Well, the fact that, according to testimony at the trial, she rarely used computers and he was considered a skilled computer user and avid Internet surfer. Oh yeah, according to emails he had exchanged with his lover, he was trying to find a way out of his marriage so that he could be with his lover (and in his discussions about doing so he never once mentioned separation or divorce).
You are over reacting to this case. The browser search history was used to augment the case, not make the case that this guy committed murder. The browser history was used to move this case from, "I think he did it, but his defense presents reasonable doubts" to "I think he did it and the only defense explanations for the evidence are improbable."
Similar problem, I write murder mystery roleplaying games, and as a result frequently search for information on how various methods of murder could be detected or concealed.
The thing you and everyone else who posts something along the lines of "I would hate to think what the police would think if they looked at my browser history" is overlooking is that this guy was the number one suspect in this death to begin with. It is possible that someone would have ethylene glycol in their system by accident, but not likely. This means that the police believed that Julie Jensen had been murdered. When someone has been murdered with no other obvious murderer, their spouse/SO is the number one suspect by default. In addition to his search history on murder methods, there were emails with his married lover discussing getting out of their current marriages. In those emails, he never once mentioned separation or divorce.
I have a question. How does regulating the company that provides you with access to the Internet differ from regulating the Internet?
If the FCC were to require ISPs to throttle certain types of traffic (say bittorrent), would that not be regulating the Internet? That would be "regulations for the ISPs.
So, regulating the people who provide you with access to the Internet and how they provide you with access to the Internet is not regulating the internet? If that is not regulating the Internet, what exactly would constitute regulating the Internet?
but suggesting that the US is trying to "regulate" the internet just shows a complete (and willing) failure to understand the topic.
Perhaps your definition of regulate is different from mine, but hasn't the FCC introduced "net neutrality" regulations? What, if not the Internet, do those regulations apply to?
I suspect that that will be a new case. This was a case about searching text messages stroed on the phone in question. As such the ruling is reasonable, under previous Supreme Court rulings, if you were carrying an address book or a bunch of letters at the time of arrest the police could search those. This is a logical extension of that ruling. It is a separate debate as to whether that Supreme Court ruling was a good one or not.
The problem with this ruling is that the judges do not appear to have limited the search to just things stored on the phone. On the other hand, they, also, do not appear to have explicitly extended it to things the phone provides access to either. As a result, I am pretty sure they will take the case for review when the police use the phone to access things that are not on the phone itself.
On a slightly different take on this case, it will be interesting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court does take this case since the two conflicting rulings come from state courts, not federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices may feel that the differences between these two rulings relate to differences in the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it is likely that if they do take such a case it will be because they lean towards disagreeing with the ruling in this case.
Naturally the travel companies would prefer that people book through their own websites, because they don't have to pay the commission, which is typically around 10% of the price.
Also, if people book through the travel companies' websites, they can condition you to think that company A has the best price for you in a particular class, so there is no need to check anybody else. Every time I see the Southwest Airlines ads about how you can only buy tickets on Southwest's website where they say, "You don't want to have to check a bunch of different sites to find the best price", I think that they are actually forcing me to do that by not allowing me to get their tickets from Expedia, etc..
I know a friend of mine who has gone through three DUI checkpoints drunk as a skunk, driving a high performance manual transmission car. He was let go every time. I'm not happy that he drove drunk, but the fact of the matter is that the cops aren't that good at telling whose drunk and who isn't. Of course, he is also one of the best drivers I have ever ridden with (I've never ridden with him when he was drunk). He is probably a better driver drunk than 50% of the drivers are sober (again, I've never ridden with him when he was drunk, so I may be mistaken), but even so I do not approve of him driving drunk and have told him so.
if x-raying some guy to check him for explosives guarantees me a safe flight, i say ZAP AWAY!
How about if x-raying you and everyone else on the flight with x-rays strong enough to increase everyone's risk of getting cancer by some measurable amount without decreasing the chance for someone to get a bomb on your flight by a measurable amount, are you ok with that? Because that is what we get from the TSA.
The thing is we already have strict enforcement of impaired driving laws that have reduced impaired driving. As a matter of fact, the reduction exceeds the hopes of those who started the campaigns for stricter enforcement. What people don't seem to understand is that as late as the 1970s, many parts of society considered drunk driving no big deal. Considering that roadside sobriety checkpoints are less than 30 years old, it is hardly likely that there was a country where they had been a stepping stone on the way to totalitarianism, yet.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of alcohol related vehicular accidents that result in injury or death involve a driver who has a blood alcohol level that is well over not only the current legal limit, but well over the old legal limit of 0.10 BAC. Additionally, the majority involve people who have repeatedly had their license suspended. So, ultimately this is not actually effective against the problem.
Mayor Bloomberg still owns 85% of Bloomberg L.P.. Bloomberg News is a division of Bloomberg L.P.. I'm not sure what you meant by Bloomberg TV, since I cannot find any such organization listed as part of Mayor Bloomberg's biography (although I suspect you meant Bloomberg News). All Bllomberg gave up when he took the mayorship was his position as CEO of Bloomberg L.P..
So, I take it Australia is in N. Europe? That would explain why they had snow at midsummer. Except if Australia was in N. Europe, it wouldn't have been midsummer, so there goes that theory.
I would grant you that except for the fact that most news organizations only find it necessary to mention the party affiliation of corrupt politicians when they are Republican, which implies that, unless specified, it can be assumed that a corrupt politician is Democratic.
As Bigjeff5 pointed out, Pew Research did several studies of election coverage. In those studies they found that Fox News had about the same balance of positive to negative stories for both Republican and Democratic candidates (with the Republican stories being slightly more positive and the Democratic stores slightly more negative, but both right around 50%). While those same studies found that the other networks had mostly positive stories about Democrats (70-80%) and mostly negative stories about Republicans (70-80%). So, the evidence suggests that despite the ties between Fox News management and the Republican Party, they do a better job of being fair and balanced than the other networks.
he wrote a best-selling non-fiction book way before he was ever elected into any public office.
Even if you accept the very dubious supposition that he actually wrote the books that list him as author, the first one only became a best seller when he was being positioned as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Prior to "Dreams From My Father", Obama had almost nothing published. He is the only President of the Harvard Law Review to not publish any articles under his own name.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the fact that, according to testimony at the trial, she rarely used computers and he was considered a skilled computer user and avid Internet surfer. Oh yeah, according to emails he had exchanged with his lover, he was trying to find a way out of his marriage so that he could be with his lover (and in his discussions about doing so he never once mentioned separation or divorce).
You are over reacting to this case. The browser search history was used to augment the case, not make the case that this guy committed murder. The browser history was used to move this case from, "I think he did it, but his defense presents reasonable doubts" to "I think he did it and the only defense explanations for the evidence are improbable."
Similar problem, I write murder mystery roleplaying games, and as a result frequently search for information on how various methods of murder could be detected or concealed.
The thing you and everyone else who posts something along the lines of "I would hate to think what the police would think if they looked at my browser history" is overlooking is that this guy was the number one suspect in this death to begin with. It is possible that someone would have ethylene glycol in their system by accident, but not likely. This means that the police believed that Julie Jensen had been murdered. When someone has been murdered with no other obvious murderer, their spouse/SO is the number one suspect by default. In addition to his search history on murder methods, there were emails with his married lover discussing getting out of their current marriages. In those emails, he never once mentioned separation or divorce.
I have a question. How does regulating the company that provides you with access to the Internet differ from regulating the Internet?
If the FCC were to require ISPs to throttle certain types of traffic (say bittorrent), would that not be regulating the Internet? That would be "regulations for the ISPs.
So, regulating the people who provide you with access to the Internet and how they provide you with access to the Internet is not regulating the internet? If that is not regulating the Internet, what exactly would constitute regulating the Internet?
but suggesting that the US is trying to "regulate" the internet just shows a complete (and willing) failure to understand the topic.
Perhaps your definition of regulate is different from mine, but hasn't the FCC introduced "net neutrality" regulations? What, if not the Internet, do those regulations apply to?
I suspect that that will be a new case. This was a case about searching text messages stroed on the phone in question. As such the ruling is reasonable, under previous Supreme Court rulings, if you were carrying an address book or a bunch of letters at the time of arrest the police could search those. This is a logical extension of that ruling. It is a separate debate as to whether that Supreme Court ruling was a good one or not.
The problem with this ruling is that the judges do not appear to have limited the search to just things stored on the phone. On the other hand, they, also, do not appear to have explicitly extended it to things the phone provides access to either. As a result, I am pretty sure they will take the case for review when the police use the phone to access things that are not on the phone itself.
On a slightly different take on this case, it will be interesting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court does take this case since the two conflicting rulings come from state courts, not federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices may feel that the differences between these two rulings relate to differences in the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it is likely that if they do take such a case it will be because they lean towards disagreeing with the ruling in this case.
Naturally the travel companies would prefer that people book through their own websites, because they don't have to pay the commission, which is typically around 10% of the price.
Also, if people book through the travel companies' websites, they can condition you to think that company A has the best price for you in a particular class, so there is no need to check anybody else. Every time I see the Southwest Airlines ads about how you can only buy tickets on Southwest's website where they say, "You don't want to have to check a bunch of different sites to find the best price", I think that they are actually forcing me to do that by not allowing me to get their tickets from Expedia, etc..
I know a friend of mine who has gone through three DUI checkpoints drunk as a skunk, driving a high performance manual transmission car. He was let go every time. I'm not happy that he drove drunk, but the fact of the matter is that the cops aren't that good at telling whose drunk and who isn't. Of course, he is also one of the best drivers I have ever ridden with (I've never ridden with him when he was drunk). He is probably a better driver drunk than 50% of the drivers are sober (again, I've never ridden with him when he was drunk, so I may be mistaken), but even so I do not approve of him driving drunk and have told him so.
if x-raying some guy to check him for explosives guarantees me a safe flight, i say ZAP AWAY!
How about if x-raying you and everyone else on the flight with x-rays strong enough to increase everyone's risk of getting cancer by some measurable amount without decreasing the chance for someone to get a bomb on your flight by a measurable amount, are you ok with that? Because that is what we get from the TSA.
The thing is we already have strict enforcement of impaired driving laws that have reduced impaired driving. As a matter of fact, the reduction exceeds the hopes of those who started the campaigns for stricter enforcement. What people don't seem to understand is that as late as the 1970s, many parts of society considered drunk driving no big deal. Considering that roadside sobriety checkpoints are less than 30 years old, it is hardly likely that there was a country where they had been a stepping stone on the way to totalitarianism, yet.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of alcohol related vehicular accidents that result in injury or death involve a driver who has a blood alcohol level that is well over not only the current legal limit, but well over the old legal limit of 0.10 BAC. Additionally, the majority involve people who have repeatedly had their license suspended. So, ultimately this is not actually effective against the problem.
In most states refusal to submit to a breathalyser (or the alternative blood test) is grounds for a suspension of your license.
I posted this link above, but so you don't miss it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8213932/Wintry-weather-brings-snow-to-Australia-in-midsummer.html
There were many other stories around the Internet about it, I'm not sure how you missed it.
This year, New South Wales had a white Christmas. There were other stories about it, but here is one link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8213932/Wintry-weather-brings-snow-to-Australia-in-midsummer.html
Mayor Bloomberg still owns 85% of Bloomberg L.P.. Bloomberg News is a division of Bloomberg L.P.. I'm not sure what you meant by Bloomberg TV, since I cannot find any such organization listed as part of Mayor Bloomberg's biography (although I suspect you meant Bloomberg News). All Bllomberg gave up when he took the mayorship was his position as CEO of Bloomberg L.P..
So, I take it Australia is in N. Europe? That would explain why they had snow at midsummer. Except if Australia was in N. Europe, it wouldn't have been midsummer, so there goes that theory.
Technically, the coldest winter in 300 years in the UK might be an example of local cooling, not global.
Of course when you combine that with Midsummer snow in Australia and unusually cold weather in many other areas, you start to get a global cooling.
Wow, and now it is a mouthpiece for statists everywhere. He must be rolling over in his grave.
That is scary.
Really, name one.
I would grant you that except for the fact that most news organizations only find it necessary to mention the party affiliation of corrupt politicians when they are Republican, which implies that, unless specified, it can be assumed that a corrupt politician is Democratic.
As Bigjeff5 pointed out, Pew Research did several studies of election coverage. In those studies they found that Fox News had about the same balance of positive to negative stories for both Republican and Democratic candidates (with the Republican stories being slightly more positive and the Democratic stores slightly more negative, but both right around 50%). While those same studies found that the other networks had mostly positive stories about Democrats (70-80%) and mostly negative stories about Republicans (70-80%). So, the evidence suggests that despite the ties between Fox News management and the Republican Party, they do a better job of being fair and balanced than the other networks.
It still holds true. News organizations have always had a bias. That is why someone starts a news organization, to reflect/promote their bias.
he wrote a best-selling non-fiction book way before he was ever elected into any public office.
Even if you accept the very dubious supposition that he actually wrote the books that list him as author, the first one only became a best seller when he was being positioned as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Prior to "Dreams From My Father", Obama had almost nothing published. He is the only President of the Harvard Law Review to not publish any articles under his own name.