The (often erroneous) assumption is that your taxes go to pay for useful government services. Of course, that's a big fat lie half the time, but that's at least how it's supposed to work.
There is a difference between what the people have the moral right to compel the government to do (because they work for us) and what the government has the moral right to compel the people to do.
Then let them advise the local DA's in prosecuting the fraud case. The point is that if this really is a scam, there are no hard legal questions involved -- scams are illegal, no matter what they are. If this guy is marketing his scams across state lines, then prosecute him in Federal court for fraud. It's not a states vs. federal issue -- it's a question of whether this falls under something that should be "regulated" or whether this is just plain criminal fraud.
All of the above, together, are lawful conduct and behavior. You don't just get the rights in the Constitution one at a time -- you get them all at once, as much as you want.
See, people who actually do productive work for a living sometimes get told "There's no more money, we can't pay you any more. Sorry, go find a new job."
For this to happen to a hundred thousand soldiers would be just the same thing as happens to lots of civilians every year.
Why should we? Taking a bunch of my money from me by force to build a bunch of bombs to better threaten a bunch of nutters in the Middle East is inherently political. Discussing the politics of US military spending in the context of this story is perfectly topical.
Well, their government is rather racist -- toward the Tibetans, at least. They've been working awfully hard to extinguish that culture. China hasn't been threatening freedom of navigation, but have you seen their absurd territorial claims in the South China Sea?
Iran didn't start shit in the Strait of Hormuz; the US and Israel have been threatening to attack them. They're just responding to that. Actually, that's sort of what's been going on with the Iranian nuke program: we just curbstomped their neighbor in an illegal war, and we're propping up a rather dangerous neighbor of theirs that has an openly racist agenda, that's bombed them before and that, oh -- has nukes. Can't really blame them for wanting some nukes of their own, considering.
Yes, the Iranian government is, to some degree, batshit -- in the "batshit religious" fashion. Their rationale for wanting nukes is perfectly reasonable (defense against Israel/the US). But they've actually been conducting themselves in a pretty reasonable manner; they've not done anything that a more sanely-led country in their position wouldn't have done, which is to try to use any resources at their disposal to ensure that they don't get their asses kicked.
This is simply because the majority of folks in the regions doing science have historically belonged to those groups. Many of the Jews, however, have been secular Jews: the example that comes immediately to mind is Feynman.
The point is that it doesn't matter what it said. Whether something gives offense or not doesn't matter.
If I break into a public router and name it "Double nigger", then I'm gulity of a crime: unauthorized use of a public router. If I break into a public router and name it "I like fluffy bunnies", then I'm guilty of exactly the same crime.
One is inappropriate, in addition to being criminal. But that doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned.
This sounds flippant, but it's something I've considered for a while. It's a way to ensure that things wind up in the public domain eventually (it becomes not worth it to pay the tax).
I think it's a little misguided to read this article and say "trololol, software patents, we should kill those." Yes, we should -- but this patent isn't bad necessarily because it's on software.
This patent's bad because it's obvious, which is a far broader problem with the patent system. Anybody who understands what caching is and who was presented with the problem "Hey, we're getting overwhelmed by holiday-specific searches on those holidays" would come up with something like this as a solution.
There's some truth in it. In every city I've been in with a MLK Blvd, it's somewhere you don't want to be. I've heard a black comedian say as much in a piece. When moving to Baltimore, a friend of mine -- who's quite liberal, has gone to the Occupy protests, etc. -- told me: "Look, here's a map of town. See this diagonal road? It's MLK. Don't go on the other side of it."
Perhaps not all of them are this way, but enough of them are.
"Any law enforcement officer who seeks to deprive a person of his or her rights under this section is deprived of his or her legal privileges as a peace officer in interacting with that citizen. Specifically, they have no right to arrest or use force against that person beyond that possessed by any citizen, and that citizen may legally use force or deadly force against that officer in self-defense if such use of force would be justified against a private citizen."=
A 15-inch Macbook *starts* at $1799. The option for a matte 1680x1050 display (still not as good as my Sager's 1920x1080) is $150 extra. The option for a 750GB drive (instead of 500GB) is another $100.
They have to be making a shitton of money on hardware. I bought a laptop from Sager last summer for $1100: 1920x1080 extended-gamut screen, quad-core Sandy Bridge processor, Geforce 555M, the works. Very nice machine. I wound up pricing those specs on Apple's website: you couldn't get a graphics card on par with the 555M for love nor money from Apple, and to get everything else it'd be around $2300.
The Apple machine has nicer speakers and that aluminium body, but beyond that -- Apple's got to be pocketing a large part of that $1200 difference.
Is a two-year guarantee the same as tech support? To use the mandatory car analogy, is saying "You've got to fix Bob's car if it breaks for two years" the same as "You've got to teach Bob how to drive and walk him through changing his oil"?
That happened to me too, actually. I'm hypoglycemic, and had some peanut butter with me as emergency food.
They take it away from me. I (a physicist) politely ask "Sorry, I thought the stuff didn't count -- it will, after all, stay in the can if you hold it upside down. So that I can follow your rules in the future, what is the minimum viscosity at standard temperature and pressure that substances must have to be permitted aboard an aircraft?"
Slashdot Mirror
Canada, however, is in America. :)
The (often erroneous) assumption is that your taxes go to pay for useful government services. Of course, that's a big fat lie half the time, but that's at least how it's supposed to work.
Then we fire him.
There is a difference between what the people have the moral right to compel the government to do (because they work for us) and what the government has the moral right to compel the people to do.
Then let them advise the local DA's in prosecuting the fraud case. The point is that if this really is a scam, there are no hard legal questions involved -- scams are illegal, no matter what they are. If this guy is marketing his scams across state lines, then prosecute him in Federal court for fraud. It's not a states vs. federal issue -- it's a question of whether this falls under something that should be "regulated" or whether this is just plain criminal fraud.
If it is a scam, then the FDA should call up the local attorney general and report a case of fraud.
Why invoke "interstate commerce?" If this is genuinely fraud then call it such and try the perpetrators for it. No Constitutional grey areas there.
All of the above, together, are lawful conduct and behavior. You don't just get the rights in the Constitution one at a time -- you get them all at once, as much as you want.
The thought of Sony having a particular format for propriety is sort of hilarious.
See, people who actually do productive work for a living sometimes get told "There's no more money, we can't pay you any more. Sorry, go find a new job."
For this to happen to a hundred thousand soldiers would be just the same thing as happens to lots of civilians every year.
Why should we? Taking a bunch of my money from me by force to build a bunch of bombs to better threaten a bunch of nutters in the Middle East is inherently political. Discussing the politics of US military spending in the context of this story is perfectly topical.
Well, their government is rather racist -- toward the Tibetans, at least. They've been working awfully hard to extinguish that culture. China hasn't been threatening freedom of navigation, but have you seen their absurd territorial claims in the South China Sea?
Iran didn't start shit in the Strait of Hormuz; the US and Israel have been threatening to attack them. They're just responding to that. Actually, that's sort of what's been going on with the Iranian nuke program: we just curbstomped their neighbor in an illegal war, and we're propping up a rather dangerous neighbor of theirs that has an openly racist agenda, that's bombed them before and that, oh -- has nukes. Can't really blame them for wanting some nukes of their own, considering.
Yes, the Iranian government is, to some degree, batshit -- in the "batshit religious" fashion. Their rationale for wanting nukes is perfectly reasonable (defense against Israel/the US). But they've actually been conducting themselves in a pretty reasonable manner; they've not done anything that a more sanely-led country in their position wouldn't have done, which is to try to use any resources at their disposal to ensure that they don't get their asses kicked.
So why doesn't the President do his job and play hardball? "Fine, you won't let me close Gitmo, I'll veto all military funding until you do."
indeed he did, from what I've read!
This is simply because the majority of folks in the regions doing science have historically belonged to those groups. Many of the Jews, however, have been secular Jews: the example that comes immediately to mind is Feynman.
The point is that it doesn't matter what it said. Whether something gives offense or not doesn't matter.
If I break into a public router and name it "Double nigger", then I'm gulity of a crime: unauthorized use of a public router.
If I break into a public router and name it "I like fluffy bunnies", then I'm guilty of exactly the same crime.
One is inappropriate, in addition to being criminal. But that doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned.
Is this the first sane thing Alito has ever done?
This sounds flippant, but it's something I've considered for a while. It's a way to ensure that things wind up in the public domain eventually (it becomes not worth it to pay the tax).
I think it's a little misguided to read this article and say "trololol, software patents, we should kill those." Yes, we should -- but this patent isn't bad necessarily because it's on software.
This patent's bad because it's obvious, which is a far broader problem with the patent system. Anybody who understands what caching is and who was presented with the problem "Hey, we're getting overwhelmed by holiday-specific searches on those holidays" would come up with something like this as a solution.
There's some truth in it. In every city I've been in with a MLK Blvd, it's somewhere you don't want to be. I've heard a black comedian say as much in a piece. When moving to Baltimore, a friend of mine -- who's quite liberal, has gone to the Occupy protests, etc. -- told me: "Look, here's a map of town. See this diagonal road? It's MLK. Don't go on the other side of it."
Perhaps not all of them are this way, but enough of them are.
I'd extend it further to say:
"Any law enforcement officer who seeks to deprive a person of his or her rights under this section is deprived of his or her legal privileges as a peace officer in interacting with that citizen. Specifically, they have no right to arrest or use force against that person beyond that possessed by any citizen, and that citizen may legally use force or deadly force against that officer in self-defense if such use of force would be justified against a private citizen."=
A 15-inch Macbook *starts* at $1799. The option for a matte 1680x1050 display (still not as good as my Sager's 1920x1080) is $150 extra. The option for a 750GB drive (instead of 500GB) is another $100.
They have to be making a shitton of money on hardware. I bought a laptop from Sager last summer for $1100: 1920x1080 extended-gamut screen, quad-core Sandy Bridge processor, Geforce 555M, the works. Very nice machine. I wound up pricing those specs on Apple's website: you couldn't get a graphics card on par with the 555M for love nor money from Apple, and to get everything else it'd be around $2300.
The Apple machine has nicer speakers and that aluminium body, but beyond that -- Apple's got to be pocketing a large part of that $1200 difference.
Is a two-year guarantee the same as tech support? To use the mandatory car analogy, is saying "You've got to fix Bob's car if it breaks for two years" the same as "You've got to teach Bob how to drive and walk him through changing his oil"?
... of course, then there will be no way to get rope any more.
That happened to me too, actually. I'm hypoglycemic, and had some peanut butter with me as emergency food.
They take it away from me. I (a physicist) politely ask "Sorry, I thought the stuff didn't count -- it will, after all, stay in the can if you hold it upside down. So that I can follow your rules in the future, what is the minimum viscosity at standard temperature and pressure that substances must have to be permitted aboard an aircraft?"
They, of course, have no idea. :)
"I see your prohibition is against 'liquids'. Can I carry ice onboard?"
The agent didn't know. Asked his supervisor; she didn't know.