IANAL but why would a treaty with Korea have any bearing on a contract dispute between an American consumer and an American cellphone service provider? Sure the provisions of the law may appear to be in conflict, but they apply to different jurisdictions.
[A] border search of a computer is not transformed into an “extended border search” requiring particularized suspicion simply because the device is transported and examined beyond the border.... [T]he fact that the forensic examination occurred 170 miles away from the border did not heighten the interference with the defendant’s privacy, and the extended border search doctrine does not apply, in this case in which the defendant’s computer never cleared customs and the defendant never regained possession....
[T]he forensic examination of the defendant’s computer required a showing of reasonable suspicion, a modest requirement in light of the Fourth Amendment.... [I]t is the comprehensive and intrusive nature of forensic examination — not the location of the examination — that is the key factor triggering the requirement of reasonable suspicion here.... [T]he uniquely sensitive nature of data on electronic devices, which often retain information far beyond the perceived point of erasure, carries with it a significant expectation of privacy and thus renders an exhaustive exploratory search more intrusive than with other forms of property....
[In this case,] the border agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search at the border (which turned up no incriminating material) and the forensic examination. The en banc court wrote that the defendant’s Treasury Enforcement Communication System alert, prior child-related conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a country known for sex tourism, and collection of electronic equipment, plus the parameters of the Operation Angel Watch program aimed at combating child sex tourism, taken collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity....
[P]assword protection of files, which is ubiquitous among many law-abiding citizens, will not in isolation give rise to reasonable suspicion, but... password protection may be considered in the totality of the circumstances where, as here, there are other indicia of criminal activity.... [T]he existence of password-protected files is also relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the scope and duration of the search of the defendant’s computer.... [T]he examination of the defendant’s electronic devices was supported by reasonable suspicion and that the scope and manner of the search were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
"The best part was when Rand Paul sought unanimous consent for a sense of the Senate resolution that the President shouldn’t kill American citizens in America — and Democrats, led by Dick Durbin, objected."
We'll fill up the internet if we start a new thread for every stupid statement by a politician. Heck, Joe Biden could fill up the internet all by himself.
You are overgeneralizing just a bit. The economy is not the same everywhere. There are always ups and downs and an astute investor can take advantage. Stocks don't usually all go up or down at the same times. Same with land. There is more to value than pure labor. I know, heresy to a Marxist.
Good luck with that. More retirees vote than youngers. And most lawmakers are old. Some ancient. They know that taking away olders benefits won't get them reelected.
If the boomers in that capitalist system did their retirement planning right instead of depending on some government bureaucrat to do it for them, they'd be invested in assets that grow to counteract most or all of the inflation.
There are lots of other government transfer programs that tax the young to pay for the old. It only "works" until the demographic shift inherent to an aging population gets bad enough that there aren't enough young people paying taxes to support the old people. Then you either move the age to qualify for benefits up or you run up massive deficits.
There are lots of games out there. That's the free market. Not for any particular title, but for games in general. You don't have a right to demand that the publisher sell you any particular game on your terms. If you think their terms are unreasonable, and that includes DRM and DLC and whatever else, you have the option to buy a different game from somebody else.
Oh, by the way, games are a luxury item, not a necessity. You don't have to have the latest game from the most popular publisher. If your friends are so shallow that they will shun you for not playing The Latest Thing maybe you should vote with your feet for different friends.
And yes, you can vote with your wallet when it comes to Standard Oil. You can always find a competing gas station somewhere else. They probably will charge pretty much the same price, but I can say from experience that different stations do not always have the same prices for gas.
There are too many people who are willing to pay for the stuff those eeeevul game companies are selling. We must get government to regulate DRM and DLC! We'll show those eeeeevul game companies who's boss. Oh, but don't regulate sex or violence or political content in games. We don't want to regulate the industry *that* way.
Indeed, and that just highlights one of the problems with the kind of global "calculation" done in that NOAA paper. There are too many assumptions subsumed into those global statistics and too much variance to draw local conclusions from them.
Look on the bright side, with all the leakers and whistleblowers in the government and the lousy internet security of most govt offices, anybody who is actually being spied on probably won't have to wait too long before the evidence lands in his lap. Three cheers for incompetent bureaucrats!
They aren't really cutting spending. Spending will still increase, just not as much as they wanted. And for that we get to listen to the Ruling Class whine and moan and act all theatrical about what a terrible panic will ensue because they can't overspend as much as they want. What a load of bullshit. And what a load of idiots we are when we let them get away with it. Any program manager who cuts anything critical instead of his own paycheck should be fired immediatly without recourse. And any politician who plays the false panic card during the next few months should get a nice present come next primary season - a challenger who won't sit and take all the bullshit that'll get thrown around.
It's hard to write good directions. Do you assume your readers know the basics or do you bore your experienced readers with repetition of stuff they already know? And you can't get experience from reading a book, you have to try things out yourself. You will fail. Failure is the dues you pay to achieve success. A personal mentor can help avoid some mistakes and help to identify others which makes it easier to gain experience, but you still have to practice the skills yourself.
Cooking is like gaming. There are casual dishes. Anybody can make those if they can follow the recipe. And then there are hardcore recipes. Those you have to have a level of skill which only comes from practice.
Just by existing the innocent one is providing a false alibi for the guilty one. A sufficiently creative prosecutor could make an obstruction charge out of that.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past some of our US prosecutors to try that one.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL but why would a treaty with Korea have any bearing on a contract dispute between an American consumer and an American cellphone service provider? Sure the provisions of the law may appear to be in conflict, but they apply to different jurisdictions.
And health insurance and banking and labor and education and firearms and chemistry sets and everything else they get their fingers into.
Better yet, don't enshrine them into law. That way the lawyers and the lobbyists won't have a chance to fuck them up.
Volokh has a somewhat more thorough summary of the decisions here:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/interesting-ninth-circuit-en-banc-on-computer-searches-of-course-citing-orin/
[A] border search of a computer is not transformed into an “extended border search” requiring particularized suspicion simply because the device is transported and examined beyond the border.... [T]he fact that the forensic examination occurred 170 miles away from the border did not heighten the interference with the defendant’s privacy, and the extended border search doctrine does not apply, in this case in which the defendant’s computer never cleared customs and the defendant never regained possession....
[T]he forensic examination of the defendant’s computer required a showing of reasonable suspicion, a modest requirement in light of the Fourth Amendment.... [I]t is the comprehensive and intrusive nature of forensic examination — not the location of the examination — that is the key factor triggering the requirement of reasonable suspicion here.... [T]he uniquely sensitive nature of data on electronic devices, which often retain information far beyond the perceived point of erasure, carries with it a significant expectation of privacy and thus renders an exhaustive exploratory search more intrusive than with other forms of property....
[In this case,] the border agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search at the border (which turned up no incriminating material) and the forensic examination. The en banc court wrote that the defendant’s Treasury Enforcement Communication System alert, prior child-related conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a country known for sex tourism, and collection of electronic equipment, plus the parameters of the Operation Angel Watch program aimed at combating child sex tourism, taken collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. ...
[P]assword protection of files, which is ubiquitous among many law-abiding citizens, will not in isolation give rise to reasonable suspicion, but ... password protection may be considered in the totality of the circumstances where, as here, there are other indicia of criminal activity.... [T]he existence of password-protected files is also relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the scope and duration of the search of the defendant’s computer.... [T]he examination of the defendant’s electronic devices was supported by reasonable suspicion and that the scope and manner of the search were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/rand_paul_filibuster_spectacle_rivets_senate-222911-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
"The best part was when Rand Paul sought unanimous consent for a sense of the Senate resolution that the President shouldn’t kill American citizens in America — and Democrats, led by Dick Durbin, objected."
We'll fill up the internet if we start a new thread for every stupid statement by a politician. Heck, Joe Biden could fill up the internet all by himself.
You are overgeneralizing just a bit. The economy is not the same everywhere. There are always ups and downs and an astute investor can take advantage.
Stocks don't usually all go up or down at the same times. Same with land.
There is more to value than pure labor. I know, heresy to a Marxist.
When I lived in Miami we used to say that California might slide into the Pacific Ocean but Florida would disappear into it's own asshole.
Good luck with that. More retirees vote than youngers. And most lawmakers are old. Some ancient. They know that taking away olders benefits won't get them reelected.
If the boomers in that capitalist system did their retirement planning right instead of depending on some government bureaucrat to do it for them, they'd be invested in assets that grow to counteract most or all of the inflation.
There are lots of other government transfer programs that tax the young to pay for the old. It only "works" until the demographic shift inherent to an aging population gets bad enough that there aren't enough young people paying taxes to support the old people. Then you either move the age to qualify for benefits up or you run up massive deficits.
There are lots of games out there. That's the free market. Not for any particular title, but for games in general.
You don't have a right to demand that the publisher sell you any particular game on your terms. If you think their terms are unreasonable, and that includes DRM and DLC and whatever else, you have the option to buy a different game from somebody else.
Oh, by the way, games are a luxury item, not a necessity. You don't have to have the latest game from the most popular publisher. If your friends are so shallow that they will shun you for not playing The Latest Thing maybe you should vote with your feet for different friends.
And yes, you can vote with your wallet when it comes to Standard Oil. You can always find a competing gas station somewhere else. They probably will charge pretty much the same price, but I can say from experience that different stations do not always have the same prices for gas.
There are too many people who are willing to pay for the stuff those eeeevul game companies are selling.
We must get government to regulate DRM and DLC! We'll show those eeeeevul game companies who's boss.
Oh, but don't regulate sex or violence or political content in games. We don't want to regulate the industry *that* way.
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2013/02/25/oh-that-dreaded-awful-sequester/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
See the awful pain in store for us all? Yeah, me neither.
Indeed, and that just highlights one of the problems with the kind of global "calculation" done in that NOAA paper. There are too many assumptions subsumed into those global statistics and too much variance to draw local conclusions from them.
World temperature gradient vs latitude is ~ +1 degree C per 145 km latitude toward the equator. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Temperature_versus_Latitude_png
World temperature change since 1910 is ~ .7 degree C. http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/Climate-change-is-real.aspx'
Ohio is ~370km north-to-south, so that's about 3.6 times the temperature difference from 1910 to now.
Are people in southern Ohio 30-40% less productive than people in northern Ohio?
Look on the bright side, with all the leakers and whistleblowers in the government and the lousy internet security of most govt offices, anybody who is actually being spied on probably won't have to wait too long before the evidence lands in his lap.
Three cheers for incompetent bureaucrats!
A pig ("sow").
Which also accounts for the production of pork.
Now scientifically proven! ;)
Tar and Feathers.
They aren't really cutting spending. Spending will still increase, just not as much as they wanted. And for that we get to listen to the Ruling Class whine and moan and act all theatrical about what a terrible panic will ensue because they can't overspend as much as they want.
What a load of bullshit.
And what a load of idiots we are when we let them get away with it. Any program manager who cuts anything critical instead of his own paycheck should be fired immediatly without recourse. And any politician who plays the false panic card during the next few months should get a nice present come next primary season - a challenger who won't sit and take all the bullshit that'll get thrown around.
It's hard to write good directions. Do you assume your readers know the basics or do you bore your experienced readers with repetition of stuff they already know? And you can't get experience from reading a book, you have to try things out yourself. You will fail. Failure is the dues you pay to achieve success. A personal mentor can help avoid some mistakes and help to identify others which makes it easier to gain experience, but you still have to practice the skills yourself.
Cooking is like gaming. There are casual dishes. Anybody can make those if they can follow the recipe. And then there are hardcore recipes. Those you have to have a level of skill which only comes from practice.
I suppose it doesn't hurt that Facebook engineers were on Obama's reelection "dream team", along with Google and Twitter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/
Just by existing the innocent one is providing a false alibi for the guilty one. A sufficiently creative prosecutor could make an obstruction charge out of that.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past some of our US prosecutors to try that one.
The prosecutors just need to be more creative.
One is guilty, the other is accessory. Both are obstructing justice.