That would be the Second Amendment(A citizen's right to "keep and bear arms". The Fourth Amendment covers illegal search and seizure. Though, please, continue...
Wait, what the fuck are you talking about? Lasers can take out ICBM? Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? Seeing how you cannot even discuss the correction US Constitutional Amendments, it is no wonder that you would believe these lower-powered, handheld laser pointers could take out an ICBM. Jesus, give me a break.
When is a firearm at "high power"? Hell, when it is ever at "lower power"? Outside of plane issues, and eye irritation, I have never known of these cheap, handheld lasers killing a human, on its own. Firearms sure can.
I have to wonder if you even know what type of lasers are being talked about. Do you? Do you understand that these lasers discussed are not the types that can intercept and destroy missiles? From your comment, it is obvious that you are more than a little confused.
Except that EU member nations are sovereign nations, where as each state within the United States is a sovereign state, that yields some(not all) powers to the federal body(the United State Government). US states cannot enter into treaties, declare war, and a list of other things. EU members, as I understand it, are still free to do these things. While there may be some similarities between how the EU and the US operate, there are still vast differences between the two.
Why should anyone care that an author made a bad contractual obligation? These authors would not give one goddamn if any of their readers made a bad contractual obligation. The whole Huffington Post "article" is nothing more than a "Boohoo, cry for me" plea. Where is the post for people to cry about losing their jobs, and still being unemployed, after many years? Where are these crying authors for those people?
I do feel bad for people who enter into agreements that impact them negatively. In the end, though, those people choose to make that bad deal. If these authors dislike Amazon's rather horrid pricing agreement, at $.99(It is a dollar, people, quit penny shaving), then the authors need to create their own platform, where they can deliver digital copies of their books and reap a larger portion of the bounty. The fact is, these authors have options, but they would rather bemoan their station in life, or cry about their horrible books.
Either negotiate better, renegotiate, take your business somewhere else, or shut the fuck up. If I can do it for my business, authors can do it for their business.
These cameras will be a valuable tool for police response to crime, as well as the city's response to trouble areas(traffic and the like). Still, these cameras will not stop criminal activity, but the citizens of Atlanta, and the whole State of Georgia already have a very important tool at their disposal: Firearms. There are a number of citizens to carry firearms, both openly and concealed. This is legal(though it should be required of all law-abiding citizens), by way of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Georgia Constitution. Also, since Georgia as preemption statutes in the O.C.G.A, no city/county government can pass more strict laws on firearm ownership, use, and/or carry.
While some here might disagree with citizens carrying and/or owning firearms, it is important to respect the citizen's right to do so. A properly trained and armed citizen can do far more good than all of those cameras, or any reactive agency(which, after all, that is what the police are: Reactive). Still, I do believe these cameras will have good uses, as long as those uses are not abused.
Reaction to criminal activity, or to accidents, can only benefit the Atlanta area. Regardless, I do have to wonder about the intelligence of such an undertaking. There are other, more pressing issues that Atlanta needs to undertake.
The roads in Atlanta are horrible. So many potholes, cracks in the asphalt, bridges that need repair, and so many other, more important issues, that should be taken up prior to installing more cameras. I have lost the use, or ability to repair, of two, brand new tires while driving in downtown Atlanta, over the past four months alone.
Spectrum is not the sole limiting factor, in regards to the number of users, nor the throughput achievable. Placing an appropriate amount of towers, in a given area, will improve connections and potential data speeds, though it will not achieve speeds greater than the technology will allow.
A felony conviction is never removed from your record, unless you receive a pardon(either from a state governor, for state convictions, or the current US President, for federal convictions). This is the reason why felons are barred, for life, from owning and/or possessing firearms, voting, serving on a jury, obtaining student loans(if it was a felony conviction in regards to controlled substances, and it depends on the circumstances), and many other disabling results of such convictions. There are many professional licenses that will be lost with a felony convictions, as would a security clearance.
There is a process to have these disabilities removed, but that depends on which state a person resides in and what the process is for receiving a pardon. More often than not, a pardon is not given. Still, this is far worse than a some civil judgement.
A domestic violence conviction is far worse than most felony convictions, as even misdemeanor domestic/family violence convictions will also remove your right to arms, and impose other disabilities, as if you had committed a felony. I am not sure where you are getting your information, or where you "heard it from", but I know what I am talking about. I have several years of law enforcement service under my belt and have extensive experience with matter of criminal law and the process at which one can removing criminal disabilities.
I am not sure if you are looking to spread false information, or if you really believe what you posted. Regardless, it is wrong information. If I had to choose between a criminal conviction and a civil judgement, I would take the civil judgement every time. Even if the civil judgement were in the billions or trillions of dollars range, I would still take the civil judgement. That is, at the very least, how much I value my freedom and liberty.
Of course, I do not agree with such high judgements. Judging against someone for three or four times the actual, end-user cost, per song(i.e. three to four US Dollars(USD); not $150,000 USD), is more appropriate. Also, there should be a maximum to which a single person can be found liable for, unless said person can actually afford to pay past the maximum. Of course, I am focusing on the extremely wealthy, and not simply a person that is middle to upper-middle class.
Even if a person is making $100,000 a year and has a $10 million USD judgement himself, it would take 100+ years(figuring cost of living and such) to pay such a judgement off. Also, there is the whole Eighth Amendment, but it seems that the judiciary doesn't believe in that Amendment anymore, either.
You are correct on the jobs portion, but you forgot another reduction: Coverage. When Cingular purchased AT&T Mobility, Cingular cut off a lot of the towers/antennas that AT&T Mobility was operating. Only when Cingular has no other choice did it actually keep a "blue tower" or old AT&T Mobility tower operating. So, the idea that coverage will improve is horseshit. The current plan is the same as the old Cingular plan was.
AT&T might, might improve its coverage, to some degree, with the planned purchase of T-Mobile(I say purchase and not merger, as that is what this is). Regardless, the coverage will still suffer and current AT&T customers will still have the same, shitty UMTS/HSDPA coverage has it has had for years now. Many AT&T customers will be missing "3G" coverage, and will probably miss out on "4G" coverage, too.
We will never see any of this change, as long as AT&T stays in business. For some reason, AT&T has not learned from Verizon's success, as far as rolling out technology upgrades in such an expansive way, in such a short amount of time(well, relatively so). I mean, hell, Verizon has LTE coverage less then 30 miles from my home, and it is getting closer everyday. AT&T has yet to roll out UMTS/HSDPA anywhere near my home, and my girlfriend tells me that she doubts we will ever see it(as I have stated before, many times, she works in a network position with AT&T).
Wrong, on the Gibson front. Their problems have nothing to do with the wood, itself, being illegal; it has to do with the relatively recent changes to the Lacey Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900), and how the US Government is enforcing Indian law. The wood that was taken, on two different occasion, mind you, was completely legal.
Prior to commenting on a subject, make sure you know what you are talking about. Your post just perpetuates blatantly false information, because you "heard/read it somewhere". As far as the raid that occurred this year(2011), it has to do with the wood that Gibson obtained was not finished by Indian workers, which is a violation of Indian law, not US law. As far as the 2009 raid is concerned, Gibson states that it obtained an affidavit that the exported wood was within the law that Madagascar had in place, at the time of the export(http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8780-feds-raid-gibson-guitar-to-save-endangered-foreign-trees)
The Lacey Act, as it currently stands, is extremely unconstitutional. The US has no business, or authority, to enforce foreign law. Gibson's only fault is that it attempted to provide jobs to workers in the United States, and the United States has a law that bans such jobs, in this instance. We have too many restrictions on manufacturing, well, really, business as a whole, in this country.
The biggest problem I have with this, which is really equal to the whole illegal seizure issue, is the fact that the law enforcement agents were dressed in tactical gear and presented themselves as a unit going after a well armed foe. This only gives credence to the people that continue to shout about how the United States is become more of a "Police State" everyday. As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I disagree with the way the "raid" was handled.
If Gibson had been made states to the tune of, "Fuck the police, we will kill any that attempt to seize our property", then I would say that the armed and tactical response would be warranted. As I doubt that occurred, or anything similar to that, the response by the engaging agents was unprofessional and unwarranted.
The purpose of government is regulation. Whether that be through legislation or enforcement, that is the job, and the only job, of government. Outside of that, the reasons that the United States is having so much financial trouble is due to the intervention outside of regulation.
Your well being is not the concern of government; that is for you, your family, and/or your friends. You can even take that so far as to say that it is for everyone that does not know you, if they so choose to provide assistance. Expecting government to tax people at a rate to distribute the wealth that other people have worked hard to obtain is obscene and exhibits a faulty understanding of the purpose of government.
So, government exists to be a intermediary between two parties. As such, that is a theoretical function, and not necessarily a tangible one. Just because government can do something does not mean that it has to.
Should people that purchased stocks, in any particular company, that ended up going down in price, be refunded the difference? The answer would be, "Hell no". The fact is that you have to make a purchase and hope your bet(i.e. your purchase) was placed at the right time. If you are wrong, then you go the poorer for it. If you cannot afford to be wrong, then do not buy.
As far as "earning" anything; you haven't. My girlfriend works for the life-sucking, vicious company that is AT&T(wireless). She wakes up at 0450, leaves the house by 0600, and does not get home until 1930 to 2000. Afterwards, if she doesn't have to log into her VPN, to finish off some work(which happens 85% of the time), then she has to feed the dogs and jump into bed. That is just in time to see the clock hit 2200 to 2230. If she has to do work, then it more like 2345 to 0030. Even when the weekend rolls around, she is work six to nine hours, both days. Of course, she is just happy to still have a job.
So, spare me this "well-earned" statement. There are people that work far harder than you, for far longer, and probably for less money. I mean, it isn't like my girlfriend is receiving a six-figure salary for the ridiculous amount of work she does. In actuality, she makes way below that mark; I mean way, way below it. On top of it, management tells her group others see them "smiling too much"....and, no, I am not making that shit up. So, I guess she cannot be too overtly happy.
I do not fault you for wanting to see the most value for your money. My problem is that you are using the wrong argument.
Sadly, that is the way that "free speech" is in certain countries, like the UK, and other countries in that particular region. Some people have attempted to make that the way "free speech" is, in the United States, but the courts have, to the point, continued to protect the public's interest. Of course, that can change rather quickly, as the firearm owning/carrying public, in the United States, as seen in the not-so-distant past.
Facebook, like so many other "social media"/"social networking" sites/companies, seems like an interesting project, from the outside, but is later shown to, usually, be the furthering of the liberal/progressive agenda. That is not to mean that that is all that social networking is about, but the outward appearance of these companies makes it appear as such.
The saddest part is that so many people continue to flock to these social networking sites, not realizing that they are opening themselves up to potential dangers(employer spying on your comments, government using it in criminal proceeding, criminals extracting personal information, etc). Of course, social networking sites are essentially, in the instances stated prior, only mirror images of the problems that "smart phones" pose to its users.
Heaps of personal, possibly incriminating information, all stored in a nice little package. People just continue to be their own worse enemy.
So, AT&T is telling us that we(the customers) are causing harm to the network by using what we were fucking promised. AT&T states that we, as "unlimited" customers, will see a decrease in speed, if we are found to be using "too much data". What the fuck is "too much data"? We don't want to hear about fucking percentages; we want hard data.
I found it even more hilarious when AT&T, in this press release states the following:
"The bottom line is our customers have options. They can choose to stay on their unlimited plans and use unlimited amounts of data, but may experience reduced speeds at some point if they are an extraordinarily heavy data user. If speed is more important, they may wish to switch to a tiered usage plan, where customers can pay for more data if they need it and will not see reduced speeds."
So, even though we are trying to use what we paid for, and that high usage is causing AT&T a lot of network problems, we will not be affected by the throttling if we pay more money. Excuse me? Either the network cannot handle the traffic, or it can't. With AT&T making almost $20 billion USD, in profit each year, I see no reason why any of us should be paying more for a service we were promised, contractually, would be "unlimited".
What is the excuse going to be? "Limited spectrum"? First off, AT&T is the largest hoarder of spectrum in the United States, if not the world. Secondly, spectrum is no boundary. If AT&T cannot handle the traffic on its network, then it needs to install more towers and improve the overall infrastructure. The number of wireless subscribers that can be handled in a given area is spectrum, multiplied by the number of towers in the area. Of course, AT&T only wants people to focus on the spectrum portion of the equation.
AT&T failed to sufficiently plan for the increased demand for mobile data. Coupled with that, AT&T has failed to completely roll out UMTS/HSDPA over their entire network. severely lagging behind Verizon. I still have yet to see a 3G indicator show up on my phone within 25 miles from where I live. I live close to an interstate highway, and in the metro Atlanta area. Yet, Verizon(yet another company unprepared, but not quite as badly), has EVDO out here, and it has been out here for years.
With all of this, AT&T has also refused to roll out DSL and there are no other options for "broadband" where I live. So, I am a little confused as to what the hell I am supposed to do for data access on my phone. Use one of the non-existent "hotspots" in my area, or use my non-existent DSL service? Oh, wait, AT&T doesn't want us to focus on this problem either.
I have yet to see a commercial that states, directly from AT&T, just how behind the company is in meeting the demands on its customers. All I am seeing is some nice music, happy people, and pretty pictures, while AT&T uses a plethora of euphemisms to describe how it will fuck us, and its employees over, when it takes over T-Mobile. Oh, shit, sorry, we are not supposed to pay attention to that.
Well, you may have not noticed any of this, but your brain did.
So, Netflix sucks at contract negotiations and they expect us to "just understand"? If people choose to continue their subscription, that is their right. I, for one, will not do business with a company that cannot successfully negotiate a contract that is beneficial to the customer base.
Being belligerent isn't a crime. If it was, then all the people that told me to eat shit, die, fuck off, piss off, etc would have been arrested after they finished hurling those remarks at me, during my stent in law enforcement. Refusing to allow a bunch of government agents to either submit my child to potentially harmful, or touch him or her in an illegal manner, is not illegal; it is the duty of all parents.
Hell, even from TFA:
“(She) told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.
“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”
“I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked,” Abbott said, according to the police report.
Are you serious? "10,000 times safer than your cell phone?" Just who the fuck made that number up, and how did ionizing radiation become at all safer than non-ionizing radiation?
Oh, yeah, she was arrested for "being belligerent".
I will take your academia experience and raise you real world experience as a law enforcement officer(which I have). From that, I can tell you that quotas do exist, but they do not exist to raise revenue for the city/county/state; it exists to make sure the agents/officers are doing their damn job. In the first agency I worked in, we have a ten case quota, which covered anything from murder to speeding. Of course, this was on the low end, with bigger agencies having a slightly higher quota(or whatever they wish to call it). If quotas did not exists, then it would be too easy for officers to not do their job and it would cause even more waste is government spending.
It is a given that people will be violating the law. It might be rather minor(thanks to all of the malum prohibitum laws we have) to major(such as malum in se laws), people will be violating some law, as some point. Officer discretion is given to decide whether or not to bring charges(except in cases involving domestic violence, where no discretion is given, if an aggressor can be established), so all violations will not be met with charges.
I do agree with the statement on having marked patrol vehicles, over unmarked. Though, if you ever go to Virgina, you will see a vast sea of unmarked vehicles, as Virginia law enforcement loves to catch the evil speeders and drive the revenue up and up. In some states, visible law enforcement is not as important as catching violators...but, I digress...
There are positives to unmarked patrol vehicle, besides driving revenue up. While the mere present of a law enforcement officer is considered the first level of force, it does very little to actually deter some crime. If a criminal is serious about violating the law, they will do it with or without a law enforcement officer present. They might even murder the officer, if it suites them.
The only job of law enforcement is to enforce the law. Law enforcement does not exists to be the shepherd of the public, trying to stop them from the thinking about breaking the law. Law enforcement also does not exists, contrary to popular belief, to provide personal security for the general public. That is why the Second Amendment exists, and it is also why the self-defense law exist(which I believe are unneeded, as self-defense is an inherent right, not a legislated privilege). Law enforcement is not required to respond to calls for help, as has been established in various case law.
So, whether or not it is better to prevent crime or catch criminals is not a question that begs to be answered; it is not even a point of discussion. The only point of law enforcement is to enforcement the law, by arresting violators of the law. That is an "after the fact" line of work. I know that some people might dislike that, but that is how law enforcement works.
If you want personal security, grab a firearm and stand guard. If not, then good luck.
Yes, Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct the movie, but he left due to the perpetual delays on getting the film "green lit" by MGM. To me, honestly, Guillermo del Toro was the wrong guy to direct The Hobbit. Peter Jackson always needed to do it, as that it would line up, as best as possible, to the following work, which was shot over a decade previously.
Yes, some people disliked Peter Jackson's interpretation, but the films turned out as good as they could have. Some things were left out, but the theatrical edition would have been 15 to 18 hours long, if everything was covered. The extended editions would have been over 20 hour, easily(just the films, not the extras that are on other disc). Such a film would not have drawn the crowds that it did, as it would be unwatchable to the vast majority of possible audiences, as many of those people have such a short attention span. Also, things on paper do not always translate well on film, as vice versa.
I believe the ultimate problem with all of this is that people fail to read contracts, and simply believe what the greedy assholes(both studio heads, lawyers, directors, etc) tell them. "Oh, you will be rich and well known, just sign your life aw....errr, sign here and we can get started". I am sorry that these artist are underpaid, and I am sorry that these artist believe everything told to them, but they signed the contract and were too stupid, and/or lazy, to ask questions and protect themselves.
Should people take advantage of others? No, that is just wrong. The problem is that everyone is not trustworthy, so you always have to scrutinize everything you put your signature to. If you are not prepared to do everything the contract states, then do not sign. If you are not sure what is in the contact, then demand that a lawyer, or any other third-party that is experienced in contract negotiations/reading and interpreting contracts, that you trust, verify that the contract is worth signing. If it is, the enjoy being famous and rich-ish.
My understanding was that Texas dropped the measure after the US Government pressured them to drop it. I believe it also failed to pass for a second time, rather recently.
The DoJ threatened to shutdown flights to Texas, if the bill passed, the first time. The second time, the votes could not be found in time. Texas should have told the US Government to go fuck itself to start its own airline authority.
I own firearms and drive a Jeep Wrangler. I am actually quite manly, and I carry at least one firearm(a handgun) with me at all times. Of course, I could just as easily kill a person with my hands as I could with my firearm(s), but I choose to both exercise all of my rights, as a United States citizen, as well as a citizen of the great State of Georgia, and provide myself with all means necessary to defend myself from whatever situation might be presented to me. I do not need anti-firearm people, and/or foreigners(depending on who, exactly, you are) telling me how evil or vile I am. I am actually a quite decent human and good, law-abiding citizen.
I choose not to rely on a third-party to protect my family, my girlfriend, or me; I am more than capable of providing all the personal security that me and those around me need. I was trained by the US Government, as well as the State of Georgia, to properly handle a firearm, but that does not mean that I believe anyone needs government training to handle a firearm. There are numerous examples of idiot government agents handling firearms in a negligent manner, including the mighty BATFE.
Ghosts do not scare me, nor do "pussies" that hide behind their computer and the Anonymous Coward label to denigrate people that are law abiding and exercising their right to defend themselves. Perhaps you should submit that statement and attach your username(if you have one) to it.
What does scare me? Actually, not much. I am scare of armed criminals harming those that I care for or anyone else, for that matter. I am scared of government agents that abuse the authority given to them and not giving citizens the means to defend themselves from such abuses. After all, that is why the Second Amendment exists.
Still, I do not understand what this topic has to do with the issue discussed in the article.
Go where? Where I live, the only option is Verizon Wireless mobile "broadband" or dialup. That is it. AT&T quit rolling out DSLand refuses to cover us with UMTS(still, it would be as much of a raping as Verizon Wireless) in my area, Verizon doesn't even cover Georgia, on the land-line side, Comcast only offer cable television service, and AT&T and others are trying to fuck us(through legislative pandering and FUD aimed at the local governments) out of rolling out our own fiber network. So, just who the hell should I switch to?
Do not even start to give me this shit about, "Oh, well just move to an area that has "broadband" coverage." Why? This is 2011, the internet has been an important staple for at least a decade, and it is pretty much required if you attend school(from kindergarten to collage graduate level education), and it is a must if you work(at quite a few places, and that list is growing). So, I am just do interested in why you believe I should give up my land holding(30 acres) and my home, both of which I own outright(aside from high taxes) to move to an area that will charge me ten times as much for a much smaller home and no land.
If this were 1998 or 2001, I could understand that companies might still be working on rolling out "broadband", but the roll outs have stopped. It is not like I live out in a remote area of Georgia; there is a major interstate highway that is less than 15 minutes away. Part of that travel is through residential roadways, then a jump on a major US highway, then to the interstate highway. We are not in the middle of the Smoky Mountains, with no roads within 30 miles.
The fact is that the free market has failed because regulators have turned a blind eye to major problems within the industries they monitor. That is the main function of the various government: Regulation. When the telecommunications industry was busted up(the old AT&T or Ma Bell), things improved, even if only slightly. It took some time, but Ma Bell reorganized into a behemoth that is run by one of the worst corporation in the United States(Southwestern Bell), just under the old Ma Bell name.
So, please, feel free to enlighten me on just whom I should choose for my mobile and/or home broadband provider. I am, with all seriousness, interested in your genius plan.
I agree with you. I tend to live by the statement, "I work to live, not live to work." I have tried to teach that to my girlfriend, who works for the oppressive and horrible AT&T. She deals with medium to large-scale customers(medium to large business, governments, etc) and I barely ever see her. Even when she is home, she is in front of her work-provided laptop, working tickets and connected to bridges(multi-point calls, for those that do not know).
She barely gets time to take a bathroom break, and usually is going all deep-throat on her breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. On the rare occasions that she gets to, you know, sleep, that is the only real time she has to break away from her job(which might be a few hours every few days). It is total horseshit, yet it is the environment that AT&T had fostered since SBC took the brand over, as well as Cingular and, soon to be, T-Moble. Those of you working at T-Mobile have been warned.
You might think this is motivated by money, but it isn't. She makes less than half of what others in her department make, since she transferred to that department after AT&T took over. The others making right at six-figures, and above, were there prior to AT&T's approach to fucking over employees without sufficient pay. She is around half way to six figures(and she probably will not make it anywhere close to that mark), and she outranks(higher pay level, according to AT&T) others that are making more money.
So, this problem is not only attributed to the creative world. At least [most] of those people receive better compensation for not sleeping. She is under a perpetual deadline that will not end until she retires(which is 30+ years away), dies, or quits.
Actually, in that episode, Dr. House used psilocybin mushrooms("magic mushrooms") to alleviate the problems from the supposed cluster headaches(though it turned out to be juvenile hemochromatosis). The episode in question in s03e23, titled "The Jerk". In another episode(s02e12, titled "Distractions"), Dr. House induced a migraine headache in himself, and "short-circuited" the headache with LSD. Migraine headaches and cluster headaches are different, with cluster headaches being described as just about the worst pain a person can experience.
I actually suffer from migraines(as first diagnosed), but they have been reduced in frequency and pain through the use of fentanyl patches(though the patches were prescribed for the chronic pain I suffer, aside from the headaches). My pain clinic doctor thought I might have been experiencing cluster headaches, due to the pain, secondary symptoms, and duration, but I have never taken the time to be properly diagnosed(no insurance sucks, though I doubt I suffer from cluster headaches).
Hey, I didn't know that the TSA allowed agents to muck around on the internet while working. Get back to work!!! There are nice, young and old women to molest, unless nice, young and old men are your thing.
You already pay to watch advertisements, if you have cable tv. Even if you don't, there are a lot of people that do and that has shown companies that there are quite a lot of idiots that will pay to watch advertisements.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be the Second Amendment(A citizen's right to "keep and bear arms". The Fourth Amendment covers illegal search and seizure. Though, please, continue...
Wait, what the fuck are you talking about? Lasers can take out ICBM? Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? Seeing how you cannot even discuss the correction US Constitutional Amendments, it is no wonder that you would believe these lower-powered, handheld laser pointers could take out an ICBM. Jesus, give me a break.
When is a firearm at "high power"? Hell, when it is ever at "lower power"? Outside of plane issues, and eye irritation, I have never known of these cheap, handheld lasers killing a human, on its own. Firearms sure can.
I have to wonder if you even know what type of lasers are being talked about. Do you? Do you understand that these lasers discussed are not the types that can intercept and destroy missiles? From your comment, it is obvious that you are more than a little confused.
Except that EU member nations are sovereign nations, where as each state within the United States is a sovereign state, that yields some(not all) powers to the federal body(the United State Government). US states cannot enter into treaties, declare war, and a list of other things. EU members, as I understand it, are still free to do these things. While there may be some similarities between how the EU and the US operate, there are still vast differences between the two.
Why should anyone care that an author made a bad contractual obligation? These authors would not give one goddamn if any of their readers made a bad contractual obligation. The whole Huffington Post "article" is nothing more than a "Boohoo, cry for me" plea. Where is the post for people to cry about losing their jobs, and still being unemployed, after many years? Where are these crying authors for those people?
I do feel bad for people who enter into agreements that impact them negatively. In the end, though, those people choose to make that bad deal. If these authors dislike Amazon's rather horrid pricing agreement, at $.99(It is a dollar, people, quit penny shaving), then the authors need to create their own platform, where they can deliver digital copies of their books and reap a larger portion of the bounty. The fact is, these authors have options, but they would rather bemoan their station in life, or cry about their horrible books.
Either negotiate better, renegotiate, take your business somewhere else, or shut the fuck up. If I can do it for my business, authors can do it for their business.
These cameras will be a valuable tool for police response to crime, as well as the city's response to trouble areas(traffic and the like). Still, these cameras will not stop criminal activity, but the citizens of Atlanta, and the whole State of Georgia already have a very important tool at their disposal: Firearms. There are a number of citizens to carry firearms, both openly and concealed. This is legal(though it should be required of all law-abiding citizens), by way of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Georgia Constitution. Also, since Georgia as preemption statutes in the O.C.G.A, no city/county government can pass more strict laws on firearm ownership, use, and/or carry.
While some here might disagree with citizens carrying and/or owning firearms, it is important to respect the citizen's right to do so. A properly trained and armed citizen can do far more good than all of those cameras, or any reactive agency(which, after all, that is what the police are: Reactive). Still, I do believe these cameras will have good uses, as long as those uses are not abused.
Reaction to criminal activity, or to accidents, can only benefit the Atlanta area. Regardless, I do have to wonder about the intelligence of such an undertaking. There are other, more pressing issues that Atlanta needs to undertake.
The roads in Atlanta are horrible. So many potholes, cracks in the asphalt, bridges that need repair, and so many other, more important issues, that should be taken up prior to installing more cameras. I have lost the use, or ability to repair, of two, brand new tires while driving in downtown Atlanta, over the past four months alone.
Spectrum is not the sole limiting factor, in regards to the number of users, nor the throughput achievable. Placing an appropriate amount of towers, in a given area, will improve connections and potential data speeds, though it will not achieve speeds greater than the technology will allow.
A felony conviction is never removed from your record, unless you receive a pardon(either from a state governor, for state convictions, or the current US President, for federal convictions). This is the reason why felons are barred, for life, from owning and/or possessing firearms, voting, serving on a jury, obtaining student loans(if it was a felony conviction in regards to controlled substances, and it depends on the circumstances), and many other disabling results of such convictions. There are many professional licenses that will be lost with a felony convictions, as would a security clearance.
There is a process to have these disabilities removed, but that depends on which state a person resides in and what the process is for receiving a pardon. More often than not, a pardon is not given. Still, this is far worse than a some civil judgement.
A domestic violence conviction is far worse than most felony convictions, as even misdemeanor domestic/family violence convictions will also remove your right to arms, and impose other disabilities, as if you had committed a felony. I am not sure where you are getting your information, or where you "heard it from", but I know what I am talking about. I have several years of law enforcement service under my belt and have extensive experience with matter of criminal law and the process at which one can removing criminal disabilities.
I am not sure if you are looking to spread false information, or if you really believe what you posted. Regardless, it is wrong information. If I had to choose between a criminal conviction and a civil judgement, I would take the civil judgement every time. Even if the civil judgement were in the billions or trillions of dollars range, I would still take the civil judgement. That is, at the very least, how much I value my freedom and liberty.
Of course, I do not agree with such high judgements. Judging against someone for three or four times the actual, end-user cost, per song(i.e. three to four US Dollars(USD); not $150,000 USD), is more appropriate. Also, there should be a maximum to which a single person can be found liable for, unless said person can actually afford to pay past the maximum. Of course, I am focusing on the extremely wealthy, and not simply a person that is middle to upper-middle class.
Even if a person is making $100,000 a year and has a $10 million USD judgement himself, it would take 100+ years(figuring cost of living and such) to pay such a judgement off. Also, there is the whole Eighth Amendment, but it seems that the judiciary doesn't believe in that Amendment anymore, either.
You are correct on the jobs portion, but you forgot another reduction: Coverage. When Cingular purchased AT&T Mobility, Cingular cut off a lot of the towers/antennas that AT&T Mobility was operating. Only when Cingular has no other choice did it actually keep a "blue tower" or old AT&T Mobility tower operating. So, the idea that coverage will improve is horseshit. The current plan is the same as the old Cingular plan was.
AT&T might, might improve its coverage, to some degree, with the planned purchase of T-Mobile(I say purchase and not merger, as that is what this is). Regardless, the coverage will still suffer and current AT&T customers will still have the same, shitty UMTS/HSDPA coverage has it has had for years now. Many AT&T customers will be missing "3G" coverage, and will probably miss out on "4G" coverage, too.
We will never see any of this change, as long as AT&T stays in business. For some reason, AT&T has not learned from Verizon's success, as far as rolling out technology upgrades in such an expansive way, in such a short amount of time(well, relatively so). I mean, hell, Verizon has LTE coverage less then 30 miles from my home, and it is getting closer everyday. AT&T has yet to roll out UMTS/HSDPA anywhere near my home, and my girlfriend tells me that she doubts we will ever see it(as I have stated before, many times, she works in a network position with AT&T).
Wrong, on the Gibson front. Their problems have nothing to do with the wood, itself, being illegal; it has to do with the relatively recent changes to the Lacey Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900), and how the US Government is enforcing Indian law. The wood that was taken, on two different occasion, mind you, was completely legal.
Prior to commenting on a subject, make sure you know what you are talking about. Your post just perpetuates blatantly false information, because you "heard/read it somewhere". As far as the raid that occurred this year(2011), it has to do with the wood that Gibson obtained was not finished by Indian workers, which is a violation of Indian law, not US law. As far as the 2009 raid is concerned, Gibson states that it obtained an affidavit that the exported wood was within the law that Madagascar had in place, at the time of the export(http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8780-feds-raid-gibson-guitar-to-save-endangered-foreign-trees)
The Lacey Act, as it currently stands, is extremely unconstitutional. The US has no business, or authority, to enforce foreign law. Gibson's only fault is that it attempted to provide jobs to workers in the United States, and the United States has a law that bans such jobs, in this instance. We have too many restrictions on manufacturing, well, really, business as a whole, in this country.
The biggest problem I have with this, which is really equal to the whole illegal seizure issue, is the fact that the law enforcement agents were dressed in tactical gear and presented themselves as a unit going after a well armed foe. This only gives credence to the people that continue to shout about how the United States is become more of a "Police State" everyday. As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I disagree with the way the "raid" was handled.
If Gibson had been made states to the tune of, "Fuck the police, we will kill any that attempt to seize our property", then I would say that the armed and tactical response would be warranted. As I doubt that occurred, or anything similar to that, the response by the engaging agents was unprofessional and unwarranted.
The purpose of government is regulation. Whether that be through legislation or enforcement, that is the job, and the only job, of government. Outside of that, the reasons that the United States is having so much financial trouble is due to the intervention outside of regulation.
Your well being is not the concern of government; that is for you, your family, and/or your friends. You can even take that so far as to say that it is for everyone that does not know you, if they so choose to provide assistance. Expecting government to tax people at a rate to distribute the wealth that other people have worked hard to obtain is obscene and exhibits a faulty understanding of the purpose of government.
So, government exists to be a intermediary between two parties. As such, that is a theoretical function, and not necessarily a tangible one. Just because government can do something does not mean that it has to.
I am sure that Mr. Rolfe would love to articulate how bad many of the Atari videos games were(hello E.T.), and it will be entertaining to boot.
Hell, send the information to him and he can add some scathing lyrics, aimed at Atari, in his theme song.
Should people that purchased stocks, in any particular company, that ended up going down in price, be refunded the difference? The answer would be, "Hell no". The fact is that you have to make a purchase and hope your bet(i.e. your purchase) was placed at the right time. If you are wrong, then you go the poorer for it. If you cannot afford to be wrong, then do not buy.
As far as "earning" anything; you haven't. My girlfriend works for the life-sucking, vicious company that is AT&T(wireless). She wakes up at 0450, leaves the house by 0600, and does not get home until 1930 to 2000. Afterwards, if she doesn't have to log into her VPN, to finish off some work(which happens 85% of the time), then she has to feed the dogs and jump into bed. That is just in time to see the clock hit 2200 to 2230. If she has to do work, then it more like 2345 to 0030. Even when the weekend rolls around, she is work six to nine hours, both days. Of course, she is just happy to still have a job.
So, spare me this "well-earned" statement. There are people that work far harder than you, for far longer, and probably for less money. I mean, it isn't like my girlfriend is receiving a six-figure salary for the ridiculous amount of work she does. In actuality, she makes way below that mark; I mean way, way below it. On top of it, management tells her group others see them "smiling too much". ...and, no, I am not making that shit up. So, I guess she cannot be too overtly happy.
I do not fault you for wanting to see the most value for your money. My problem is that you are using the wrong argument.
Sadly, that is the way that "free speech" is in certain countries, like the UK, and other countries in that particular region. Some people have attempted to make that the way "free speech" is, in the United States, but the courts have, to the point, continued to protect the public's interest. Of course, that can change rather quickly, as the firearm owning/carrying public, in the United States, as seen in the not-so-distant past.
Facebook, like so many other "social media"/"social networking" sites/companies, seems like an interesting project, from the outside, but is later shown to, usually, be the furthering of the liberal/progressive agenda. That is not to mean that that is all that social networking is about, but the outward appearance of these companies makes it appear as such.
The saddest part is that so many people continue to flock to these social networking sites, not realizing that they are opening themselves up to potential dangers(employer spying on your comments, government using it in criminal proceeding, criminals extracting personal information, etc). Of course, social networking sites are essentially, in the instances stated prior, only mirror images of the problems that "smart phones" pose to its users.
Heaps of personal, possibly incriminating information, all stored in a nice little package. People just continue to be their own worse enemy.
Sorry for all of the cliches.
So, AT&T is telling us that we(the customers) are causing harm to the network by using what we were fucking promised. AT&T states that we, as "unlimited" customers, will see a decrease in speed, if we are found to be using "too much data". What the fuck is "too much data"? We don't want to hear about fucking percentages; we want hard data.
I found it even more hilarious when AT&T, in this press release states the following:
"The bottom line is our customers have options. They can choose to stay on their unlimited plans and use unlimited amounts of data, but may experience reduced speeds at some point if they are an extraordinarily heavy data user. If speed is more important, they may wish to switch to a tiered usage plan, where customers can pay for more data if they need it and will not see reduced speeds."
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=20535&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=32318&mapcode=corporate
So, even though we are trying to use what we paid for, and that high usage is causing AT&T a lot of network problems, we will not be affected by the throttling if we pay more money. Excuse me? Either the network cannot handle the traffic, or it can't. With AT&T making almost $20 billion USD, in profit each year, I see no reason why any of us should be paying more for a service we were promised, contractually, would be "unlimited".
What is the excuse going to be? "Limited spectrum"? First off, AT&T is the largest hoarder of spectrum in the United States, if not the world. Secondly, spectrum is no boundary. If AT&T cannot handle the traffic on its network, then it needs to install more towers and improve the overall infrastructure. The number of wireless subscribers that can be handled in a given area is spectrum, multiplied by the number of towers in the area. Of course, AT&T only wants people to focus on the spectrum portion of the equation.
AT&T failed to sufficiently plan for the increased demand for mobile data. Coupled with that, AT&T has failed to completely roll out UMTS/HSDPA over their entire network. severely lagging behind Verizon. I still have yet to see a 3G indicator show up on my phone within 25 miles from where I live. I live close to an interstate highway, and in the metro Atlanta area. Yet, Verizon(yet another company unprepared, but not quite as badly), has EVDO out here, and it has been out here for years.
With all of this, AT&T has also refused to roll out DSL and there are no other options for "broadband" where I live. So, I am a little confused as to what the hell I am supposed to do for data access on my phone. Use one of the non-existent "hotspots" in my area, or use my non-existent DSL service? Oh, wait, AT&T doesn't want us to focus on this problem either.
I have yet to see a commercial that states, directly from AT&T, just how behind the company is in meeting the demands on its customers. All I am seeing is some nice music, happy people, and pretty pictures, while AT&T uses a plethora of euphemisms to describe how it will fuck us, and its employees over, when it takes over T-Mobile. Oh, shit, sorry, we are not supposed to pay attention to that.
Well, you may have not noticed any of this, but your brain did.
So, Netflix sucks at contract negotiations and they expect us to "just understand"? If people choose to continue their subscription, that is their right. I, for one, will not do business with a company that cannot successfully negotiate a contract that is beneficial to the customer base.
Being belligerent isn't a crime. If it was, then all the people that told me to eat shit, die, fuck off, piss off, etc would have been arrested after they finished hurling those remarks at me, during my stent in law enforcement. Refusing to allow a bunch of government agents to either submit my child to potentially harmful, or touch him or her in an illegal manner, is not illegal; it is the duty of all parents.
Hell, even from TFA:
“(She) told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.
“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”
“I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked,” Abbott said, according to the police report.
Are you serious? "10,000 times safer than your cell phone?" Just who the fuck made that number up, and how did ionizing radiation become at all safer than non-ionizing radiation?
Oh, yeah, she was arrested for "being belligerent".
I will take your academia experience and raise you real world experience as a law enforcement officer(which I have). From that, I can tell you that quotas do exist, but they do not exist to raise revenue for the city/county/state; it exists to make sure the agents/officers are doing their damn job. In the first agency I worked in, we have a ten case quota, which covered anything from murder to speeding. Of course, this was on the low end, with bigger agencies having a slightly higher quota(or whatever they wish to call it). If quotas did not exists, then it would be too easy for officers to not do their job and it would cause even more waste is government spending.
It is a given that people will be violating the law. It might be rather minor(thanks to all of the malum prohibitum laws we have) to major(such as malum in se laws), people will be violating some law, as some point. Officer discretion is given to decide whether or not to bring charges(except in cases involving domestic violence, where no discretion is given, if an aggressor can be established), so all violations will not be met with charges.
I do agree with the statement on having marked patrol vehicles, over unmarked. Though, if you ever go to Virgina, you will see a vast sea of unmarked vehicles, as Virginia law enforcement loves to catch the evil speeders and drive the revenue up and up. In some states, visible law enforcement is not as important as catching violators...but, I digress...
There are positives to unmarked patrol vehicle, besides driving revenue up. While the mere present of a law enforcement officer is considered the first level of force, it does very little to actually deter some crime. If a criminal is serious about violating the law, they will do it with or without a law enforcement officer present. They might even murder the officer, if it suites them.
The only job of law enforcement is to enforce the law. Law enforcement does not exists to be the shepherd of the public, trying to stop them from the thinking about breaking the law. Law enforcement also does not exists, contrary to popular belief, to provide personal security for the general public. That is why the Second Amendment exists, and it is also why the self-defense law exist(which I believe are unneeded, as self-defense is an inherent right, not a legislated privilege). Law enforcement is not required to respond to calls for help, as has been established in various case law.
So, whether or not it is better to prevent crime or catch criminals is not a question that begs to be answered; it is not even a point of discussion. The only point of law enforcement is to enforcement the law, by arresting violators of the law. That is an "after the fact" line of work. I know that some people might dislike that, but that is how law enforcement works.
If you want personal security, grab a firearm and stand guard. If not, then good luck.
Ummm, Peter Jackson IS directing The Hobbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_project)
Yes, Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct the movie, but he left due to the perpetual delays on getting the film "green lit" by MGM. To me, honestly, Guillermo del Toro was the wrong guy to direct The Hobbit. Peter Jackson always needed to do it, as that it would line up, as best as possible, to the following work, which was shot over a decade previously.
Yes, some people disliked Peter Jackson's interpretation, but the films turned out as good as they could have. Some things were left out, but the theatrical edition would have been 15 to 18 hours long, if everything was covered. The extended editions would have been over 20 hour, easily(just the films, not the extras that are on other disc). Such a film would not have drawn the crowds that it did, as it would be unwatchable to the vast majority of possible audiences, as many of those people have such a short attention span. Also, things on paper do not always translate well on film, as vice versa.
I believe the ultimate problem with all of this is that people fail to read contracts, and simply believe what the greedy assholes(both studio heads, lawyers, directors, etc) tell them. "Oh, you will be rich and well known, just sign your life aw....errr, sign here and we can get started". I am sorry that these artist are underpaid, and I am sorry that these artist believe everything told to them, but they signed the contract and were too stupid, and/or lazy, to ask questions and protect themselves.
Should people take advantage of others? No, that is just wrong. The problem is that everyone is not trustworthy, so you always have to scrutinize everything you put your signature to. If you are not prepared to do everything the contract states, then do not sign. If you are not sure what is in the contact, then demand that a lawyer, or any other third-party that is experienced in contract negotiations/reading and interpreting contracts, that you trust, verify that the contract is worth signing. If it is, the enjoy being famous and rich-ish.
My understanding was that Texas dropped the measure after the US Government pressured them to drop it. I believe it also failed to pass for a second time, rather recently.
As, yes, I found it: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/anti-groping-bill-fails-pass-texas-second-time
The DoJ threatened to shutdown flights to Texas, if the bill passed, the first time. The second time, the votes could not be found in time. Texas should have told the US Government to go fuck itself to start its own airline authority.
I own firearms and drive a Jeep Wrangler. I am actually quite manly, and I carry at least one firearm(a handgun) with me at all times. Of course, I could just as easily kill a person with my hands as I could with my firearm(s), but I choose to both exercise all of my rights, as a United States citizen, as well as a citizen of the great State of Georgia, and provide myself with all means necessary to defend myself from whatever situation might be presented to me. I do not need anti-firearm people, and/or foreigners(depending on who, exactly, you are) telling me how evil or vile I am. I am actually a quite decent human and good, law-abiding citizen.
I choose not to rely on a third-party to protect my family, my girlfriend, or me; I am more than capable of providing all the personal security that me and those around me need. I was trained by the US Government, as well as the State of Georgia, to properly handle a firearm, but that does not mean that I believe anyone needs government training to handle a firearm. There are numerous examples of idiot government agents handling firearms in a negligent manner, including the mighty BATFE.
Ghosts do not scare me, nor do "pussies" that hide behind their computer and the Anonymous Coward label to denigrate people that are law abiding and exercising their right to defend themselves. Perhaps you should submit that statement and attach your username(if you have one) to it.
What does scare me? Actually, not much. I am scare of armed criminals harming those that I care for or anyone else, for that matter. I am scared of government agents that abuse the authority given to them and not giving citizens the means to defend themselves from such abuses. After all, that is why the Second Amendment exists.
Still, I do not understand what this topic has to do with the issue discussed in the article.
Go where? Where I live, the only option is Verizon Wireless mobile "broadband" or dialup. That is it. AT&T quit rolling out DSLand refuses to cover us with UMTS(still, it would be as much of a raping as Verizon Wireless) in my area, Verizon doesn't even cover Georgia, on the land-line side, Comcast only offer cable television service, and AT&T and others are trying to fuck us(through legislative pandering and FUD aimed at the local governments) out of rolling out our own fiber network. So, just who the hell should I switch to?
Do not even start to give me this shit about, "Oh, well just move to an area that has "broadband" coverage." Why? This is 2011, the internet has been an important staple for at least a decade, and it is pretty much required if you attend school(from kindergarten to collage graduate level education), and it is a must if you work(at quite a few places, and that list is growing). So, I am just do interested in why you believe I should give up my land holding(30 acres) and my home, both of which I own outright(aside from high taxes) to move to an area that will charge me ten times as much for a much smaller home and no land.
If this were 1998 or 2001, I could understand that companies might still be working on rolling out "broadband", but the roll outs have stopped. It is not like I live out in a remote area of Georgia; there is a major interstate highway that is less than 15 minutes away. Part of that travel is through residential roadways, then a jump on a major US highway, then to the interstate highway. We are not in the middle of the Smoky Mountains, with no roads within 30 miles.
The fact is that the free market has failed because regulators have turned a blind eye to major problems within the industries they monitor. That is the main function of the various government: Regulation. When the telecommunications industry was busted up(the old AT&T or Ma Bell), things improved, even if only slightly. It took some time, but Ma Bell reorganized into a behemoth that is run by one of the worst corporation in the United States(Southwestern Bell), just under the old Ma Bell name.
So, please, feel free to enlighten me on just whom I should choose for my mobile and/or home broadband provider. I am, with all seriousness, interested in your genius plan.
LegalZoom is not based in Missouri. Since the company is not based in Missouri, only a federal court has jurisdiction.
I agree with you. I tend to live by the statement, "I work to live, not live to work." I have tried to teach that to my girlfriend, who works for the oppressive and horrible AT&T. She deals with medium to large-scale customers(medium to large business, governments, etc) and I barely ever see her. Even when she is home, she is in front of her work-provided laptop, working tickets and connected to bridges(multi-point calls, for those that do not know).
She barely gets time to take a bathroom break, and usually is going all deep-throat on her breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. On the rare occasions that she gets to, you know, sleep, that is the only real time she has to break away from her job(which might be a few hours every few days). It is total horseshit, yet it is the environment that AT&T had fostered since SBC took the brand over, as well as Cingular and, soon to be, T-Moble. Those of you working at T-Mobile have been warned.
You might think this is motivated by money, but it isn't. She makes less than half of what others in her department make, since she transferred to that department after AT&T took over. The others making right at six-figures, and above, were there prior to AT&T's approach to fucking over employees without sufficient pay. She is around half way to six figures(and she probably will not make it anywhere close to that mark), and she outranks(higher pay level, according to AT&T) others that are making more money.
So, this problem is not only attributed to the creative world. At least [most] of those people receive better compensation for not sleeping. She is under a perpetual deadline that will not end until she retires(which is 30+ years away), dies, or quits.
Actually, in that episode, Dr. House used psilocybin mushrooms("magic mushrooms") to alleviate the problems from the supposed cluster headaches(though it turned out to be juvenile hemochromatosis). The episode in question in s03e23, titled "The Jerk". In another episode(s02e12, titled "Distractions"), Dr. House induced a migraine headache in himself, and "short-circuited" the headache with LSD. Migraine headaches and cluster headaches are different, with cluster headaches being described as just about the worst pain a person can experience.
I actually suffer from migraines(as first diagnosed), but they have been reduced in frequency and pain through the use of fentanyl patches(though the patches were prescribed for the chronic pain I suffer, aside from the headaches). My pain clinic doctor thought I might have been experiencing cluster headaches, due to the pain, secondary symptoms, and duration, but I have never taken the time to be properly diagnosed(no insurance sucks, though I doubt I suffer from cluster headaches).
Hey, I didn't know that the TSA allowed agents to muck around on the internet while working. Get back to work!!! There are nice, young and old women to molest, unless nice, young and old men are your thing.
You already pay to watch advertisements, if you have cable tv. Even if you don't, there are a lot of people that do and that has shown companies that there are quite a lot of idiots that will pay to watch advertisements.