We've accepted that in many cases when the identify of the driver cannot be confirmed (i.e. parking tickets), that the owner of the car is responsible for any citations issued to it.
Were someone to park your car on a street corner, and it rolled away and struck someone, and it was impossible to determine that you were not in the car nor was anyone else in the car, but you owned the car, you would be liable for the damages.
More appropriately, parking tickets. The owner of a vehicle is responsible for where it is parked, even if they were not the one who parked it there (unless it was stolen). I don't think it is too much of a stretch to apply this to other things.
If your window shades are open, the cops can look in. If they happen to see your stash sitting on the counter, they have probable cause.
The fact that the witness to the crime is not a person is irrelevant. If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.
Or the FCC will take notice and clarify the regulation to whatever they actually intended to cover.
I also find it interesting, because just about every lease I've signed specifically stated that I could not put a satellite dish or antenna on a porch or balcony. I imagine most leases have such statements, and I wonder how many of them actually get challenged, and how many people just assume the landlord can do whatever they want with the land.
I managed to track down the actual FCC Rule, 47 C.F.R. 1.4000, and the key parts of it that may or may not apply to this are:
"or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite"
"For purposes of this section, "fixed wireless signals" means any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Fixed wireless signals do not include, among other things, AM radio, FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizen's Band (CB) radio, and Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) signals."
"commerical" is probably the key word there. "nonbroadcast" is also a key word. Given the list of other things that are excluded, it's hard to say whether or not this falls under the exclusion.
The point of the rule is to prohibit landlords and neighborhood associations from prohibiting someone from installing an antenna in order to receive television or satellite.
It is not clear-cut at all whether or not the devices used by the students fall under these exceptions.
When you sign a lease, the property is in your possession, but it is not your property. The fact that it is a lease means that the owner still retains title and ownership of the property.
A landlord can keep you from having pets, illegal drugs, smoking, etc. Because you signed an agreement stating that you would not do such things when the lease was signed. Similarly, this is part of the student's agreement with the school. It is no different from them not allowing pets.
Judges are not the impartial, emotionless, opinionless, non-people that we would all like to be. The fact is that they are all influenced by outside forces and that if a certain president appoints a certain judge with a certain agenda, when they get their fancy robe and chair their opinions will not change, and they will probably still push their own agenda through as often as they can, especially within the first several years in office.
You will often see judges like this come to their senses 10-15 years down the road and start using their brains.
I've seen several contestants claim that their buzzers were not working correctly, but they're really just getting beaten by someone else. I imagine if a contestant raised the issue, they would stop for a moment and test it out. (And since it "didn't affect the outcome of the game" they don't show it on TV.)
Re:The losing Final Jeopardy question of Ken Jenni
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I wouldn't call TV Week the most credible news source in the world; however, I think the more interesting part of this is that it appears TV Week blatantly ripped off the info from this guys blog (while one news source gave him credit, and didn't at all state it as fact). Then the AP and a few other news outlets picked it up from TV Week and it spread like wildfire.
I think TV Week should be called out on this one, because clearly their source is the blog, and the blog's source is a named informer; however, they way their article is written, they make it appear that the source went directly to them. This is good for them, because it makes it look like they have people "on the inside" that are willing to give them information.
When the NY Times can have a plagiarizer on their staff for a long time without knowing it, I do not think I would put such actions behind a much less credible periodical as TV Week.
Re:The losing Final Jeopardy question of Ken Jenni
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 1
The time of the post on your website says "posted September 089, 2004 at 09:36 am." The oldest story I can find using Google's news service is The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online which does indeed give you credit. (and Google says the story is 12 hours old.)
Every news article after that (9 hours old or newer) cites the TV Week article, and the TV Week article only cites "sources."
Usually the writer of a particular article will have his name and e-mail address or telephone number. You should contact them and demonstrate that TV Week got the information from you and didn't give you credit for it. I've found them for the most part to be pretty agreeable.
The 911 commission found that in the spring of 1999, Bin Laden and a few others met to decide on targets for crashing planes into.
Training for those involved began in the fall of 1999.
Original planning was worked on in 1996.
The fact is, it's not one particular president's policies that drive these people to attack the United States. It's a horrible history of foreign policy stretching across many different administrations and political parties.
Yep. In Indiana, (in response to 9/11), the BMV enacted a whole slew of new requirements in order to get a driver's license (either first time, or with a new address, etc.) It made it very difficult for recent immigrants and even people who had been here awhile to get their licenses changed or renewed.
Thus, it was harder for a legit citizen to get a driver's license than it would be for a "bad guy" with a stack of fake papers.
Please provide specific examples as to major issues where they both hold a similar opinion (and that having such an opinion would result in detriment to the United States.)
More than likely the costs of these "freebies" are covered by the countless fees they dump on your on top of tuition costs. The majority of scholarship money usually comes from private donors.
So you would rather leave it in the hands of a police officer and a jury to decide if your speed was appropriate given your situation? Yay for overburdening the courts even more!
Insurance is about getting you to pay for something that won't ever likely happen... want me to prove it? Keep having stupid accidents, and see if they don't drop you.
If insurance didn't make insurance companies money it wouldn't exist. The point of insurance is that most people consider it worthwhile to pay a nominal premium in case there is ever the instance where they might need to cover expenses that far exceed any amount of money they would ever have on hand. Of course, once that happens the insurance company will drop you, but you've probably gotten a lot more out of them than they did out of you, so you got your money's worth.
Suppose you cause an accident which kills 3 people. Your piddly fees you paid each month will enable your insurance company to pay $100,000+ to each of their families or more. Would you rather get sued for that amount?
All forms of insurance work similarly. Obviously the majority of people who have health insurance would have been better off just paying their expenses out of pocket (or the insurance companies would be out of business.)
However, for the people that end up having expenses far exceeding their premiums, it's worth it. So you can think of insurance in two ways. One: you're protecting yourself against possible future financial hardship. Two: you are helping share the costs of such hardship for other people. (and of course, the insurance company gets their hefty cut.)
Backing up traffic by driving 25 in a 35 MPH zone, for example, will only look like someone driving an acceptable speed, despite the fact that such situations are just as likely to cause an accident as driving too fast
I don't see how you assume that driving well below posted speed limits and impeeding the flow of traffic would not be detected by this device (plus it is illegal to do so in most places.)
Also, accidents involving cars going 25 mph usually result in a lot less damage to property and people than ones involving cars going 55 mph.
It is unlikely they knew the area would be in the path of a direct hit by a hurricane until a few days ago (although it's always been known that this was a possibility). At that point, moving them is difficult (they can't just fly somewhere else, which would have been convenient if they could.)
John McCain is one of the leaders behind CFR, and I believe his motives are genuine. Oddly enough, the case that I mentioned was basically Republicans and Democrats both trying to get major provisions of the BCRA declared unconstitutional. (The Act was drafted by McCain and Feingold.)
527's are pumped full of money by large corporations as well; because they are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of money and basically side-step the issue of CFR.
The Supreme Court already decided the First Amendment issue as it applies to CFR (for the most part) last year. Namely, that it is necessary in order to reduce real or apparent corruption in the government to restrict freedom of speech. It isn't being done to silence people as much as it is being done in order to protect our democracy from corruption by corporations and other groups.
Slashdot Mirror
We've accepted that in many cases when the identify of the driver cannot be confirmed (i.e. parking tickets), that the owner of the car is responsible for any citations issued to it.
Were someone to park your car on a street corner, and it rolled away and struck someone, and it was impossible to determine that you were not in the car nor was anyone else in the car, but you owned the car, you would be liable for the damages.
More appropriately, parking tickets. The owner of a vehicle is responsible for where it is parked, even if they were not the one who parked it there (unless it was stolen). I don't think it is too much of a stretch to apply this to other things.
If your window shades are open, the cops can look in. If they happen to see your stash sitting on the counter, they have probable cause.
The fact that the witness to the crime is not a person is irrelevant. If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.
Or the FCC will take notice and clarify the regulation to whatever they actually intended to cover.
I also find it interesting, because just about every lease I've signed specifically stated that I could not put a satellite dish or antenna on a porch or balcony. I imagine most leases have such statements, and I wonder how many of them actually get challenged, and how many people just assume the landlord can do whatever they want with the land.
I managed to track down the actual FCC Rule, 47 C.F.R. 1.4000, and the key parts of it that may or may not apply to this are:
"or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite"
"For purposes of this section, "fixed wireless signals" means any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Fixed wireless signals do not include, among other things, AM radio, FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizen's Band (CB) radio, and Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) signals."
"commerical" is probably the key word there. "nonbroadcast" is also a key word. Given the list of other things that are excluded, it's hard to say whether or not this falls under the exclusion.
The point of the rule is to prohibit landlords and neighborhood associations from prohibiting someone from installing an antenna in order to receive television or satellite.
It is not clear-cut at all whether or not the devices used by the students fall under these exceptions.
The US government says otherwise
Show me where the US government says otherwise. Please.
When you sign a lease, the property is in your possession, but it is not your property. The fact that it is a lease means that the owner still retains title and ownership of the property.
A landlord can keep you from having pets, illegal drugs, smoking, etc. Because you signed an agreement stating that you would not do such things when the lease was signed. Similarly, this is part of the student's agreement with the school. It is no different from them not allowing pets.
Judges are not the impartial, emotionless, opinionless, non-people that we would all like to be. The fact is that they are all influenced by outside forces and that if a certain president appoints a certain judge with a certain agenda, when they get their fancy robe and chair their opinions will not change, and they will probably still push their own agenda through as often as they can, especially within the first several years in office.
You will often see judges like this come to their senses 10-15 years down the road and start using their brains.
I've seen several contestants claim that their buzzers were not working correctly, but they're really just getting beaten by someone else. I imagine if a contestant raised the issue, they would stop for a moment and test it out. (And since it "didn't affect the outcome of the game" they don't show it on TV.)
I wouldn't call TV Week the most credible news source in the world; however, I think the more interesting part of this is that it appears TV Week blatantly ripped off the info from this guys blog (while one news source gave him credit, and didn't at all state it as fact). Then the AP and a few other news outlets picked it up from TV Week and it spread like wildfire.
I think TV Week should be called out on this one, because clearly their source is the blog, and the blog's source is a named informer; however, they way their article is written, they make it appear that the source went directly to them. This is good for them, because it makes it look like they have people "on the inside" that are willing to give them information.
When the NY Times can have a plagiarizer on their staff for a long time without knowing it, I do not think I would put such actions behind a much less credible periodical as TV Week.
The time of the post on your website says "posted September 089, 2004 at 09:36 am." The oldest story I can find using Google's news service is The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online which does indeed give you credit. (and Google says the story is 12 hours old.)
Every news article after that (9 hours old or newer) cites the TV Week article, and the TV Week article only cites "sources."
Usually the writer of a particular article will have his name and e-mail address or telephone number. You should contact them and demonstrate that TV Week got the information from you and didn't give you credit for it. I've found them for the most part to be pretty agreeable.
The 911 commission found that in the spring of 1999, Bin Laden and a few others met to decide on targets for crashing planes into.
Training for those involved began in the fall of 1999.
Original planning was worked on in 1996.
The fact is, it's not one particular president's policies that drive these people to attack the United States. It's a horrible history of foreign policy stretching across many different administrations and political parties.
Yep. In Indiana, (in response to 9/11), the BMV enacted a whole slew of new requirements in order to get a driver's license (either first time, or with a new address, etc.) It made it very difficult for recent immigrants and even people who had been here awhile to get their licenses changed or renewed.
Thus, it was harder for a legit citizen to get a driver's license than it would be for a "bad guy" with a stack of fake papers.
Considering that federal judges are appointed, is it that surprising that the current administration might have some influence over them?
9/11 was planned and in the works for many years before George Bush ever set foot in office (or it was ever apparent he would run for President).
Please provide specific examples as to major issues where they both hold a similar opinion (and that having such an opinion would result in detriment to the United States.)
More than likely the costs of these "freebies" are covered by the countless fees they dump on your on top of tuition costs. The majority of scholarship money usually comes from private donors.
So you would rather leave it in the hands of a police officer and a jury to decide if your speed was appropriate given your situation? Yay for overburdening the courts even more!
Insurance is about getting you to pay for something that won't ever likely happen... want me to prove it? Keep having stupid accidents, and see if they don't drop you.
If insurance didn't make insurance companies money it wouldn't exist. The point of insurance is that most people consider it worthwhile to pay a nominal premium in case there is ever the instance where they might need to cover expenses that far exceed any amount of money they would ever have on hand. Of course, once that happens the insurance company will drop you, but you've probably gotten a lot more out of them than they did out of you, so you got your money's worth.
Suppose you cause an accident which kills 3 people. Your piddly fees you paid each month will enable your insurance company to pay $100,000+ to each of their families or more. Would you rather get sued for that amount?
All forms of insurance work similarly. Obviously the majority of people who have health insurance would have been better off just paying their expenses out of pocket (or the insurance companies would be out of business.)
However, for the people that end up having expenses far exceeding their premiums, it's worth it. So you can think of insurance in two ways. One: you're protecting yourself against possible future financial hardship. Two: you are helping share the costs of such hardship for other people. (and of course, the insurance company gets their hefty cut.)
Backing up traffic by driving 25 in a 35 MPH zone, for example, will only look like someone driving an acceptable speed, despite the fact that such situations are just as likely to cause an accident as driving too fast
I don't see how you assume that driving well below posted speed limits and impeeding the flow of traffic would not be detected by this device (plus it is illegal to do so in most places.)
Also, accidents involving cars going 25 mph usually result in a lot less damage to property and people than ones involving cars going 55 mph.
Or they are being slashdotted and the intense server load is causing timeouts which could easily result in the problems you described.
It is unlikely they knew the area would be in the path of a direct hit by a hurricane until a few days ago (although it's always been known that this was a possibility). At that point, moving them is difficult (they can't just fly somewhere else, which would have been convenient if they could.)
John McCain is one of the leaders behind CFR, and I believe his motives are genuine. Oddly enough, the case that I mentioned was basically Republicans and Democrats both trying to get major provisions of the BCRA declared unconstitutional. (The Act was drafted by McCain and Feingold.)
527's are pumped full of money by large corporations as well; because they are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of money and basically side-step the issue of CFR.
The Supreme Court already decided the First Amendment issue as it applies to CFR (for the most part) last year. Namely, that it is necessary in order to reduce real or apparent corruption in the government to restrict freedom of speech. It isn't being done to silence people as much as it is being done in order to protect our democracy from corruption by corporations and other groups.
1250 fps? Talk about overkill, I'm usually happy with about 40-60.