Its only trespassing if you have your land posted. If not, you have to ask the person (or object) to leave, if they don't you must have law enforcement remove them. You cannot physically remove someone, or that is battery or kidnapping.
Destroying someone's drone would be personal property destruction
Is it Pomegranate? If not they should look at that took. Pomegranate may be literally perfect. It inhibits bad gut bacteria and promotes beneficial ones like Bifidobacterium
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
What about the ATF agent that told investigators agents fired first at dogs? Or the house hearings where one of the davidians testified that agents fired first at Koresh? Or the missing door that had the crucial evidence...
I doubt you understand the legality behind it, but currently you are correct. Raich vs Gonzales 2005 supports your statement but read Thomas' dissent in Raich 2005:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’ restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, 8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct.
A
As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586—589 (concurring opinion). The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586—587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term “commerce” is consistently used to mean trade or exchange–not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112—125 (2001). The term “commerce” commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857—862 (2003).
Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, 8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
On this traditional understanding of “commerce,” the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character. The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana. Instead, it bans the entire market–intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial–for marijuana. Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress’ commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Even in 1700s, this wording protects your papers if you're carrying them horse and buggy over public roads on public property. Original intent is the key here, not translate it into whatever floats your boat.
Also you should look into "reasonable expectation of privacy."
What you say did happen, and it wasn't considered treason. Presser vs Ill., an important 2nd amendment case.
From wiki...
The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1879, in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, "did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the State of Illinois, or the troops of the United States." A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Presser then pleaded not guilty, and both parties having waived a jury the case was tried by the court, which found Presser guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10.
Basically, Presser,
In December 1879, marched at the head of said company, about four hundred in number, in the streets of the city of Chicago, he riding on horseback and in command; that the company was armed with rifles and Presser with a cavalry sword; that the company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the State, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the State, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States.
That would be like pushing an experimental kernel as a stable one. Public policy should be the result of experiments, not the experiment. Though I don't think this happens.
We all know (or should know) public policy is written by issue specific think tanks with an agenda. An experiment presumes a curiosity about the outcome. People writing policy know which way they want "the experiment" to go. When HCI/Brady group write gun control legislation, they have no desire to see the net effects of their legislation (if they truly did, they'd abandon their gun control stance).
Slashdot Mirror
Its only trespassing if you have your land posted. If not, you have to ask the person (or object) to leave, if they don't you must have law enforcement remove them. You cannot physically remove someone, or that is battery or kidnapping.
Destroying someone's drone would be personal property destruction
Only some companies' software honors no fly zones. DJI Naza flight controller is one of them. The open source Pixhawk does not.
Ban fast food and candy if you really mean it. Nanny staters...
Nobody cares and part of it is because he slow released everything.
Put a frog in boiling water, it jumps out. Slowly increase the temp...
Is it Pomegranate? If not they should look at that took. Pomegranate may be literally perfect. It inhibits bad gut bacteria and promotes beneficial ones like Bifidobacterium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Look at this chart, it is quite possibly the greatest modulator of gut bacteria ever http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Ever seen Big Bang Theory?
From some website:
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
You don't break the law too badly is what you're saying?
What does that say about the law when everyone is in illegality. More than a few people here took some math, what is a limit again?
Cameras can't pick who they apply the law to
No such thing as brown fat. Its muscle tissue that has its mitochondria uncoupled via thermogenin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Its how animals survive in frigid environments.
Specious argument.
High crime areas area in the metros where often guns are heavily regulated. IE places like D.C. and Chicago.
Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the US/world and has virtually no gun laws. Can carry concealed without a permit.
What about the ATF agent that told investigators agents fired first at dogs? Or the house hearings where one of the davidians testified that agents fired first at Koresh? Or the missing door that had the crucial evidence...
Federal power got rolled back with Lopez and Morrison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Under what authority does the federal govt have to regulate pot? It doesn't.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...
I doubt you understand the legality behind it, but currently you are correct. Raich vs Gonzales 2005 supports your statement but read Thomas' dissent in Raich 2005:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’ restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, 8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct.
A
As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586—589 (concurring opinion). The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586—587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term “commerce” is consistently used to mean trade or exchange–not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112—125 (2001). The term “commerce” commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857—862 (2003).
Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, 8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
On this traditional understanding of “commerce,” the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character. The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana. Instead, it bans the entire market–intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial–for marijuana. Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress’ commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial."
You say this, but judging from the responses Surveillance Man gets, I bet you'd tell a different tale IRL.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Even in 1700s, this wording protects your papers if you're carrying them horse and buggy over public roads on public property. Original intent is the key here, not translate it into whatever floats your boat.
Also you should look into "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Wow, did you even try and read "the study itself?" Its pay-walled.
Translated:
"However, I do like other people paying for things I can use. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on."
What you say did happen, and it wasn't considered treason. Presser vs Ill., an important 2nd amendment case.
From wiki...
The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1879, in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, "did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the State of Illinois, or the troops of the United States." A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Presser then pleaded not guilty, and both parties having waived a jury the case was tried by the court, which found Presser guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10.
Basically, Presser,
In December 1879, marched at the head of said company, about four hundred in number, in the streets of the city of Chicago, he riding on horseback and in command; that the company was armed with rifles and Presser with a cavalry sword; that the company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the State, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the State, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States.
TLDR if there ever was one
You're forgetting the 4 people in Texas who tested positive for ebola in 1990 who never had symptoms.
by infected, I mean tested positive for ebola
If I remember my documentary correct, several of the people who worked there were infected by the airborne ebola but never demonstrated symptoms.
That would be like pushing an experimental kernel as a stable one. Public policy should be the result of experiments, not the experiment. Though I don't think this happens.
We all know (or should know) public policy is written by issue specific think tanks with an agenda. An experiment presumes a curiosity about the outcome. People writing policy know which way they want "the experiment" to go. When HCI/Brady group write gun control legislation, they have no desire to see the net effects of their legislation (if they truly did, they'd abandon their gun control stance).