For a less obscure philosophical argument, consider if we required the government to show its work as if it were a math test: no points for deriving the correct answer, incorrectly.
He never said that anyone who has been convicted of a crime is liable for as much
No, the original poster said
Having a recent warrant out for arrest, being already charged with a crime, out on bail, or already been convicted of a crime. Seems like reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to me.
and based on that,
not abuse to search based on their reasonable suspicions.
To put these ideas together: cops should be able to search anyone who had ever been charged with a crime at any time regardless of what the person is doing, because the fact that they were charged with a crime at some time in the past is "reasonable suspicion" that they're engaging in criminal activity now.
Sure, as soon as we figure out how to get the government assessors to quit adding 5% to the value of the property every year, just like they do now for property taxes.
1) Fannie and Freddie don't make loans, they only buy them from other institutions. They did not touch subprime loans at all until the late 90's, when Clinton encouraged them to. 2) Community Reinvestment Act applies to retail banks only, and is at most 50% responsible for subprime lending between the 90's when Clinton turned it up to 2004 when Bush turned it back down (Note that subprime lending continued after 2004).
Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision
Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision
The CRA is only at worst 50% responsible (an additional 30% of the subprime loans were made by "affiliates" of banks, and therefore partially covered by CRA, the remaining 20% of all loans were made directly by banks... and the worst case scenario is that the regulators were there twisting the banks' arms for every single loan). The other 50% of the mortgages were irrefutably made of the originators' free will.
Secondly, the CRA doesn't call for Option ARMs or interest-only loans or giving people money with zero down or piggybacking another mortgage for the down payment or liar loans... those are entirely the invention of the banks and mortgage companies that offered them.
12 (or 13 or 14, depending on if you count the seizures of WaMu (the FDIC and I do) and Wachovia (the FDIC doesn't)) banks have failed so far. I'm sure you can find something to back your statement up from at least one of those banks.
But wouldn't this just shift the debates over abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and all those other wedge issues to the states?
You're right, this is a terrible idea! How would we EVER be able to elect federal officials without abortion, gun control, gay marriage and so on? We might actually be asked to determine who is actually capable of running the country, as opposed to voting for them based on a single pet issue, then crying and sobbing when the officials' other issues that we overlooked tackle us hard.
If you communicate within your ISP network, it would be the least cost, preferably 0 cost per packet. If you communicate within the local network (peering ISP's, geographically local), it would be a low cost but non-zero. If you communicate over large distances in which high utilization lines are used (undersea, satellite..) you have a high cost per packet.
ISP: What a wonderful idea! Let's get our Cisco rep on the line and see if we can get our gear reconfigured to ship every packet to Europe and back!
They are demanding to pay the same $19.95 as their grandma who only checks her email once a day.
Riiiiiight. That's why I pay $60 for a faster network connection, and why just about every ISP that isn't dialup offers "fast" "faster" and "fastest" packages. Smell that? I think your strawman seems to have caught fire.
The fact is, the ISPs have been using this tired "tiered" argument to sideline the real neutrality debate (note how "speed" and "neutrality" aren't synonyms?), as opposed to facing up to having threatened to block competitors' Voice (or TV) over IP offerings rather than competing, or threatened to hold Amazon, Google and iTunes hostage unless Amazon, Google, and iTunes paid up big bucks.
I just have one question. If the article predicts that the target will be captured "12 seconds ahead of the predicted time", when will the target be captured? Anyone taking bets?
So why should they be bogged down by guys like me who download 100Gb a month?
Apparently, because your ISP is too cheap to bother upgrading their network to support people using ~300kbit of their 6mbit connection. ( 8*100*10^9/(60*60*24*30) )
use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;
So yeah, if he's not charging for it or running it as/for a company, then he's more than welcome to tell his lawyer he's running a game server.
Well, not necessarily THAT specifically. Generally the judge doesn't let farces go on long enough to decide whether or not it's all staged for the purpose of setting a precedent.
So, are you saying the TSA agents will have a terrorist-detecting wand they wave over your body if you set off the walk-through terrorist detector? That would be the equivalent of setting off the metal detector.
Certainly nobody is going to be waterboarded every time the buzzer sounds, but what is the follow up to this? Sitting in line for hours behind the other 200 false positives waiting for the one TSA agent assigned to the task to finally get around to running your background check?
"The resolution could be higher," just isn't that compelling a reason to upgrade.
This is a good point. "Your standard-def extended-cut LOTR could fit on one disc with all the extras and such" would have been a compelling reason for quite a few consumers and manufacturers, but Sony's marketing squad (and HDDVD's too) was too busy hyping the technology for the 5% of the consumers that had HD sets to think "gee, what can we do to convince the other 95% to buy in?"
Slashdot Mirror
It comes from the set of real numbers.
Funny, I could have sworn it looked imaginary.
Not that their isn't a bunch of people wrongfully incarcerated, but the majority DESERVE it.
And the minority get to take it up the ass in the showers while you defend the actions of the incompetent as "good faith".
Was the officer justified in making the arrest?
For a less obscure philosophical argument, consider if we required the government to show its work as if it were a math test: no points for deriving the correct answer, incorrectly.
He never said that anyone who has been convicted of a crime is liable for as much
No, the original poster said
and based on that,
To put these ideas together: cops should be able to search anyone who had ever been charged with a crime at any time regardless of what the person is doing, because the fact that they were charged with a crime at some time in the past is "reasonable suspicion" that they're engaging in criminal activity now.
eliminate housing bubbles
Sure, as soon as we figure out how to get the government assessors to quit adding 5% to the value of the property every year, just like they do now for property taxes.
No, you are wrong.
1) Fannie and Freddie don't make loans, they only buy them from other institutions. They did not touch subprime loans at all until the late 90's, when Clinton encouraged them to.
2) Community Reinvestment Act applies to retail banks only, and is at most 50% responsible for subprime lending between the 90's when Clinton turned it up to 2004 when Bush turned it back down (Note that subprime lending continued after 2004).
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf
We need a WikiCongress!
What we need is cvs blame ;)
The CRA only applies to banks.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf
The CRA is only at worst 50% responsible (an additional 30% of the subprime loans were made by "affiliates" of banks, and therefore partially covered by CRA, the remaining 20% of all loans were made directly by banks... and the worst case scenario is that the regulators were there twisting the banks' arms for every single loan). The other 50% of the mortgages were irrefutably made of the originators' free will.
Secondly, the CRA doesn't call for Option ARMs or interest-only loans or giving people money with zero down or piggybacking another mortgage for the down payment or liar loans... those are entirely the invention of the banks and mortgage companies that offered them.
why on earth someone would want a handheld console
I take it you've never had to stand in front of a rack of computers holding a keyboard in one hand for more than 15 minutes.
But - you won't see your money for a year.
12 (or 13 or 14, depending on if you count the seizures of WaMu (the FDIC and I do) and Wachovia (the FDIC doesn't)) banks have failed so far. I'm sure you can find something to back your statement up from at least one of those banks.
this 'loaded air' still seems to float mostly quite high up.
Fog, meet multipolar. Multipolar, fog.
But wouldn't this just shift the debates over abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and all those other wedge issues to the states?
You're right, this is a terrible idea! How would we EVER be able to elect federal officials without abortion, gun control, gay marriage and so on? We might actually be asked to determine who is actually capable of running the country, as opposed to voting for them based on a single pet issue, then crying and sobbing when the officials' other issues that we overlooked tackle us hard.
This has greatly increased the online sales of weight-loss products although mostly from browsers identifying themselves as Internet Explorer
Linux users were terminated by their modified kernel after it detected that they were exercising ;)
ISP: What a wonderful idea! Let's get our Cisco rep on the line and see if we can get our gear reconfigured to ship every packet to Europe and back!
They are demanding to pay the same $19.95 as their grandma who only checks her email once a day.
Riiiiiight. That's why I pay $60 for a faster network connection, and why just about every ISP that isn't dialup offers "fast" "faster" and "fastest" packages. Smell that? I think your strawman seems to have caught fire.
The fact is, the ISPs have been using this tired "tiered" argument to sideline the real neutrality debate (note how "speed" and "neutrality" aren't synonyms?), as opposed to facing up to having threatened to block competitors' Voice (or TV) over IP offerings rather than competing, or threatened to hold Amazon, Google and iTunes hostage unless Amazon, Google, and iTunes paid up big bucks.
it doesnt take an expert to know that running a substance with no magnetic properties past a magnetic feild has absolutely zero effect.
Quick! Define "no magnetic properties"!
it's a common gaffe
I just have one question. If the article predicts that the target will be captured "12 seconds ahead of the predicted time", when will the target be captured? Anyone taking bets?
it can't do the latter two.
Unicode, maybe. But images? Click on "Google" alt text on www.google.com in debian's elinks (0.11.1) and you get
Its default option is pulled from /etc/mailcap and friends (debian, with imagemagick installed: image/gif; display 'gif:%s'; test=test -n "$DISPLAY")
So why should they be bogged down by guys like me who download 100Gb a month?
Apparently, because your ISP is too cheap to bother upgrading their network to support people using ~300kbit of their 6mbit connection. ( 8*100*10^9/(60*60*24*30) )
I'm pretty sure that is against the policy you agreed to two years ago.
From the acceptable use agreement:
So yeah, if he's not charging for it or running it as/for a company, then he's more than welcome to tell his lawyer he's running a game server.
Well, not necessarily THAT specifically. Generally the judge doesn't let farces go on long enough to decide whether or not it's all staged for the purpose of setting a precedent.
Those people must be afraid of metal detectors.
So, are you saying the TSA agents will have a terrorist-detecting wand they wave over your body if you set off the walk-through terrorist detector? That would be the equivalent of setting off the metal detector.
Certainly nobody is going to be waterboarded every time the buzzer sounds, but what is the follow up to this? Sitting in line for hours behind the other 200 false positives waiting for the one TSA agent assigned to the task to finally get around to running your background check?
Not to mention the fact that people who are paranoid will also look around, to make sure they're not being followed, etc.
Just imagine how their day will be when they set off the alarm and discover that the feds really ARE after them?
"The resolution could be higher," just isn't that compelling a reason to upgrade.
This is a good point. "Your standard-def extended-cut LOTR could fit on one disc with all the extras and such" would have been a compelling reason for quite a few consumers and manufacturers, but Sony's marketing squad (and HDDVD's too) was too busy hyping the technology for the 5% of the consumers that had HD sets to think "gee, what can we do to convince the other 95% to buy in?"
then do a terribly bad job of defending my position and set precedent
Judges hate it when you do that, and will likely throw out your case and force you to pay for all of it.