Bush flubbed for eight years in front of hordes of reporters and large crowds. Nobody gave him a break for being "nervous," why start now with Obama? Oh, sorry, duh. Obama is a Democrat.
Yep, this is defamation. Sucks to be him. The EFF won't get anywhere, you don't have a free speech right to defame a private party. This isn't a situation where a trademark is being used for commentary, or copyrighted material is being cited for criticism and commentary, etc. This guy criticized a private party, in writing (libel), about his professional life and insinuated he was involved in crimes of dishonesty.
Do you actually believe this? "No new food on the planet for a year?" Give me a break. This supervolcano, even in a worst case scenario, would not be sufficient to create global subzero temperatures and block enough sunlight to prevent crops globally. This is more alarmist garbage unsupported by any facts.
Actually, the number of deaths would be negligible. Yellowstone sits in the most sparsely populated region of the U.S. The actual direct destructive power of the volcano would only effect a 40 square mile area, which except for Jackson Hole, is largely empty.
Laramie, Cheyenne, Bozeman, Billings, etc would be hit hard by ashfall, but Denver would only get about a foot. Folks know ash collapses roofs. So, gasp, folks would clear the ash as it accumulates. Many or most people would evacuate anyway.
This is alarmism. At its worst, there will be an immense disruption of the electrical and telecommunications grid, immense expense from ash damage and removal, alot of immediate deaths and some ash deaths.
I'm sorry, but do the students not belong to the community called "Canada", to which CF sufferers also belong?
But this isn't about "communities" is it? No, it is "race" and "sex" counting. It is the most obscene consequence of multi-culti racism and sexism. Dividing the citizenry into camps defined by their race and sex, whose merit is contingent upon race and sex. It is racism and sexism, by definition.
Even the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs did things incrementally. They didn't just launch Apollo 11 without having tested anything previously
Yeah, they tested everything in Earth orbit in short stints, they didn't just blast astronauts on a try-out mission to the Moon. Likewise, any Mars mission should be incremental, meaning temporary missions that establish reliability before permanent missions.
We can't test equipment, processes and methods by remote control, and mock-up goes only so far. We'll discover what we fschked up when we get there in person. Better to do that during a temporary mission than making a permanent one more permanent than intended.
The American pioneers were preceded by explorers that not only did not intend to stay permanently, but (mostly) returned home safely to tell the tales. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any maps to guide the pioneers later.
The first explorers on Mars should use modular equipment that can be used to build up a permanent infrastructure for use by a later permanent outpost staff. Zubrin's approach makes use of modular hab units that can be connected to create a permanent outpost from individual (temporary) missions. That makes sense. Sending astronauts to Mars to stay permanently, without any experience of the efficacy of the technology, is inviting disaster. Jamestown over and over and over again.
That's the best you've got? The pledge of allegiance versus a knife in the chest of Theo Van Gogh for making a film? I don't think you have a freaking clue, pal.
Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on
You really can't see the difference? Christians aren't trying to compel others to do what they otherwise would not. Nobody is trying to force public displays of pictures of Jesus; they are trying to prevent others from stopping the free display of such icons. In all the establishment clause cases, the public display was tradition and voluntary and were sued to prevent the voluntary display. In most of these cases, the community supported the display.
In contrast, Muslims are attempting to compel the public squelching of public and private practice and speech in compliance with their own religious code. For instance, in Britain muslims objected to the display of Piglet, the Winnie the Poo character, at a public office because it caused offense. The Muhammed cartoons are also an obvious example of oppression of private, voluntary speech and conduct.
There's a huge difference. As a matter of fact, the ACLU and Muslim fanatics have more in common than Christians and Muslims. And as a disclaimer, I was a law clerk for the ACLU, so don't try to tag me with that.
in fact some argue it is actually against what the constitution says with regard to issuing/printing money
In fact, some people are crackpots. Congress has the explicit power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Congress further has the power to legislate for the general welfare. Do the crackpots believe that Congress critters should take turns pulling a lever to coin money? What nonsense. Congress has the power of the mint, and the power to delegate that function to an entity of its creation.
Hamilton had the good sense to recommend a national bank. His detractors destroyed the first national bank, and the economy stuttered along with severe booms and busts until the formation of the Federal Reserve system. They botched the Great Depression, granted, but we've enjoyed much smoother business cycles and more stable money supply, interest rates, and inflation.
Ron Paul wants us to return to commodity-backed money. Except there isn't enough commodity value to back up the 13 trillion dollar US economy. The total value of all gold ever mined is only 4 trillion.
No, because such privacy laws are intended to prevent telcos from handing over consumer information to private parties. They almost always have an exception for law enforcement activities, court order, or discovery by private parties in civil actions.
-5 overrated for you. The police don't need a warrant to ask for anything. Consent is always sufficient, no warrant required. A warrant is only required to compel disclosure.
What about it? Government does not need reasonable suspicion to investigate you. It needs reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, and probable cause for an arrest or seizure. Some searches and seizures are investigations, but not all investigations are searches or seizures.
The Fourth Amendment, Article V, and the Fourteenth Amendment do not prevent the government from conducting investigations for any rational purpose it darn well pleases.
They don't have to be the only two producers in the field to be investigated for breach of antitrust. They only to have to be the dominant players that hold most of the market, which they do for consumer markets that Nvidia also competes in.
Further, this isn't patent law. It is antitrust law. You can have a patent, but if you obstruct competition in your field by colluding to split a market, you're toast.
It would be antitrust if Intel and AMD colluded to refuse to sell licensing rights to a potential competitor to continue monopolizing the market. That is the heart of market fixing.
Any attempt to enter the market without a license would bring down Intel legal on them like flying monkeys blackening the sky. It would get ugly. Really ugly.
Particularly when the DOJ gets involved investigating Intel and AMD for antitrust collusion.
Since the library is public, I believe the people who own the computer are the taxpayers of the state of Maryland
Well actually the owner would be the county or state. Taxpayers have no property interest in the property of the state or the state's subdivisions. There is no legal grounds to object to the state's use of its own property. If you don't like it, it is a political issue to take up with your local representatives.
It would just be the cherry on top of this whole escapade if evidence from those computers is used in a trial...and it gets slapped down for violating the fourth amendment
But it won't. Because consent is always sufficient for a search and seizure.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the blue schlong? The superhero porn scene was OK?
Bush flubbed for eight years in front of hordes of reporters and large crowds. Nobody gave him a break for being "nervous," why start now with Obama? Oh, sorry, duh. Obama is a Democrat.
Sure. Do you honestly think this idiot had proof of his claims before opening his proverbial mouth? No? Then it's the cleaners for him.
Yep, this is defamation. Sucks to be him. The EFF won't get anywhere, you don't have a free speech right to defame a private party. This isn't a situation where a trademark is being used for commentary, or copyrighted material is being cited for criticism and commentary, etc. This guy criticized a private party, in writing (libel), about his professional life and insinuated he was involved in crimes of dishonesty.
I hope the verdict is big.
Do you actually believe this? "No new food on the planet for a year?" Give me a break. This supervolcano, even in a worst case scenario, would not be sufficient to create global subzero temperatures and block enough sunlight to prevent crops globally. This is more alarmist garbage unsupported by any facts.
Actually, the number of deaths would be negligible. Yellowstone sits in the most sparsely populated region of the U.S. The actual direct destructive power of the volcano would only effect a 40 square mile area, which except for Jackson Hole, is largely empty.
Laramie, Cheyenne, Bozeman, Billings, etc would be hit hard by ashfall, but Denver would only get about a foot. Folks know ash collapses roofs. So, gasp, folks would clear the ash as it accumulates. Many or most people would evacuate anyway.
This is alarmism. At its worst, there will be an immense disruption of the electrical and telecommunications grid, immense expense from ash damage and removal, alot of immediate deaths and some ash deaths.
I'm sorry, but do the students not belong to the community called "Canada", to which CF sufferers also belong?
But this isn't about "communities" is it? No, it is "race" and "sex" counting. It is the most obscene consequence of multi-culti racism and sexism. Dividing the citizenry into camps defined by their race and sex, whose merit is contingent upon race and sex. It is racism and sexism, by definition.
That's how we've done every Mars mission to date
Uh, not with human beings.
Even the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs did things incrementally. They didn't just launch Apollo 11 without having tested anything previously
Yeah, they tested everything in Earth orbit in short stints, they didn't just blast astronauts on a try-out mission to the Moon. Likewise, any Mars mission should be incremental, meaning temporary missions that establish reliability before permanent missions.
We can't test equipment, processes and methods by remote control, and mock-up goes only so far. We'll discover what we fschked up when we get there in person. Better to do that during a temporary mission than making a permanent one more permanent than intended.
The American pioneers were preceded by explorers that not only did not intend to stay permanently, but (mostly) returned home safely to tell the tales. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any maps to guide the pioneers later.
The first explorers on Mars should use modular equipment that can be used to build up a permanent infrastructure for use by a later permanent outpost staff. Zubrin's approach makes use of modular hab units that can be connected to create a permanent outpost from individual (temporary) missions. That makes sense. Sending astronauts to Mars to stay permanently, without any experience of the efficacy of the technology, is inviting disaster. Jamestown over and over and over again.
That's the best you've got? The pledge of allegiance versus a knife in the chest of Theo Van Gogh for making a film? I don't think you have a freaking clue, pal.
Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on
You really can't see the difference? Christians aren't trying to compel others to do what they otherwise would not. Nobody is trying to force public displays of pictures of Jesus; they are trying to prevent others from stopping the free display of such icons. In all the establishment clause cases, the public display was tradition and voluntary and were sued to prevent the voluntary display. In most of these cases, the community supported the display.
In contrast, Muslims are attempting to compel the public squelching of public and private practice and speech in compliance with their own religious code. For instance, in Britain muslims objected to the display of Piglet, the Winnie the Poo character, at a public office because it caused offense. The Muhammed cartoons are also an obvious example of oppression of private, voluntary speech and conduct.
There's a huge difference. As a matter of fact, the ACLU and Muslim fanatics have more in common than Christians and Muslims. And as a disclaimer, I was a law clerk for the ACLU, so don't try to tag me with that.
in fact some argue it is actually against what the constitution says with regard to issuing/printing money
In fact, some people are crackpots. Congress has the explicit power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Congress further has the power to legislate for the general welfare. Do the crackpots believe that Congress critters should take turns pulling a lever to coin money? What nonsense. Congress has the power of the mint, and the power to delegate that function to an entity of its creation.
Hamilton had the good sense to recommend a national bank. His detractors destroyed the first national bank, and the economy stuttered along with severe booms and busts until the formation of the Federal Reserve system. They botched the Great Depression, granted, but we've enjoyed much smoother business cycles and more stable money supply, interest rates, and inflation.
Ron Paul wants us to return to commodity-backed money. Except there isn't enough commodity value to back up the 13 trillion dollar US economy. The total value of all gold ever mined is only 4 trillion.
I wish I could moderate a post "dumb."
Did you think through that question at all?
No, because such privacy laws are intended to prevent telcos from handing over consumer information to private parties. They almost always have an exception for law enforcement activities, court order, or discovery by private parties in civil actions.
Gee, the anonymous coward whose best comeback is "fuck your stupid" thinks he knows the law better than a lawyer.
Clue to you, dipwad. "State and federal privacy laws" have nothing to do with the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
-5 overrated for you. The police don't need a warrant to ask for anything. Consent is always sufficient, no warrant required. A warrant is only required to compel disclosure.
That was just bizarre. What ad agency came up with this flat-out weird commercial?
Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?
What about it? Government does not need reasonable suspicion to investigate you. It needs reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, and probable cause for an arrest or seizure. Some searches and seizures are investigations, but not all investigations are searches or seizures.
The Fourth Amendment, Article V, and the Fourteenth Amendment do not prevent the government from conducting investigations for any rational purpose it darn well pleases.
They don't have to be the only two producers in the field to be investigated for breach of antitrust. They only to have to be the dominant players that hold most of the market, which they do for consumer markets that Nvidia also competes in.
Further, this isn't patent law. It is antitrust law. You can have a patent, but if you obstruct competition in your field by colluding to split a market, you're toast.
It would be antitrust if Intel and AMD colluded to refuse to sell licensing rights to a potential competitor to continue monopolizing the market. That is the heart of market fixing.
Any attempt to enter the market without a license would bring down Intel legal on them like flying monkeys blackening the sky. It would get ugly. Really ugly.
Particularly when the DOJ gets involved investigating Intel and AMD for antitrust collusion.
No. The computers are the property of the library/county/state. The custodian of the property can consent.
I'd say nobody can have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public computer. I mean, you don't even have your own user account in most cases.
Since the library is public, I believe the people who own the computer are the taxpayers of the state of Maryland
Well actually the owner would be the county or state. Taxpayers have no property interest in the property of the state or the state's subdivisions. There is no legal grounds to object to the state's use of its own property. If you don't like it, it is a political issue to take up with your local representatives.
It would just be the cherry on top of this whole escapade if evidence from those computers is used in a trial...and it gets slapped down for violating the fourth amendment
But it won't. Because consent is always sufficient for a search and seizure.