Ever been in a Prius? They're surprisingly roomy. Yes, they're over 20k, but when you look at the features that come standard (just ignoring the efficiency), and the sort of warranty you get, there's not that much of a hybrid surcharge; you'll easily make it up over the vehicle's life versus a vehicle with similar features.
Consumer Reports did a report on about six hybrid vehicles (including the Prius, Civic Hybrid, and Ford Escape hybrid) and compared them to the equivalent "non-hybrid" models. They included initial cost, gas costs, maintenance costs, and a few other factors to determine if the hybrids were cheaper over the long run. Guess what? NONE of the hybrids were cost effective after even 150000 miles!
The IBM Lotus Notes database size restrictions must vary by site. Here, we get nastygrams around 280MB or so and at 300MB they stop letting you send mail HOWEVER this only goes into effect if you restart Notes. If you keep it running, you can keep sending all you want:)
The 300MB restriction started here about a year ago, no restrictions at all before that. I think mine was close to a gig. I got it down by saving big attachments to my network drive - just as secure/reliable as email - and deleting the attachment from notes. Notes 7 has a nice "Save/Delete all attachments in this email" function that is quite handy. I do keep all messages for 2 years (the max expiry time)... 1+ year old emails have already proven helpful as "paper trails" for old issues that resurfaced. And yes you can do a single change expiration function on all your email... just do a select all then click the change expiration button... though this might also be Notes 7 only. I've been running pre-GA Notes 7 builds since July 2004 so I don't really remember what 6 was like:)
No Hard Copy - While its great to be able to download the game whenever you want, this is a huge problem for people who like to sell their games when they move on to the next one. You can't sell your license to the download.
Well, you can certainly sell your Steam account to anyone if you want to, for the value of all games you have registered. If you really sell every game when you're done, just create a new steam account for every download.
For example, you now need to pay for the full versions of DoD and NS. That would not have happened without Steam.
Baloney, Valve bought the rights to DoD and NS, they would have charged for them with or without the Steam implementation. Valve has every right to purchase the rights to successful mods. Many believe the reason modding flourishes so much is that people hope Valve (or some other company) will buy the rights to their mod, and they can retire with millions.
I agree. We haven't had a decent president since Jefferson, and we've been needing a revolution for some time now. I'm not shocked by this administration abusing its powers, I'm shocked that powers get abused every day by every politician and people still call this the land of the free.
A perhaps less shocking solution to your dilemma would be realizing that we actually are free, and recent presidents are just using powers the constitution granted to them to defend the country. If you think that searching people physically crossing the border is "reasonable" then you should also think that "searching" communications crossing the border is also "reasonable".
If the Executive thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can petition the Court to review it, or petition Congress to repeal it. It is not the Executive's job to decide, without informing anyone save a few members of Congress who are sworn to secrecy, that a law is unconstitutional or improper and that it does not deserve to be upheld. That simply is not the job of the President as laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow the President to ignore the law.
Correct, but in this case, at least 5 other presidents have done the same thing, with their lawyers all arguing that it IS legal. Furthermore, no courts have ever found it to be illegal. Precedent counts for something.
The President can authorize both of these actions under some general conditions... no wiretap without warrant for 'US Persons' [violates 4th amendment], etc.).
Correct, and if you in Anytown, USA calls your mom in Anyothertown, USA, then they aren't listening. If you're calling a known member of Al Qaeda OUTSIDE THE USA then they probably are listening, as they should.
The law that forbids the NSA from listening to communications in the U.S. is very clear. Nothing in the text of the constitution as written gives the president the right to ignore a law whenever he deems it helpful during wartime.
Yet at the same time, congress can not create a law that restricts the president's constitutional powers.
Funny that you cite Truong. Here's what the FISA review court had to say about Truong in 2002.. all of it, which National Review conveniently left out:
Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
From here. Emphasis mine. Funny what happens when you use original sources instead of relying on mouthpieces.
Wait a minute, how about we read the whole paragraph:
"The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President's executive power. In approving the district court's exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government's investigation became "primarily" driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when "the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators," and "the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Id. at 915. Targets must "receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution." Id. at 916. Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 915."
Emphasis above mine. The way I see it, if the government is surveilling in order to put together a criminal prosecution, then they need a warrant. If the reason for surveilling is some other goal - like defending the country from attack in war time - then no warrant is needed.
Personally, I find the argument that the president can't authorize listening to Al Queda's phone calls but CAN authorize killing them with attack drones and hellfire missiles to be totally lacking in common sense.
As the strict constuctionist that people of your ilk usually are, I'm sure you can point me to the words "pretty much anything" in the text of the constitution?
Like so many things, it's a combination of various parts of the constitution (Articles 2 and 4) plus various Supreme Court rulings over the years. However, like many laws, things simply aren't clear and a detailed discussion of all relevent laws is beyong the scope of this post. However, I can refer you to this short quote that boils it all down to something simple:
"The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.""
Warrantless monitoring of electronic communications involving 'U.S. Persons' is explicitly banned by legislation. How about a counter-argument to that?
The Constitution gives the executive branch the power to do pretty much anything to defend the nation. Thus that legislation wouldn't apply, or parts of it would be unconstitutional in some scenarios.
'Would that the court could permanently monitor the debate over the NSA program. Democrats who argue that Bush has abused the Constitution are, like Judge Robertson, themselves Constitution-abusers. The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority."'
This adds much to the argument as well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp "In addition, immediately after September 11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. The Bush administration cites this authorization in justifying the NSA program. Critics respond that the authorization said nothing about intercepting communications. Well, it didn't say anything about detaining enemy combatants either. But in the Hamdi case the Supreme Court upheld the administration's power to do just that, since such detentions are organically connected to waging war against al Qaeda. The same applies to the NSA wiretaps. The position of Bush's critics is that he can launch a Hellfire missile at an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan or Yemen, but can't listen to that operative's telephone conversations. Absurd."
Nice, your soucre for all this information is a conservitive political magazine. Little bias?
Facts are facts, laws are laws, quotes are quotes, regardless of where you happen to pick them up. The analsis of those facts at National Review are indeed conservative. Anyone who has any serious interest in political debate can no doubt recognize which news analysis sources have left or right political leanings. In my mind, bias only exists if a left-wing or right-wing analysis tries to pass itself off as "neutral". National Review certianly doesn't hide what it is.
If you have a thought provoking, left-leaning analysis to provide, I'm sure we'd love to read it.
That makes it even more shocking. BTW, that's a nice list of grievances for the next Declaration of Independance you put together there.
The point of that list (which seems to have eluded you) is that the current FISA-related "controversy" is merely one more drop in the bucket. You shouldn't really be any more up in arms now than you were ten years ago (during the previous administration).
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.
That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)
To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking! Except when it happens every day.... What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant? I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Big SUVs have gas milege of about 5-10. Your two car trip becomes a good idea with 10-20 mpg cars. You can get that with V6 machines.
There are plenty of 7-passenger SUVs that get 20-25MPG on the highway - Toyota 4Runner V6, Mercury Mountaineer V6, Volvo XC90 (all engines), etc... Yes, there are 40-50MPG sedans, but they're much less comfortable, and so small you may need to take MORE than 2 of them to carry everything.
The core problem is the notion that you need an SUV the size of a tank to take a couple of kids three miles to school, or that you'll be considered a loser unless you drive an executive-class limo with a huge engine and all the trimmings.
Car ownership is not a need, it's a want. It's all about wants. Just because person A wants three H2s in their driveway doesn't mean it affects what person B wants, and vice versa. And if person C wants to buy a barrel of gas and light it on fire, that's their prerogative as well. Mind your own business, as they say.
Because the people in the car with you react to the context you're in. Liking shutting up when you stop paying attention to them rather than saying "are you still there? hello? hello? I can't hear you... hello? are you okay...".
Which is why you tell the person IMMEDIATELY AT THE START OF THE CALL that you are driving a car and may have to interrupt the conversation. It's not exactly difficult.
And as someone else already said, driving itself is already multitasking. So what's one more task?
Very interesting links! Thanks! I've been looking for stuff like this. I own that Organ Blaster CD (and many others with material down to 16hz or lower). Now all I need is a REL sub to hear it hehe (www.rel.net).
Better still, go to doom9.org and read their DVD ripping/copying guides. Even the high quality DVD copy guide using DVDDecrypter, DVDRebuilder, and CCE only takes 20-30mins setup, and once that's done, it's a two-click operation to copy/rebuild/encode any DVD9 to a DVD5.
FWIW, I'm posting this on my OS/2 machine. It's an Athlon 3000 with 1GB ram and over 1TB of RAID5 storage. It still has all the apps most people need (firefox, thunderbird, office suite, cd burning, irc, bittorrent, ftpd, httpd, smbd, etc)... I do have a seperate box for games (winxp)... but that's pretty much all it does...
Yeah, I'll probably switch to some flavor of linux in the next year or two... or maybe OSX on intel... mmm... But OS/2 works today, and it'll probably work equally well tomorrow... and I'll reevaluate the situation tomorrow;)
I'm pretty sure that most of IBM's i, p, and z series servers automatically "underclock" themselves when either ambient air temp or CPU temp gets too high.
Jusy FYI, I have a Radeon X800 XT an IBM P275 21 inch monitor that runs HalfLife2 at 2048x1536@75hz. Silky smooth, unless I crank up the AntiAliasing, and yes, even at that high res, AA DOES improve image quality. Nonetheless, the X800 does a decent job, usually 40-80FPS, few dips below that.
Never before has a judicial nomination been filibustered that ALSO had ENOUGH VOTES to be confirmed, should the filibuster end. Clinton's nominees got a vote and were rejected - the were NOT filibustered. The only previous judicial filibusters were against nominees who did NOT have enough votes anyway, so who cares.
What the democrats in the senate are doing TODAY IS UNPRECEDENTED.
I think we simply disagree on what is fair or unfair, since I do not see any unfairness that you claim to have pointed out. Besides, just because a law is "unfair" does not make it unconstitutional. We don't allow minors to vote, that is often seen as "unfair" yet it is not unconstitutional.
In an ideal world, you're correct. The reality is that the government's actions in this matter WILL affect how non-governmental entities (churches, etc) treat marriage.
Another way of looking at it is this: if there was no concept of "marriage" outside of government, would government have "invented" marriage? I doubt it. Thus, the government's definition of marriage is undeniably influenced by non-governmental entities.
Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports did a report on about six hybrid vehicles (including the Prius, Civic Hybrid, and Ford Escape hybrid) and compared them to the equivalent "non-hybrid" models. They included initial cost, gas costs, maintenance costs, and a few other factors to determine if the hybrids were cheaper over the long run. Guess what? NONE of the hybrids were cost effective after even 150000 miles!
So it would appear you are wrong, sir.
The IBM Lotus Notes database size restrictions must vary by site. Here, we get nastygrams around 280MB or so and at 300MB they stop letting you send mail HOWEVER this only goes into effect if you restart Notes. If you keep it running, you can keep sending all you want :)
:)
The 300MB restriction started here about a year ago, no restrictions at all before that. I think mine was close to a gig. I got it down by saving big attachments to my network drive - just as secure/reliable as email - and deleting the attachment from notes. Notes 7 has a nice "Save/Delete all attachments in this email" function that is quite handy. I do keep all messages for 2 years (the max expiry time)... 1+ year old emails have already proven helpful as "paper trails" for old issues that resurfaced. And yes you can do a single change expiration function on all your email... just do a select all then click the change expiration button... though this might also be Notes 7 only. I've been running pre-GA Notes 7 builds since July 2004 so I don't really remember what 6 was like
Well, you can certainly sell your Steam account to anyone if you want to, for the value of all games you have registered. If you really sell every game when you're done, just create a new steam account for every download.
Baloney, Valve bought the rights to DoD and NS, they would have charged for them with or without the Steam implementation. Valve has every right to purchase the rights to successful mods. Many believe the reason modding flourishes so much is that people hope Valve (or some other company) will buy the rights to their mod, and they can retire with millions.
A perhaps less shocking solution to your dilemma would be realizing that we actually are free, and recent presidents are just using powers the constitution granted to them to defend the country. If you think that searching people physically crossing the border is "reasonable" then you should also think that "searching" communications crossing the border is also "reasonable".
Correct, but in this case, at least 5 other presidents have done the same thing, with their lawyers all arguing that it IS legal. Furthermore, no courts have ever found it to be illegal. Precedent counts for something.
Correct, and if you in Anytown, USA calls your mom in Anyothertown, USA, then they aren't listening. If you're calling a known member of Al Qaeda OUTSIDE THE USA then they probably are listening, as they should.
Yet at the same time, congress can not create a law that restricts the president's constitutional powers.
Wait a minute, how about we read the whole paragraph:
"The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President's executive power. In approving the district court's exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government's investigation became "primarily" driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when "the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators," and "the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Id. at 915. Targets must "receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution." Id. at 916. Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 915."
Emphasis above mine. The way I see it, if the government is surveilling in order to put together a criminal prosecution, then they need a warrant. If the reason for surveilling is some other goal - like defending the country from attack in war time - then no warrant is needed.
Personally, I find the argument that the president can't authorize listening to Al Queda's phone calls but CAN authorize killing them with attack drones and hellfire missiles to be totally lacking in common sense.
Like so many things, it's a combination of various parts of the constitution (Articles 2 and 4) plus various Supreme Court rulings over the years. However, like many laws, things simply aren't clear and a detailed discussion of all relevent laws is beyong the scope of this post. However, I can refer you to this short quote that boils it all down to something simple:
"The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.""
(Quoted from http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry20060103
The Constitution gives the executive branch the power to do pretty much anything to defend the nation. Thus that legislation wouldn't apply, or parts of it would be unconstitutional in some scenarios.
Perhaps this will help explain the situation better for you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry20060103
'Would that the court could permanently monitor the debate over the NSA program. Democrats who argue that Bush has abused the Constitution are, like Judge Robertson, themselves Constitution-abusers. The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority."'
This adds much to the argument as well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors20
"In addition, immediately after September 11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. The Bush administration cites this authorization in justifying the NSA program. Critics respond that the authorization said nothing about intercepting communications. Well, it didn't say anything about detaining enemy combatants either. But in the Hamdi case the Supreme Court upheld the administration's power to do just that, since such detentions are organically connected to waging war against al Qaeda. The same applies to the NSA wiretaps. The position of Bush's critics is that he can launch a Hellfire missile at an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan or Yemen, but can't listen to that operative's telephone conversations. Absurd."
Facts are facts, laws are laws, quotes are quotes, regardless of where you happen to pick them up. The analsis of those facts at National Review are indeed conservative. Anyone who has any serious interest in political debate can no doubt recognize which news analysis sources have left or right political leanings. In my mind, bias only exists if a left-wing or right-wing analysis tries to pass itself off as "neutral". National Review certianly doesn't hide what it is.
If you have a thought provoking, left-leaning analysis to provide, I'm sure we'd love to read it.
The point of that list (which seems to have eluded you) is that the current FISA-related "controversy" is merely one more drop in the bucket. You shouldn't really be any more up in arms now than you were ten years ago (during the previous administration).
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)
...
To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp
September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp
Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp
and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
There are plenty of 7-passenger SUVs that get 20-25MPG on the highway - Toyota 4Runner V6, Mercury Mountaineer V6, Volvo XC90 (all engines), etc... Yes, there are 40-50MPG sedans, but they're much less comfortable, and so small you may need to take MORE than 2 of them to carry everything.
Car ownership is not a need, it's a want. It's all about wants. Just because person A wants three H2s in their driveway doesn't mean it affects what person B wants, and vice versa. And if person C wants to buy a barrel of gas and light it on fire, that's their prerogative as well. Mind your own business, as they say.
Which is why you tell the person IMMEDIATELY AT THE START OF THE CALL that you are driving a car and may have to interrupt the conversation. It's not exactly difficult.
And as someone else already said, driving itself is already multitasking. So what's one more task?
Very interesting links! Thanks! I've been looking for stuff like this. I own that Organ Blaster CD (and many others with material down to 16hz or lower). Now all I need is a REL sub to hear it hehe (www.rel.net).
Actually, according to 3D Gamers, X2 was released in the US in Nov 2003, so that would make it 23 months old, almost 2 years.
Better still, go to doom9.org and read their DVD ripping/copying guides. Even the high quality DVD copy guide using DVDDecrypter, DVDRebuilder, and CCE only takes 20-30mins setup, and once that's done, it's a two-click operation to copy/rebuild/encode any DVD9 to a DVD5.
FWIW, I'm posting this on my OS/2 machine. It's an Athlon 3000 with 1GB ram and over 1TB of RAID5 storage. It still has all the apps most people need (firefox, thunderbird, office suite, cd burning, irc, bittorrent, ftpd, httpd, smbd, etc)... I do have a seperate box for games (winxp)... but that's pretty much all it does...
;)
Yeah, I'll probably switch to some flavor of linux in the next year or two... or maybe OSX on intel... mmm... But OS/2 works today, and it'll probably work equally well tomorrow... and I'll reevaluate the situation tomorrow
I'm pretty sure that most of IBM's i, p, and z series servers automatically "underclock" themselves when either ambient air temp or CPU temp gets too high.
Jusy FYI, I have a Radeon X800 XT an IBM P275 21 inch monitor that runs HalfLife2 at 2048x1536@75hz. Silky smooth, unless I crank up the AntiAliasing, and yes, even at that high res, AA DOES improve image quality. Nonetheless, the X800 does a decent job, usually 40-80FPS, few dips below that.
Hmm, I just downloaded the direct download at about 800K/sec (at work - big pipe).
Never before has a judicial nomination been filibustered that ALSO had ENOUGH VOTES to be confirmed, should the filibuster end. Clinton's nominees got a vote and were rejected - the were NOT filibustered. The only previous judicial filibusters were against nominees who did NOT have enough votes anyway, so who cares.
What the democrats in the senate are doing TODAY IS UNPRECEDENTED.
I think we simply disagree on what is fair or unfair, since I do not see any unfairness that you claim to have pointed out. Besides, just because a law is "unfair" does not make it unconstitutional. We don't allow minors to vote, that is often seen as "unfair" yet it is not unconstitutional.
In an ideal world, you're correct. The reality is that the government's actions in this matter WILL affect how non-governmental entities (churches, etc) treat marriage.
Another way of looking at it is this: if there was no concept of "marriage" outside of government, would government have "invented" marriage? I doubt it. Thus, the government's definition of marriage is undeniably influenced by non-governmental entities.