"I don't know, I hear Somalia's quite the libertarian paradise."
"Libertarians" are nothing more than fronts for the very White Republican Party, any of whose members being non-Caucasian is a result of their delusion that the GOP sees them as something other than lawn jockeys.
Somalia isn't White nor remotely likely to be ruled by the Koch brothers.
The public are already sick of the promises. Mainstream media should ignore anything not ready for sale. It's useless information except to scientists.
The sky is falling. We must continue legacy systems so we can be trapped by them. The Soviet Union never sleeps. If it doesn't put humans in space it isn't science. If the US doesn't fund most space efforts humanity won't benefit from them.
"But, hey, that's OK, we can provide them with cheap labour and outsource their manufacturing for them..."
That outsourcy thingie has worked rather well for China, why not the US?
Let's not forget nations are built on cheap labour, ALL of them.
Americans expected the post WWII MegaBubble to last forever. Not happening. Let OTHER COUNTRIES blow megabucks advancing US for a change. The point of exploring space is that it gets done, not that Americans do it
The typical oil was castor oil, and the system referred to as a "total loss" oil system.
Racing castor persisted for decades and made excellent oil for two-stroke motorcycle engines long after total loss oil systems were phased out of use in four-strokes.
If your garbage is left at the curb, there is expectation that it's accessible to citizens:
"rss Subscribe print Printer Friendly Share this Page HomeProtectionLearn What to Shred California vs. Greenwood Supreme Court Decision on Garbage Privacy
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 486 U.S. 35 January 11, 1988 May 16, 1988
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Syllabus
Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. On the basis of items in the bags which were indicative of narcotics use, the police obtained warrants to search the house, discovered controlled substances during the searches, and arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. Finding that probable cause to search the house would not have existed without the evidence obtained from the trash searches, the State Superior Court dismissed the charges under People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 486 P.2d 1262, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. Although noting a post-Krivda state constitutional amendment eliminating the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of state, but not federal, law, the State Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Krivda was based on federal, as well as state, law. Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44.
(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 43-44.
(b) Greenwood's alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law under Krivda, [p*36] which he contends survived the state constitutional amendment, is without merit. The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street. Pp. 43-44.
2. Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law. Pp. 44-45.
182 Cal.App.3d 729, 227 Cal.Rptr. 539, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J.,
"By your logic, anytime there is a fire or other disaster that damages a building, everyone is free to jump in dig for booty. I think the word for this is "looting"."
Those who modded your post Insightful should RTFA.
"Looting"? Have some California vs. Greenwood:
"California vs. Greenwood Supreme Court Decision on Garbage Privacy
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 486 U.S. 35 January 11, 1988 May 16, 1988
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Syllabus
Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. On the basis of items in the bags which were indicative of narcotics use, the police obtained warrants to search the house, discovered controlled substances during the searches, and arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. Finding that probable cause to search the house would not have existed without the evidence obtained from the trash searches, the State Superior Court dismissed the charges under People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 486 P.2d 1262, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. Although noting a post-Krivda state constitutional amendment eliminating the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of state, but not federal, law, the State Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Krivda was based on federal, as well as state, law. Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44.
(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 43-44.
(b) Greenwood's alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law under Krivda, [p*36] which he contends survived the state constitutional amendment, is without merit. The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street. Pp. 43-44.
2. Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law. Pp. 44-45.
182 Cal.App.3d 729, 227 Cal.Rptr. 539, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in w
Understandably, many Aspies despise convention, but if I name something "couchslug's wrinkly ballsack" I should understand that will have a rather limited appeal.
It may alienate a tiny minority of potential customers who don't care to picture my nuts. That I find my nuts quite nice is beside the point.
This concept is terribly difficult for some people to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't know, I hear Somalia's quite the libertarian paradise."
"Libertarians" are nothing more than fronts for the very White Republican Party, any of whose members being non-Caucasian is a result of their delusion that the GOP sees them as something other than lawn jockeys.
Somalia isn't White nor remotely likely to be ruled by the Koch brothers.
Funny as fuck and I'm out of Mod points!
"if anything the brick-and-mortar stores are now in serious trouble "
Adapt or die.
Not many horse-drawn wagon makers are left either, though the few remaining can command some serious money:
http://www.hansenwheel.com/products/hansen/land.html
The public are already sick of the promises. Mainstream media should ignore anything not ready for sale. It's useless information except to scientists.
Bring legal standards or STFU. "Ethical" and "civic" standards are subjective. That's one reason LAWS were written.
All the Slate statement boils down to is "we haet Amazon, herp derp".
The sky is falling. We must continue legacy systems so we can be trapped by them. The Soviet Union never sleeps. If it doesn't put humans in space it isn't science. If the US doesn't fund most space efforts humanity won't benefit from them.
Did I miss anything?
"Who approves these headlines, anyway?"
People trolling for page hits. If Fox News can do it, so can /.
In what wretched shithole do you work so the rest of us can avoid it?
Yes, really.
Who "activates"?
At this point VLK copies of XP should be as common as DOS boot floppies once were.
"But, hey, that's OK, we can provide them with cheap labour and outsource their manufacturing for them..."
That outsourcy thingie has worked rather well for China, why not the US?
Let's not forget nations are built on cheap labour, ALL of them.
Americans expected the post WWII MegaBubble to last forever. Not happening. Let OTHER COUNTRIES blow megabucks advancing US for a change. The point of exploring space is that it gets done, not that Americans do it
"why do I want Windows 8?"
You may not, but it will come bundled with enough new PCs that what you want doesn't factor in the decision to bring it to market.
The typical oil was castor oil, and the system referred to as a "total loss" oil system.
Racing castor persisted for decades and made excellent oil for two-stroke motorcycle engines long after total loss oil systems were phased out of use in four-strokes.
Castrol still produce automotive castor oils:
http://www.castrol.com/castrol/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9014107&contentId=7027099
It describes how in the article.
Read The Fucking Article, shithead.
If it doesn't act that way, it will be destroyed.
Virtue is no defense.
It's a worse-than-useless joke that literally merits destruction. All its does is tie the hands of the fools who take it seriously.
"But in this case I dislike looters who go into a burned down structure and steal your property before you get a chance to return and get it."
Where is any evidence he did any such thing?
If your garbage is left at the curb, there is expectation that it's accessible to citizens:
"rss Subscribe print Printer Friendly Share this Page
HomeProtectionLearn What to Shred
California vs. Greenwood
Supreme Court Decision on Garbage Privacy
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
486 U.S. 35
January 11, 1988
May 16, 1988
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Syllabus
Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. On the basis of items in the bags which were indicative of narcotics use, the police obtained warrants to search the house, discovered controlled substances during the searches, and arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. Finding that probable cause to search the house would not have existed without the evidence obtained from the trash searches, the State Superior Court dismissed the charges under People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 486 P.2d 1262, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. Although noting a post-Krivda state constitutional amendment eliminating the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of state, but not federal, law, the State Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Krivda was based on federal, as well as state, law.
Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44 .
(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 43-44 .
(b) Greenwood's alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law under Krivda, [p*36] which he contends survived the state constitutional amendment, is without merit. The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street. Pp. 43-44 .
2. Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law. Pp. 44-45 .
182 Cal.App.3d 729, 227 Cal.Rptr. 539, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J.,
"By your logic, anytime there is a fire or other disaster that damages a building, everyone is free to jump in dig for booty. I think the word for this is "looting"."
Those who modded your post Insightful should RTFA.
"Looting"? Have some California vs. Greenwood:
"California vs. Greenwood
Supreme Court Decision on Garbage Privacy
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
486 U.S. 35
January 11, 1988
May 16, 1988
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Syllabus
Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. On the basis of items in the bags which were indicative of narcotics use, the police obtained warrants to search the house, discovered controlled substances during the searches, and arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. Finding that probable cause to search the house would not have existed without the evidence obtained from the trash searches, the State Superior Court dismissed the charges under People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 486 P.2d 1262, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. Although noting a post-Krivda state constitutional amendment eliminating the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of state, but not federal, law, the State Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Krivda was based on federal, as well as state, law.
Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44 .
(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 43-44 .
(b) Greenwood's alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law under Krivda, [p*36] which he contends survived the state constitutional amendment, is without merit. The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street. Pp. 43-44 .
2. Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law. Pp. 44-45 .
182 Cal.App.3d 729, 227 Cal.Rptr. 539, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in w
We are coming for you and those like you. Those we don't keep around to be ridiculed will disappear.
You don't know when, you don't know where.
Sleep well.
I get almost zero spam in my Yahoo inboxes I've used since 1999.
(I use Zimbra so I don't see their shitty web interface.)
Must be an "outgoing" thing.
"Maybe the package should just be named after what it *does*, instead of some cutesy name that tells you nothing about the purpose of the software"
But that isn't "cute"!
....consider the CUSTOMER.
Understandably, many Aspies despise convention, but if I name something "couchslug's wrinkly ballsack" I should understand that will have a rather limited appeal.
It may alienate a tiny minority of potential customers who don't care to picture my nuts. That I find my nuts quite nice is beside the point.
This concept is terribly difficult for some people to understand.
If it's visible on ANY "Unclassified" networks it should be considered visible to the "world".
If you don't want info compromised, consider not putting it on a computer in the first place!
and show a pic of the ends without further explanation.
Computer users "get" cracks, hacks, and routing around stupidity.