without the 5th amendment to eventually lean upon, there would be no need for rights to a lawyer, or Miranda warnings. The fifth ammendment is the reason that you dont have to immediately speak to the police. Without it, any delay in accurately responding to any question would be a crime.
Dont just blame republicans, or the other guy, whoever that may be. Both of these groups see the advantages in creating laws that could be stepped all over like this. There is no opposition in congress to the president on these types of issues, as both are happy to support things for when it is their turn. You can keep believing in whatever partisan debates and issues that are thrown out there for you to feel like the other side is the bad guy, but pay attention to the last time either side did something that actually limited the govt in general, or suppported the population in general. There is plenty of bi-partisan support on plenty of issues, those just dont get paraded around.
blah blah blah blah on a computer, or blah blah blah on a computer network .
There is a direct relationship to government surveillance and citizens freedom of expression. The internet part is only one small piece of the action from either party.
You are missing out on the case of many people recording. One person can edit things, or miss things, or even CG something... if anything is wrong about this that the police would like to make public, the other 15 cameras that may be there could clear things up. If the only version being allowed is owned and edited by the police, then we have the exact same situation, with a far more nefarious motive.
Journalistic integrity is a modern concept. The original journals and papers were slanted hacks trying to support a viewpoint. FOX and MSNBC are a return to the original styles of professionals, and the public using facebook/youtube/reddit is just the same as in the days of the founders, but with technology that makes dessimination simpler.
so what we have is "some guys were obviously up to something" , as the crime being investigated. I would like to know exactly what it was. When a group of police charge into a group of gang members who are on probation, there is a high likelihood that the gang members will react in a negative way. They may have been mugging old ladies, or they may have been just sitting around talking. Testosterone takes over on both sides, and a firefight breaks out. Again, did this need to happen? We will only know when the original reason that the police decided to engage the group is releases.
I am not saying that these guys are innocent, or didnt need to be arrested for whatever they were doing, but the end result is a completely unrelated innocent person has died do to the processes being followed by the police. Maybe they were saving someone else, maybe they just instigated a crime by looking hard enough.
or how about " these arent the drives youre looking for" . If you are lucky and stumble upon your hidden jedi abilities, then you go free. If not, prosecution spends time searching for more and more drives. At least troll the cops while you have a chance, i guess
I have a hard time imagining the parents really arguing all of this in front of a judge anyhow. It is facebook having a contract with their child without their knowledge, it is their child being drunk and in a bad state without their knowledge ( or guidance ), it is their child using the internet in ways that they do not have knowledge of...
At some point the parents are responsible for raising the child.
damn, was that part in the article? I barely read the summary, but if they are going to include that kind of excitement then it needs to be more obvious.
So I see some people breaking the Xbox division up and saying that the "games" portion of the device isnt making money, then we have this post where now the entire branding ( using a marketing department that is a company wide expense ) trying to show every dime that has ever been spent on xbox. Of course, using this logic, the xbox is a failed platform.
because the people who got pissed were labeled as right wing conspiracy nutjobs, or dirty lazy hippies. Everyone else either believed those labels, got paid out, or turned a blind eye to the possibility that their political spectrum could actually have a flaw.
except that whatever fine ends up being imposed will be far less than the amount of revenue that ATT made from this move. And then the fine actually counts against revenue, so it just becomes a tax break on other profits.
haha, companies dont pay shit. They depreciate assets.
My state is changing away from this ad valorum to a new system where you pay a one time tax at purchase of a vehicle. It will end up working out that people who frequently buy cars will pay a substantial amount more than people who tend to drive one vehicle for a long time. This is also pegged to value, so the more expensive cars will have a higher associated tax. It is most likely that this will then be deductible on itemization from federal taxes, so 30% of the exise ad valorum wont count as income. Then if this pretend person is in the alternative minimum bracket they wont be allowed the deduction.
A tax on a car in this manner is usually pegged to the value of the car, so even if someone were to need multiple cars becuase they were afraid that one crappy car is unreliable, the value of multiple really crappy cars would be very low. I have had beaters that I paid $15 on my ad valorum, I have had newer cars that cost $500 ( for ~$30000 car) .
Im sure you are right, but this almost feels like the equivalent of shutting down gmail in order to have pushed people into googletalk. I havent been using hangout because I didnt really like it. Forcing me to turn off the IM that I did use isnt going to make me use hangouts, it is going to make me use one less google product.
My phone told me that an update to google talk was available, and that it would be replaced with hangouts. Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.
this is essentially the speed management strategy in Atlanta. Everyone is driving 30 over the limit, and safely. If a cop happens to pull you over , you get the ticket. If you drive legally you will die, so you drive illegally , and trust in the odds of not getting unlucky enough to be selected too often.
My last encounter had me matching speed of the rigs in the right lanes, but staying to the left to keep out of their way. You have to move through them to get on/off the highway, so you have to match their speed. The judge told me it is no excuse, to which I replied "I know, I just need the points removed from the ticket so I can still afford insurance, as I will be driving the same speed until the trucks slow down" . She complimented me on owning the ticket speed and honesty, and removed the points and 10 mph.
This would seem to explain the seemingly low dollar amount discussed here. I expected anything from Monsanto, and in the realm of huge dollars swings involved in farming to have a giant dollar amount attached to it. The MPAA must be calling Monsanto's lawyers a bunch of amateurs. Should have been a few thousand per seed per year.
so there we have the "blame the bean" strategy. Making copies of all of the parts of a car sounds really expensive and hard. Making copies of the beans involved putting them in dirt and waiting.
I was thinking that the elevator would have a reselling license that forced them to force the contract terms downstream. It seems that selling these as feedstock allowed them to not impose the license/contract restrictions, and therefore allowed them to sell the beans below the market rate. The farmer then gets the seeds under no contract, but is expected to not plant them.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead. Obviously sueing your distributor and claiming they have no right to sell is a short sighted activity, but they are the ones who violated the contract. I just cant wrap my head around the concept that you can purchase something not under contract, that someone else can then come along and sue you for having purchased under incorrect terms.
I guess the car analogy is that if you buy a stolen car, you are in possession of a stolen vehicle , but the real wrong doer is the guy selling 50 stolen cars on his used car lot.
Slashdot Mirror
without the 5th amendment to eventually lean upon, there would be no need for rights to a lawyer, or Miranda warnings. The fifth ammendment is the reason that you dont have to immediately speak to the police. Without it, any delay in accurately responding to any question would be a crime.
and Obama ran an election campaign explicitly stating that he would disable these mechanisms...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4
Dont just blame republicans, or the other guy, whoever that may be. Both of these groups see the advantages in creating laws that could be stepped all over like this. There is no opposition in congress to the president on these types of issues, as both are happy to support things for when it is their turn. You can keep believing in whatever partisan debates and issues that are thrown out there for you to feel like the other side is the bad guy, but pay attention to the last time either side did something that actually limited the govt in general, or suppported the population in general. There is plenty of bi-partisan support on plenty of issues, those just dont get paraded around.
blah blah blah blah on a computer, or blah blah blah on a computer network .
There is a direct relationship to government surveillance and citizens freedom of expression. The internet part is only one small piece of the action from either party.
You are missing out on the case of many people recording. One person can edit things, or miss things, or even CG something... if anything is wrong about this that the police would like to make public, the other 15 cameras that may be there could clear things up. If the only version being allowed is owned and edited by the police, then we have the exact same situation, with a far more nefarious motive.
Journalistic integrity is a modern concept. The original journals and papers were slanted hacks trying to support a viewpoint. FOX and MSNBC are a return to the original styles of professionals, and the public using facebook/youtube/reddit is just the same as in the days of the founders, but with technology that makes dessimination simpler.
so what we have is "some guys were obviously up to something" , as the crime being investigated. I would like to know exactly what it was. When a group of police charge into a group of gang members who are on probation, there is a high likelihood that the gang members will react in a negative way. They may have been mugging old ladies, or they may have been just sitting around talking. Testosterone takes over on both sides, and a firefight breaks out. Again, did this need to happen? We will only know when the original reason that the police decided to engage the group is releases.
I am not saying that these guys are innocent, or didnt need to be arrested for whatever they were doing, but the end result is a completely unrelated innocent person has died do to the processes being followed by the police. Maybe they were saving someone else, maybe they just instigated a crime by looking hard enough.
this is the one that i am expecting.
or how about " these arent the drives youre looking for" . If you are lucky and stumble upon your hidden jedi abilities, then you go free. If not, prosecution spends time searching for more and more drives. At least troll the cops while you have a chance, i guess
I have a hard time imagining the parents really arguing all of this in front of a judge anyhow. It is facebook having a contract with their child without their knowledge, it is their child being drunk and in a bad state without their knowledge ( or guidance ), it is their child using the internet in ways that they do not have knowledge of...
At some point the parents are responsible for raising the child.
damn, was that part in the article? I barely read the summary, but if they are going to include that kind of excitement then it needs to be more obvious.
So I see some people breaking the Xbox division up and saying that the "games" portion of the device isnt making money, then we have this post where now the entire branding ( using a marketing department that is a company wide expense ) trying to show every dime that has ever been spent on xbox. Of course, using this logic, the xbox is a failed platform.
because the people who got pissed were labeled as right wing conspiracy nutjobs, or dirty lazy hippies. Everyone else either believed those labels, got paid out, or turned a blind eye to the possibility that their political spectrum could actually have a flaw.
and then they just buy up the competition that you moved to. It is really hard for a lot of people to escape a behemoth like this.
except that whatever fine ends up being imposed will be far less than the amount of revenue that ATT made from this move. And then the fine actually counts against revenue, so it just becomes a tax break on other profits.
haha, companies dont pay shit. They depreciate assets.
My state is changing away from this ad valorum to a new system where you pay a one time tax at purchase of a vehicle. It will end up working out that people who frequently buy cars will pay a substantial amount more than people who tend to drive one vehicle for a long time. This is also pegged to value, so the more expensive cars will have a higher associated tax. It is most likely that this will then be deductible on itemization from federal taxes, so 30% of the exise ad valorum wont count as income. Then if this pretend person is in the alternative minimum bracket they wont be allowed the deduction.
A tax on a car in this manner is usually pegged to the value of the car, so even if someone were to need multiple cars becuase they were afraid that one crappy car is unreliable, the value of multiple really crappy cars would be very low. I have had beaters that I paid $15 on my ad valorum, I have had newer cars that cost $500 ( for ~$30000 car) .
Im sure you are right, but this almost feels like the equivalent of shutting down gmail in order to have pushed people into googletalk. I havent been using hangout because I didnt really like it. Forcing me to turn off the IM that I did use isnt going to make me use hangouts, it is going to make me use one less google product.
My phone told me that an update to google talk was available, and that it would be replaced with hangouts. Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.
this is essentially the speed management strategy in Atlanta. Everyone is driving 30 over the limit, and safely. If a cop happens to pull you over , you get the ticket. If you drive legally you will die, so you drive illegally , and trust in the odds of not getting unlucky enough to be selected too often.
My last encounter had me matching speed of the rigs in the right lanes, but staying to the left to keep out of their way. You have to move through them to get on/off the highway, so you have to match their speed. The judge told me it is no excuse, to which I replied "I know, I just need the points removed from the ticket so I can still afford insurance, as I will be driving the same speed until the trucks slow down" . She complimented me on owning the ticket speed and honesty, and removed the points and 10 mph.
crap, so the weekly world news was wrong?
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZPIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=weekly+world+news+china+jump&source=bl&ots=AoEqCEJqth&sig=jdSlE5eZvZ2lmBsjE9SE2sZm7PE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=geOTUbLTEo2o9gSJ94HYAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=weekly%20world%20news%20china%20jump&f=false
I hope they dont all decide to jump at the same time.
This would seem to explain the seemingly low dollar amount discussed here. I expected anything from Monsanto, and in the realm of huge dollars swings involved in farming to have a giant dollar amount attached to it. The MPAA must be calling Monsanto's lawyers a bunch of amateurs. Should have been a few thousand per seed per year.
so there we have the "blame the bean" strategy. Making copies of all of the parts of a car sounds really expensive and hard. Making copies of the beans involved putting them in dirt and waiting.
I was thinking that the elevator would have a reselling license that forced them to force the contract terms downstream. It seems that selling these as feedstock allowed them to not impose the license/contract restrictions, and therefore allowed them to sell the beans below the market rate. The farmer then gets the seeds under no contract, but is expected to not plant them.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead. Obviously sueing your distributor and claiming they have no right to sell is a short sighted activity, but they are the ones who violated the contract. I just cant wrap my head around the concept that you can purchase something not under contract, that someone else can then come along and sue you for having purchased under incorrect terms.
I guess the car analogy is that if you buy a stolen car, you are in possession of a stolen vehicle , but the real wrong doer is the guy selling 50 stolen cars on his used car lot.
This is the realization of Bill Hick's people who hate people political party.