Short distance, dongle needs to be just a few inches from the receiver to enable the ignition. Just do it in reverse, if a cell phone is within 2-3 feet of the steering column, the driver door, it shuts off.
It is funny, you said the same thing, but I got modded down... go figure.
Of course no learned person believed it, but on the other hand over a hundred years in 1633 later Galileo gets tried for supporting the Heliocentric model.
What someone believed, vrs what one would say publicly, was very different at the time. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
"I'm not sure it's really appropriate to refer to everyone in the bottom 50% as "the poor", that seems overly broad, but the rest of your point has some merit."
Not what I said, nor does it violate the logic: Not everyone making less than $50000 is poor. All the poor make less than $50000
Nor did I say they lower 50% did not pay their fair share, that was your assertion, and does not match with my stated Republican leanings that want to reduce taxes.
I go back to my original post that we want to lower taxes, but are accused of only reducing taxes on the rich.
To which I say that is technically true, as they are the only ones paying significant taxes, therefore any tax reduction that passes will impact the rich the most by definition.
The discussion on Federal Income tax (federal tax burden in my OP) is not based on wealth but on income. State taxes tend to be less progressive, even here in California.
AS for the calculation, you are not taking into account benefits such as SSI, Food Stamps, etc, that the poor receive as part of the redistribution of taxes.
It is a little more grey than you think: "If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place. "
Methinks an officer would object on principle... he does not want to be recorded.
I want it made clear, as some jurisdictions, such as California, consider it wiretapping if you record voice without the other person's consent, even in public.
It is already the case, it is called Spoliation of Evidence.
IRS found that out when they "lost" the emails ordered turned over. They discovered that a prosecutor did not even have to prove it was intentional, it is presumed to be intentional if it happens after the request is made.
Suddenly, those emails are just rilly rilly hard to find, not lost.
Well, we have been so successful at lowering taxes half the population pays only 2.5% of the tax burden. Not per person, the whole group. You can't reduce the federal tax burden effectively unless someone makes 66K or more. The top 10% pays 70% of the bill.
So all tax reduction bills tend to benefit the "rich" by definition.
The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act was a bill in the U.S. Congress that enacted the National Maximum Speed Law.[10] States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. The uniform speed limit was signed into law by President Nixon on January 2, 1974, and became effective 60 days later,[11] by requiring the limit as a condition of each state receiving highway funds, a use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[12]
As a Republican, I 100% agree with the idea and want it to happen.
I also want codified in that same law that all citizens are able to video officers for any reason at any time if they can do so from pubic property or private property they are allowed to do so, and are not physically hampering what is going on.
Any attempt to keep the public from recording or interfering with that recording is de facto proof of violating the civil rights of the photographer and the person that the officers are engaging.
"They" is anyone who has the power to trigger the shutoff.
If that is the FBI, Homeland Security, Police, or even the Fire Department. Or Black Hat hackers, if it comes down to it.
Once it is in the hands of someone to use it to increase their power and control over others to achieve their goals, they will figure out a reason to use it.
Just as a sword incites someone to use it like a sword.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? They have it already: the immobilizer.
Short distance, dongle needs to be just a few inches from the receiver to enable the ignition. Just do it in reverse, if a cell phone is within 2-3 feet of the steering column, the driver door, it shuts off.
Horse and buggy for DUIs sounds great!
At least the horse has a sense of self preservation when the drunk driver tells it to do something stupid.
Meh, make them drive a Yugo or Trebant, or stick them on 50cc scooters for life.
Cruel and unusual, but effective.
It is funny, you said the same thing, but I got modded down... go figure.
Of course no learned person believed it, but on the other hand over a hundred years in 1633 later Galileo gets tried for supporting the Heliocentric model.
What someone believed, vrs what one would say publicly, was very different at the time. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
To be fair, they did not have a way to test those ideas, and once they did, they fell out of favor.
While the common sailors may have feared falling off the edge of the earth, the debate with Columbus and others was just how big around the earth was.
You are phrasing it backwards.
The mother fetus null test would have been stated as:
No substances not native to the mother can pass from the mother to fetus.
Then the test would prove that statement wrong.
"Clouds are an optical illusion"
and fly drones into it disproves it.
See how this works?
You must be from Washington DC, where logic has been outlawed and argument for argument's sake is a local pastime.
There is only one possible logical reference to slavery here: ownership of another human being.
Looks like you solved how to keep the manual labor busy....
"I'm not sure it's really appropriate to refer to everyone in the bottom 50% as "the poor", that seems overly broad, but the rest of your point has some merit."
Not what I said, nor does it violate the logic:
Not everyone making less than $50000 is poor.
All the poor make less than $50000
Nor did I say they lower 50% did not pay their fair share, that was your assertion, and does not match with my stated Republican leanings that want to reduce taxes.
I go back to my original post that we want to lower taxes, but are accused of only reducing taxes on the rich.
To which I say that is technically true, as they are the only ones paying significant taxes, therefore any tax reduction that passes will impact the rich the most by definition.
You are kitchen sinking and mixing taxes.
The discussion on Federal Income tax (federal tax burden in my OP) is not based on wealth but on income.
State taxes tend to be less progressive, even here in California.
AS for the calculation, you are not taking into account benefits such as SSI, Food Stamps, etc, that the poor receive as part of the redistribution of taxes.
You are taxed on income, not wealth.
Just because you don't get into a war of words with people who buy ink by the barrel, not because reporters are special.
It is a little more grey than you think:
"If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place. "
Methinks an officer would object on principle... he does not want to be recorded.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...
and this is very interesting read too:
http://www.videomaker.com/arti...
and this:
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-...
Although a credentialed reporter is going to get more leeway than an average citizen.
When the DEC Alpha was killed, many of the engineers were picked up by AMD.
I want it made clear, as some jurisdictions, such as California, consider it wiretapping if you record voice without the other person's consent, even in public.
It is already the case, it is called Spoliation of Evidence.
IRS found that out when they "lost" the emails ordered turned over. They discovered that a prosecutor did not even have to prove it was intentional, it is presumed to be intentional if it happens after the request is made.
Suddenly, those emails are just rilly rilly hard to find, not lost.
It is, as the IRS is finding out about missing emails.
Too fucking bad police.
If you want us to give up our rights so you can protect the greater society at large... you will do what we fucking want you to do.
Or are the wrong person for the job, go do something else.
Disabling the camera would be Spoliation of Evidence, and is a crime in most places.
That is an odd argument. If you suppress a state right, you oppress all the citizens of that state.
Well, we have been so successful at lowering taxes half the population pays only 2.5% of the tax burden. Not per person, the whole group.
You can't reduce the federal tax burden effectively unless someone makes 66K or more. The top 10% pays 70% of the bill.
So all tax reduction bills tend to benefit the "rich" by definition.
You must be joking. Google 55mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act was a bill in the U.S. Congress that enacted the National Maximum Speed Law.[10] States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. The uniform speed limit was signed into law by President Nixon on January 2, 1974, and became effective 60 days later,[11] by requiring the limit as a condition of each state receiving highway funds, a use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[12]
The term is "Spoliation of Evidence" and is criminal in many jurisdictions.
As a Republican, I 100% agree with the idea and want it to happen.
I also want codified in that same law that all citizens are able to video officers for any reason at any time if they can do so from pubic property or private property they are allowed to do so, and are not physically hampering what is going on.
Any attempt to keep the public from recording or interfering with that recording is de facto proof of violating the civil rights of the photographer and the person that the officers are engaging.
"They" is anyone who has the power to trigger the shutoff.
If that is the FBI, Homeland Security, Police, or even the Fire Department. Or Black Hat hackers, if it comes down to it.
Once it is in the hands of someone to use it to increase their power and control over others to achieve their goals, they will figure out a reason to use it.
Just as a sword incites someone to use it like a sword.
"The blade itself incites to acts of violence"
If you give someone a powerful tool, they will use it.