Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
No, but it *does* grant the right to travel. I live in Alaska. Granted, I live in Anchorage which is connected to the lower-48 by highways. However, my job provides services to a village called Bethel (and a couple dozen surrounding villages) which are only accessible by air (or dog team, *if* it's winter and you've got two weeks to get where you're going). Therefore, in effect, by denying access to the airlines without a search, you have essentially denied the right of travel without forfeiting your right to be free from searches to at least a quarter of the residents of the state.
That is absurd. It wasn't the US government that decided that people should build a village in an area so remote that it was impractical to build a road that would be passable in the winter. The people who live there decided that they wanted to live in a place that's inaccessible. You can't blame the government for that. (Well, you can blame them, but you can't expect such absurd blaming to go without response.)
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever. The only precautions were to ensure that the person taking the plane out was the plane's owner. You didn't have to show a pilot's license and nobody cared who might be along for a ride. So if Alaska is anything like the other states I've lived in, it's perfectly possible for people living in outlying villages to hitch a ride to town and from there go anywhere they want.
If you have a new patentable method, it's covered in any language you code it in. If it then gets included in a compiler or library, that violates your patent.
These are mostly corporate lawyers. They're well paid but they don't get rich. Or rarely do. If there's a big judgment it goes to investors.
The fights are mostly about tech that should have been found obvious. The patent office is staffed by people who aren't sufficiently expert on the technology they assess. That's the root of the problem.
No, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about what the government isn't allowed to do. It's astonishing the ignorance of people who claim to know what the Constitution says, and the breadth of the things they think it implies.
US 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That means the Constitution doesn't change the rights of the States or the people in any way other than those described in the document. If you had a right to do X in 1788, you still had it in 1789.
In contrast, the 4th Amendment SPECIFICALLY addresses the right of people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".
But I don't think people ever were presumed to have a right not to have their pictures taken in public places. Certainly not in the USA.
To establish such a right would require a change in the law.
At the same time it makes American manufacturers more competitive in the US market. The government is paying to stimulate that market. If all that money goes to China it doesn't help the US economy but instead becomes a subsidy to China, which was never the intent.
The idea that unions and government regulations are pushing jobs overseas presupposes that it's both possible and desirable to have the most abused workforce and environment in the world.
US oil production will only ever be a small fraction of world oil production. In a free market, all oil costs about the same. So the USA can't influence world oil prices much by increasing domestic supplies. By it could if it could reduce demand because it forms such a large part of the market.
I expected US oil production to be anticorrelated to price because US is out of its cheap-to-get oil. But when world prices get high enough many marginal Wells become profitable.
I'm just thrilled at the possibility that I could get in on the ground floor with somebody's great investment opportunity. I'll wire all my money to Nigeria right away.
Slashdot Mirror
Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
No, but it *does* grant the right to travel. I live in Alaska. Granted, I live in Anchorage which is connected to the lower-48 by highways. However, my job provides services to a village called Bethel (and a couple dozen surrounding villages) which are only accessible by air (or dog team, *if* it's winter and you've got two weeks to get where you're going). Therefore, in effect, by denying access to the airlines without a search, you have essentially denied the right of travel without forfeiting your right to be free from searches to at least a quarter of the residents of the state.
That is absurd. It wasn't the US government that decided that people should build a village in an area so remote that it was impractical to build a road that would be passable in the winter. The people who live there decided that they wanted to live in a place that's inaccessible. You can't blame the government for that. (Well, you can blame them, but you can't expect such absurd blaming to go without response.)
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever. The only precautions were to ensure that the person taking the plane out was the plane's owner. You didn't have to show a pilot's license and nobody cared who might be along for a ride. So if Alaska is anything like the other states I've lived in, it's perfectly possible for people living in outlying villages to hitch a ride to town and from there go anywhere they want.
Misspelled "barrier to profit."
Security provided by the airports was ineffective enough to allow 9/11 to happen.
They're under no obligation to give anybody time before the committee. Imagine if every traveller wanted to testify!
But it dies raise the question why they don't want to hear HIM.
If you have a new patentable method, it's covered in any language you code it in. If it then gets included in a compiler or library, that violates your patent.
No, what Google's mostly concerned with is defending its immense pile of cash.
These are mostly corporate lawyers. They're well paid but they don't get rich. Or rarely do. If there's a big judgment it goes to investors.
The fights are mostly about tech that should have been found obvious. The patent office is staffed by people who aren't sufficiently expert on the technology they assess. That's the root of the problem.
The same thing happens to people who can't throw away a candy wrapper.
For some doctors, the reason they don't kill people is that the insurance company won't let them bill for that.
WTF are you talking about? Congress pretty much never gets involved in labor disputes.
I'm not sure a driver's wheel airbags has any utility for a driver who wears a proper seatbelt.
There's no telling whether it's ACCURATE. It just compares it to other faces, and probably comes up with a set of 1000 or so possible matches.
No, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about what the government isn't allowed to do. It's astonishing the ignorance of people who claim to know what the Constitution says, and the breadth of the things they think it implies.
US 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That means the Constitution doesn't change the rights of the States or the people in any way other than those described in the document. If you had a right to do X in 1788, you still had it in 1789.
In contrast, the 4th Amendment SPECIFICALLY addresses the right of people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".
But I don't think people ever were presumed to have a right not to have their pictures taken in public places. Certainly not in the USA.
To establish such a right would require a change in the law.
The silicone is likely to work. The makeup, maybe not. It depends on how they're measuring and encoding facial data.
The same can be said of Scientology. It doesn't make either of them any more likely to be true.
This opens new opportunities for abuse. The language is so broad nobody can know whether what they are doing may be construed as illegal.
At the same time it makes American manufacturers more competitive in the US market. The government is paying to stimulate that market. If all that money goes to China it doesn't help the US economy but instead becomes a subsidy to China, which was never the intent.
The idea that unions and government regulations are pushing jobs overseas presupposes that it's both possible and desirable to have the most abused workforce and environment in the world.
100 Tesla is possiblenow as a pulse. A stable 100T is much harder. One big enough to shield a space ship is much harder than that.
Also, it might not be possible to live in such a strong field. It certainly wouldn't be comfortable.
The USA can't produce enough oil to set world prices.
US oil production will only ever be a small fraction of world oil production. In a free market, all oil costs about the same. So the USA can't influence world oil prices much by increasing domestic supplies. By it could if it could reduce demand because it forms such a large part of the market.
I expected US oil production to be anticorrelated to price because US is out of its cheap-to-get oil. But when world prices get high enough many marginal Wells become profitable.
Nothing. If you have money to invest, you can invest it. This bill is about removing some of the laws that make fraud harder.
I'm just thrilled at the possibility that I could get in on the ground floor with somebody's great investment opportunity. I'll wire all my money to Nigeria right away.
The meat sacks are the least secure part of the system.