or Ontario, New England States, Atlantic Provinces, online retailers, etc. There is a reason why most Francophones learn English. Quebec is a tiny spot of french speakers in a sea of english speakers. Deal with it instead of trying to preserve a society through legislation.
Good for you if you want to read a computer screen by taking pictures of it with an iPhone. Those translators are not perfect. So browser auto translator + iPhone + app + figuring out when app screws up. That sounds like a kludge to me.
Nw tell us about that gasoline engine replacement.
Gas tanks generally don't need replacing. Apples to apples. By the way that is warranty replacement. What happens when the vehicle is out of warranty? This would make used hybrids much less valuable.
The are lots of assumptions and hopes in those statement but little real science. By the way it took about 40 years of research and development to get lithium ion batteries to where they are today. Ten years is not much time.
This is a very specific instance where the actor claims that she was hired for a film about one thing and the film turned out to be about something else. Would you have a problem with being hired for a film about the advantages of having a father figure but when the film comes out it is actually about the benefits of pedophilia? It is not about religion; It is about misrepresentations on the filming contract.
Perhaps the specific instance where someone whom refused search is no longer present but someone whom consented to a search is present has never been brought before the Court. It is not a change if the question has never been asked before.
This is just the court of today saying that they know better than the court of yesterday.
What "court of yesterday" ruled on this specific issue?
All of these issues are not covered by the ruling and would be cases that may need to be heard again. SCOTUS rulings are very narrow and only apply to scenarios that match exactly. For example they previously ruled that if one person present refuses a search it does not matter how many other people who are present allow the search the search is refused. This ruling is slightly different.
Not quite. As refusing a search is not "obstruction" an arrest for that charge would be illegal and any evidence retrieved as a result of that illegal act is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and therefore inadmissible in court.
It seems that the search would now hold up in court.
Not necessarily. There is a legal idea called "fruit of the poisoned tree". Any evidence uncovered as a result of an illegal act, in this case an illegal arrest, is not admissible in court.
they were too lazy to get a warrant in the first place and searched anyway when they knew it was illegal to do so at that time.
This shows how little you understand SCOTUS. They don't make laws but make rulings based on law. In this case they ruled whether or not the search was legal at the time. Since they ruled the search was legal there was no way the police offices could know "it was illegal to do so at that time". At worst it was a grey area at the time.
A search was illegal when the person who refused was present. Whether or not it was legal when that person was not present but another person, who was a resident and had authority over the premises, was preset and consented is a different question. The court found that the consent from a person present overrides the refusal from a person not present. From the police officer's view point they had consent and therefore did not need a warrant and the court upheld their view.
Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.
The first occupant was not arrested for "Obstruction" but in connection to a robber that had just occurred. Changing what actually occurred to match your views is not valid. If your scenario actually occurred the case would be thrown out based on false arrest as refusal of a search is not obstruction.
I've been in (several) taxi Prius with over 400,000 km on the clock.
Being in a Prius make you an expert on how they work?
These cars spend most of their life on battery mode
What is this based on? The electric range of a Prius plugin is less than 23 Km. I was a taxi driver and drove upwards of 300 km/ day. Most of the electricity used during the day is from regenerative braking but there is still a lot of gasoline used.
The average car is kept 3 years by the original owner.
FTFY. After that cars go on the used market and are in service for many more years. I drive a 2002 Hyundai Elantra. Are you advocating trowing away a $100,000 car after 3 years?
Unless you plan to keep it ten + years, is this really a concern?
It may not be a concern for the original buyer but it is a major concern for the used market. In effect the car becomes worthless after about 5 years.
You missed one. Replace battery pack for $12000 when it becomes worn out. Depending on how and how often the battery is charged this could be a relatively short time,
There is a lot less periodic maintenance but there is a very big one that comes along.
Slashdot Mirror
or Ontario, New England States, Atlantic Provinces, online retailers, etc. There is a reason why most Francophones learn English. Quebec is a tiny spot of french speakers in a sea of english speakers. Deal with it instead of trying to preserve a society through legislation.
being legally recognized as a "distinct society"
Sovereignty had been a thorny issue for decades and using the word "nation" would just add fuel to the fire.
the US government basically ignores the constitution
A more accurate description, and less inflammatory therefore less interesting, is "the Border Patrol ignores part of the 4th Amendment".
How about this. Most North Americans that people from Quebec come into contact with speak English.
Mexico is still less than 1/3 of the North American population.
Who wrote and passed that "law"?
The population of mexico is 120M. The population of the US is 313M. Even taking mexico into account most of North America speaks English.
I would like to know where you are getting your statistics.
half of the French-speaking population knows English.
I would think that ratio would be much higher considering almost all the rest of North America is English
Good for you if you want to read a computer screen by taking pictures of it with an iPhone. Those translators are not perfect. So browser auto translator + iPhone + app + figuring out when app screws up. That sounds like a kludge to me.
Auto translators do not translate text displayed in a graphic.
Nw tell us about that gasoline engine replacement.
Gas tanks generally don't need replacing. Apples to apples. By the way that is warranty replacement. What happens when the vehicle is out of warranty? This would make used hybrids much less valuable.
Lithium might not be the issue but cobalt, which is also use in lithium in batteries, might be.
The are lots of assumptions and hopes in those statement but little real science. By the way it took about 40 years of research and development to get lithium ion batteries to where they are today. Ten years is not much time.
They changed the script after filming as they dubbed over her dialogue.
This is a very specific instance where the actor claims that she was hired for a film about one thing and the film turned out to be about something else. Would you have a problem with being hired for a film about the advantages of having a father figure but when the film comes out it is actually about the benefits of pedophilia? It is not about religion; It is about misrepresentations on the filming contract.
And in 10-15 years, battery packs will be around $2K
Assuming that scarcity of materials to build those batteries has not driven prices up.
Also, care to quote your source of statistics?
Perhaps the specific instance where someone whom refused search is no longer present but someone whom consented to a search is present has never been brought before the Court. It is not a change if the question has never been asked before.
This is just the court of today saying that they know better than the court of yesterday.
What "court of yesterday" ruled on this specific issue?
Given the current attitude of the courts, they can release all the arrestees in the morning "no harm, no foul".
If the harm was a search that could result in years in jail that would be a different story. In that case "no harm no foul" would not apply.
All of these issues are not covered by the ruling and would be cases that may need to be heard again. SCOTUS rulings are very narrow and only apply to scenarios that match exactly. For example they previously ruled that if one person present refuses a search it does not matter how many other people who are present allow the search the search is refused. This ruling is slightly different.
Not quite. As refusing a search is not "obstruction" an arrest for that charge would be illegal and any evidence retrieved as a result of that illegal act is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and therefore inadmissible in court.
It seems that the search would now hold up in court.
Not necessarily. There is a legal idea called "fruit of the poisoned tree". Any evidence uncovered as a result of an illegal act, in this case an illegal arrest, is not admissible in court.
they were too lazy to get a warrant in the first place and searched anyway when they knew it was illegal to do so at that time.
This shows how little you understand SCOTUS. They don't make laws but make rulings based on law. In this case they ruled whether or not the search was legal at the time. Since they ruled the search was legal there was no way the police offices could know "it was illegal to do so at that time". At worst it was a grey area at the time.
A search was illegal when the person who refused was present. Whether or not it was legal when that person was not present but another person, who was a resident and had authority over the premises, was preset and consented is a different question. The court found that the consent from a person present overrides the refusal from a person not present. From the police officer's view point they had consent and therefore did not need a warrant and the court upheld their view.
Did you even read the article?
Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.
The first occupant was not arrested for "Obstruction" but in connection to a robber that had just occurred. Changing what actually occurred to match your views is not valid. If your scenario actually occurred the case would be thrown out based on false arrest as refusal of a search is not obstruction.
I've been in (several) taxi Prius with over 400,000 km on the clock.
Being in a Prius make you an expert on how they work?
These cars spend most of their life on battery mode
What is this based on? The electric range of a Prius plugin is less than 23 Km. I was a taxi driver and drove upwards of 300 km/ day. Most of the electricity used during the day is from regenerative braking but there is still a lot of gasoline used.
The average car is kept 3 years by the original owner.
FTFY. After that cars go on the used market and are in service for many more years. I drive a 2002 Hyundai Elantra. Are you advocating trowing away a $100,000 car after 3 years?
Unless you plan to keep it ten + years, is this really a concern?
It may not be a concern for the original buyer but it is a major concern for the used market. In effect the car becomes worthless after about 5 years.
You missed one.
Replace battery pack for $12000 when it becomes worn out. Depending on how and how often the battery is charged this could be a relatively short time,
There is a lot less periodic maintenance but there is a very big one that comes along.