Oh, okay, sure of course. What I meant was searches by police. I don't want to have to get a warrant to help my mom use Google -- that would be crazy.
My basic point is to extend warrant coverage to things like
* receiving evident from third parties * traffic-stop searches * trolling using dogs or x-ray machines or heat-detectors or other superhuman technology * criminal interviews
I'd be more willing to say yes to that question, than to live under the status quo. The thing is, warrants are extremely easy and fast to get. The only thing they stop is police abuse; no legit warrants are ever refused. So a police officer who complains about needing a warrant, is complaining about being stopped from abusing his power.
What I'd most prefer is to use a normal human standard for such searches: if you can see contraband, that's one thing, but if you need an x-ray machine, then that's totally different. If you as a normal human can smell drugs, then that's one thing, but if you need the world's most advanced sniffing equipment (a dog), then that's another.
"Swapping the Queen for an elected president would change exactly diddly squat"
If you aren't trolling me, then your monarch has successfully convinced you of something which is wildly false. To say that is to deny the entire principle of democracy, and to say that democracy has changed nothing in the world.
So how many years are the cops spending in jail for violation of the public trust, battery, conspiracy to commit battery, vandalism, conspiracy to commit vandalism, and violation of civil rights? Also, if they physically moved the pastor more than ten feet (very likely), then I'd expect them to be prosecuted for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, too.
1.) Anything action which is intended to result in evidence is a "search" 2.) Any search without a warrant is unconstitutional
Most people agree with #2 but not #1 -- certainly not the courts. I'm baffled how educated judges could look at a situation where a drug-sniffing dog is sniffing around cars looking for drugs, and not construe that as a search. No matter how you try to justify that, it's absurd.
Are you objecting to factoring in the effort? Okay, let's take away the effort. Let's say the person enjoys building things, so they can build this thing as a hobby. (And also ignore the fact that there are various laws against storing gas in home-made containers.) How much will the person spend on the barrel and welding supplies? What you said is that you know that the tank idea is cheaper, so I'm curious if you'll please share the results of the price investigation you did.
"Have you priced a couple of used steel 55 gallon drums, some gas hose and a little creative backyard welding against annual auto insurance lately? The tank idea is much cheaper."
This policy would have a much harder time in a free country, or a democracy, but I can see how it would happen in a place like Britain, which lacks a constitution ("lacks" means "unwritten") and is a theocratic monarchy. Someday, perhaps Britons will demand democracy and freedom, but until they do, I say let them have this kind of nonsense.
Yes, I know they have a cute little "legislature" and a cute little "unwritten constitution", but if they have a Queen who is the head of the official state church, then I don't give them credit for being a democracy or a constitutionally-protected country. Someday I hope they join the modern world -- and by modern, I mean the 19th century. This also goes for other monarchical European countries.
No, I haven't, have you? I pay about $500 a year for full coverage; it would be half that for liability-only insurance. Are you saying all that custom welding and effort is less than a couple years' worth of insurance? Make sure to factor in the inconvenience ("effort").
The IP address isn't the gun. The gun is the hard drive. I didn't download that movie onto my hard drive. That is to say: I didn't copy the movie; therefore I cannot have committed copyright infringement. It might be possible for them to push a Napster-type "contributory infringement" claim against me, but I think that's extremely far fetched. In any case, I correctly judged from the letter that my best course of action was to do nothing.
I would like to say that I am absolutely shocked that George W. Bush didn't have a team of IT professionals able to expertly administer the White House technology infrastructure. Given his record of surrounding himself with the best of the best, it's almost impossible to believe.
That's a good point. Associating the IP with the human was probably done by the Uni. I still would have asked for some more information, for the fun of it, knowing I was innocent. You never know whose collar might get hot.
One thing, though: "MPAA goons... wouldn't make that sort of mistake" is totally wrong. They make that kind of mistake all the time -- there have been many stories about it.
Awwww, do y'all consider yourself a country? That's cute. I had to look you up in Wikipedia just now, but then I remembered a teacher saying something about you back in middle school.
I'm not exactly sure. Libel is when you write it down, and this was indeed written down, but I always thought libel also required publication, whereas this was simply a letter sent to a college.
I just looked it up and it says that libel needs to be "published". I'm not sure what the exact law is on this, but if you can enlighten me I'll thank you for it. And anyway of course the point stands.
Slashdot Mirror
That's crazy.
In my household, my mom also said that stuff all the time, but nothing bad ever happened. Must be just a coincidence.
"You can't just give someone a Democracy - it must be willfully EARNED."
Is this the kind of statement which can be shown false by examples of exactly that happening, or is it immune from the facts of history?
Mmm, no, it's about nukes.
Oh, okay, sure of course. What I meant was searches by police. I don't want to have to get a warrant to help my mom use Google -- that would be crazy.
My basic point is to extend warrant coverage to things like
* receiving evident from third parties
* traffic-stop searches
* trolling using dogs or x-ray machines or heat-detectors or other superhuman technology
* criminal interviews
I'd be more willing to say yes to that question, than to live under the status quo. The thing is, warrants are extremely easy and fast to get. The only thing they stop is police abuse; no legit warrants are ever refused. So a police officer who complains about needing a warrant, is complaining about being stopped from abusing his power.
What I'd most prefer is to use a normal human standard for such searches: if you can see contraband, that's one thing, but if you need an x-ray machine, then that's totally different. If you as a normal human can smell drugs, then that's one thing, but if you need the world's most advanced sniffing equipment (a dog), then that's another.
"Swapping the Queen for an elected president would change exactly diddly squat"
If you aren't trolling me, then your monarch has successfully convinced you of something which is wildly false. To say that is to deny the entire principle of democracy, and to say that democracy has changed nothing in the world.
No, Wisconsin. Why?
Wow that's crazy. (Link?)
So how many years are the cops spending in jail for violation of the public trust, battery, conspiracy to commit battery, vandalism, conspiracy to commit vandalism, and violation of civil rights? Also, if they physically moved the pastor more than ten feet (very likely), then I'd expect them to be prosecuted for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, too.
Oh, what, zero years? You don't say...
In my opinion:
1.) Anything action which is intended to result in evidence is a "search"
2.) Any search without a warrant is unconstitutional
Most people agree with #2 but not #1 -- certainly not the courts. I'm baffled how educated judges could look at a situation where a drug-sniffing dog is sniffing around cars looking for drugs, and not construe that as a search. No matter how you try to justify that, it's absurd.
Yay Alaska is okay!
Are you objecting to factoring in the effort? Okay, let's take away the effort. Let's say the person enjoys building things, so they can build this thing as a hobby. (And also ignore the fact that there are various laws against storing gas in home-made containers.) How much will the person spend on the barrel and welding supplies? What you said is that you know that the tank idea is cheaper, so I'm curious if you'll please share the results of the price investigation you did.
"Have you priced a couple of used steel 55 gallon drums, some gas hose and a little creative backyard welding against annual auto insurance lately? The tank idea is much cheaper."
I don't understand your point. Everything I spend money on is instead of doing something else with the money.
??
This policy would have a much harder time in a free country, or a democracy, but I can see how it would happen in a place like Britain, which lacks a constitution ("lacks" means "unwritten") and is a theocratic monarchy. Someday, perhaps Britons will demand democracy and freedom, but until they do, I say let them have this kind of nonsense.
Yes, I know they have a cute little "legislature" and a cute little "unwritten constitution", but if they have a Queen who is the head of the official state church, then I don't give them credit for being a democracy or a constitutionally-protected country. Someday I hope they join the modern world -- and by modern, I mean the 19th century. This also goes for other monarchical European countries.
Oops, I think you made a word mistake. The homophone you want is, I'm pretty sure, "yore":
"if yore going to be a police state then by all means do it right"
Ah, yes, that's much better.
"Why is it that geeks always need something to be flawless before they find it worth consideration?"
They don't. They're simply using the childish tactic of attacking a proposal with any nonsense they can muster.
No, I haven't, have you? I pay about $500 a year for full coverage; it would be half that for liability-only insurance. Are you saying all that custom welding and effort is less than a couple years' worth of insurance? Make sure to factor in the inconvenience ("effort").
The IP address isn't the gun. The gun is the hard drive. I didn't download that movie onto my hard drive. That is to say: I didn't copy the movie; therefore I cannot have committed copyright infringement. It might be possible for them to push a Napster-type "contributory infringement" claim against me, but I think that's extremely far fetched. In any case, I correctly judged from the letter that my best course of action was to do nothing.
I would like to say that I am absolutely shocked that George W. Bush didn't have a team of IT professionals able to expertly administer the White House technology infrastructure. Given his record of surrounding himself with the best of the best, it's almost impossible to believe.
So, honest question, how do you measure the accuracy of the world's most accurate clock? I mean, what do you measure it against?
I don't know for sure, but I assumed capacitors (special capacitors, obviously). Maybe an EE can comment.
That's a good point. Associating the IP with the human was probably done by the Uni. I still would have asked for some more information, for the fun of it, knowing I was innocent. You never know whose collar might get hot.
One thing, though: "MPAA goons... wouldn't make that sort of mistake" is totally wrong. They make that kind of mistake all the time -- there have been many stories about it.
No, farther West than that. Well actually I'm originally from a Russian colony, so let's just go ahead and say yes!
Yeah... actually this isn't at all what fascism looks like.
Awwww, do y'all consider yourself a country? That's cute. I had to look you up in Wikipedia just now, but then I remembered a teacher saying something about you back in middle school.
Nah, I'm just kidding. Sort of.
I'm not exactly sure. Libel is when you write it down, and this was indeed written down, but I always thought libel also required publication, whereas this was simply a letter sent to a college.
I just looked it up and it says that libel needs to be "published". I'm not sure what the exact law is on this, but if you can enlighten me I'll thank you for it. And anyway of course the point stands.