchandise by taking the person into custody and detaining him if the merchant observed the person concealing merchandise while on the permises. Such taking into custody and detention by a merchant does not render the merchant criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, slander or unlawful detention unless the taking into custody and detention are unreasonable under all the circumstances.

What this court ruling really means is that the police no longer need to have a reason to "see some ID,"...

a) this case says the police need reasonable suspicion; which they clearly had
b) this case wasn't about providing identification documents, all Hiibel had to do was state his name.

... I urge you to Vote Bush this year. Make your fellow countrymen so sick of what that moron has done to this country ...

How exactly do you blame the Bush administration for 5 judges who weren't appointed by him upholding a state law last amended in 1995?

Are you a troll or just stupid? A simple google turns up this page with forms.

And some of us don't.

And some of us don't.

Copied from GROKLAW comment, with some spelling corrections only

SCOX = BRE-X

BRE-X if you remember was a struggling small town Canadian mining company.

Midland Walsh, one of the principals (founder?), was famous for suing a former employer and getting a settlement for an undisclosed sum.

BRE-X suddenly said they found these incredibly huge gold deposits in a mine in Indonesia.

BRE-X said they had their own secret teams of experts, whose identities they couldn't reveal, supporting their claims (assaying of core samples for gold).

Industry experts criticized the techniques for assaying which were unorthodox, didn't follow industry standard practises.

The company's reports (with incredible claims) were criticized by industry experts for the same reasons. The industry experts were ignored.

Despite this media and stock analysts preferred the company's version to that of the industry experts. Some analysts really pushed the stock hard.

As more and more discrepencies in the companies story came to light, the company produced a series of increasingly unsatisfactory explanations, which were debunked by industry experts too.

The stock prise rose and rose on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Massive relatively uncritical media coverage.

Insiders cashed out millions of stock. I think it was a tiny fraction of the total company, but still a lot of money to them.

Eventually it turned out the samples from the mine had been faked. All was revealed. The stock price crashed so badly in a single day that it broke the software for the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Links to BRE-X story:

Short summary: http://www.goodreports.net/bregoo.htm

Long version of story: http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1999/SRIBR/99sri 091.htm

The tech stuff: http://minerals.state.nv.us/programs/min_fraudami. htm#bre-x

Could this tin-foil hat theory be true?

For #1: Lots of people report difficulty (impossiblity) of buying SCO Linux IP licenses. They don't seem to be actively trying to actually sell their new product - or actively pursue their riches by litigation strategy.

For #2: So many secrets - the code gold, the code analysts, the Linux IP customer, etc

How to disprove: SCO to provide, or some enterprising reporter to find and properly verify any of the SCO secrets

Well, not exactly. The individual states where the casinos are make the ground rules for gambling (such as the Nevada Gaming Commission). Most states don't allow the casinos to stack the odds too much, as the article implies. I belive the house odds restrictions for Nevada are somewhere in the Nevada Gaming Regulations. But that's too much legalese for me to wade through.

But obviously, if the casinos use this technology to change the odds of the game, there will be a lot of upset counters out there. Even non-counters will be effected, as Blackjack is about the only game that occasionally has odds in the player's favor.

Well, not exactly. The individual states where the casinos are make the ground rules for gambling (such as the Nevada Gaming Commission). Most states don't allow the casinos to stack the odds too much, as the article implies. I belive the house odds restrictions for Nevada are somewhere in the Nevada Gaming Regulations. But that's too much legalese for me to wade through.

But obviously, if the casinos use this technology to change the odds of the game, there will be a lot of upset counters out there. Even non-counters will be effected, as Blackjack is about the only game that occasionally has odds in the player's favor.