And amendments must be drafted to specifically supersede previous limitations or grants of power in the constitution or amendments in order to have that effect -- but what the fuck, rah rah state's rights -- who cares what the bookish dweebs say.
I'm sorry -- did you contract for exclusive rights to the 1m data? Are you arguing that Google stole your data and put it up for free? Google's market is in ads, not data -- they give away the data to get the ads. Now they're charging for the API -- in part because, hey look! profits!, but also because it keeps other sites for hosting google data without google ads (and thus denying Google the only value google scrapes from its maps data).
So... what's unfair exactly? Maybe that the company that sold you those maps overcharged you.
He had a number of very expensive treatments that were comped by Medicaid and his student healthcare. You'd be surprised how hard it can be to deny people medicine if it will literally kill them to deny them that medicine. HIV drugs and CF treatments, among others, can stop a number of things -- eviction for instance -- since without a fridge the drugs spoil and are wasted.
That being said, they made sure he and his family were dirt poor before they came through -- but he did get the medicine that extended his life about 10 years beyond longer than expected (he made it to 23).
When it includes censoring people who do not live in those countries so that the plebs who do cannot be told how much their nation sucks.
Worse, this begins the process of actually fracturing the internet into sub-nets for national use. If I want to reach a global audience I'll have to make sure I don't do it in a way that will offend anyone in a country with bullshit over-pious litigators in government (looking at you Aussies) or a totalitarian regime bent on rewriting history (Hi China) or some asshole country with fucked up copyright and patent laws (hello U.S.A.).
So -- you can have a global blog, so long as you only blog about how awesome consumerism and particular Chinese products are.
Saddly it's about a decade too late for my college roomie with CF. He was brilliant and very funny, a good friend and a great programer. We're all a bit poorer every day this disease continues to kill.
Sometimes its right to bring a charge on someone you believe is guilty, even though you know they will ultimately win out, if only to stand up for the concept of justice. It's within the prosecutor's discretion. Now... bringing perjury charges against a deponent for *gasp* refusing to admit an affair -- not really high on that list.
The dangers of posting in my spare moments -- I usually only get an abridged version of my thoughts down.
Allow me to clarify -- After "on the other hand --" append "up til now" I think today's ruling calls that into question.
My specific example was how the policy had been abused up til now.
Today's ruling opens the argument that by looking in my window, a government agent is impinging on my property. It is a defacto visual search. The interesting question (which will play out over the next few years) is to what extent the SCOTUS ruling will roll back some of these police excesses.
And.. not for nothing, MS DOES still endlessly promote its own products through its OS. This is how the game is played. Get over it. Also -- hands off my data.
For now, SCOTUS has said it is definitely a search, which means doing it at all is off-limits unless steps are taken to ensure it is a reasonable search (meaning you get a judge to sign off.) It is still possible to attach a GPS device to someone's car without their consent and without a warrant, but it may not be admissible in court without a warrant.
It's possible to go into your bedroom and plant a listening device and a camera there if a judge signs a warrant for it. (I'd love to see the application for that). With a warrant isn't really the issue. We're fairly comfortable, as a nation,. with the idea that police and do light B&E work with a warrant -- it's sort of how crimes get solved.
The key here is that the U.S. gov't has been forwarding an argument for years now that anything done in, on, or around the public can be interfered with or observed by a gov't agent without any check or balance. Today's ruling is a significant expansion of 4th Amendment rights. It says that your expectation of privacy no longer matters, the government cannot enter into or interfere with your property no matter where you are, without a court order.
I just assumed generally that folks would append "without a warrant."
IAL, but not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, go hire a lawyer if you want legal advice.
I average about 10 Gig of download per month through verizon. That have yet to become gigantic pricks about it. I really can't complain about there service. (as a person that enjoys bitching, this is annoying at times, but I like my Netflix on my train ride to work -- so I will endure). I am one of the lucky ones with unlimited for $30 a month though.
And you are exactly correct. If you want the contents your car/computer to remain completely private, you need to "park it on your own private property"/"keep it off the public Internet".
No. Wrong. Very bad wrong. Today's ruling states that the goverment cannot impinge on my property (i.e. my car) even if I DO park it on the public streets / drive on the public road.
On the other hand -- looking in the windows of a parked car on public property is usually allowed -- if there's a reason to be looking in windows. One of the suburbs around Chicago (Palatine for those that care) instituted a policy whereby officers are trained to look through windows in parking lots to see if the owners left cell-phones, wallets, big piles of coins, etc, where they can be seen by thieves. The officer then writes a warning or waits to advise the owner that there is a risk of Breaking and Entering in Palatine, and that such valuables shouldn't be left out in plain view. (I have actually been the recipient of such a warning). As a side effect they also get to do a visual search of every car in the parking lot. Then, when they come up to give you the warning, they also check for signs of drug use / anything that would give them an excuse to pat you down.
In effect its abusive, but on paper it looks okayish under a traditional 4th amendment analysis.
This is an unmitigated good ruling, I don't care what side of the political spectrum you're on. The justices today expanded the scope of the 4th amendment -- the analysis now starts with "Is it an intrusion onto property" and then, if not, continues through the remainder of the existing 4th amendment analysis.
First time in awhile that the Supreme Court has gone the right way on this.
How do we the people change things so that we, not corporations, rule the country?
Federalize the law of corporations, and make it a breach of fiduciary duty for the managers and directors to spend money on any task not directly related to the scope of their business. You'll have to play with the language a few times to tell the Supreme Court you mean it, but that would work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that whole fracas over slavery that killed a generation of Americans -- not a problem at all.
I should sock-puppet that.
I admit -- I went out of my way to invoke the LAW.
And amendments must be drafted to specifically supersede previous limitations or grants of power in the constitution or amendments in order to have that effect -- but what the fuck, rah rah state's rights -- who cares what the bookish dweebs say.
-GiH
It solved Hitler.
I'm sorry -- did you contract for exclusive rights to the 1m data? Are you arguing that Google stole your data and put it up for free? Google's market is in ads, not data -- they give away the data to get the ads. Now they're charging for the API -- in part because, hey look! profits!, but also because it keeps other sites for hosting google data without google ads (and thus denying Google the only value google scrapes from its maps data).
... what's unfair exactly? Maybe that the company that sold you those maps overcharged you.
So
-GiH
The fact that Google uses Maps to sell ads and therefore MAKE money on maps means ... what exactly?
-GiH
He had a number of very expensive treatments that were comped by Medicaid and his student healthcare. You'd be surprised how hard it can be to deny people medicine if it will literally kill them to deny them that medicine. HIV drugs and CF treatments, among others, can stop a number of things -- eviction for instance -- since without a fridge the drugs spoil and are wasted.
That being said, they made sure he and his family were dirt poor before they came through -- but he did get the medicine that extended his life about 10 years beyond longer than expected (he made it to 23).
-GiH
So they don't get blocked at the DNS.
When it includes censoring people who do not live in those countries so that the plebs who do cannot be told how much their nation sucks.
Worse, this begins the process of actually fracturing the internet into sub-nets for national use. If I want to reach a global audience I'll have to make sure I don't do it in a way that will offend anyone in a country with bullshit over-pious litigators in government (looking at you Aussies) or a totalitarian regime bent on rewriting history (Hi China) or some asshole country with fucked up copyright and patent laws (hello U.S.A.).
So -- you can have a global blog, so long as you only blog about how awesome consumerism and particular Chinese products are.
-GiH
Since the developer's kit is free . . . what's the issue? [read TFA]
-GiH
Saddly it's about a decade too late for my college roomie with CF. He was brilliant and very funny, a good friend and a great programer. We're all a bit poorer every day this disease continues to kill.
-GiH
Not to take you too seriously -- but it would probably shrink to the point where it became impossible to see the north star long before that.
We do however have wonderful things called "Com-pass-es" that work similarly (even inside and in daytime).
-GiH
In fact, it did have the effect of derailing Clinton's efforts to go kill Bin Laden (remember, no war for Monica and wag the dog?)
Sometimes its right to bring a charge on someone you believe is guilty, even though you know they will ultimately win out, if only to stand up for the concept of justice. It's within the prosecutor's discretion. Now ... bringing perjury charges against a deponent for *gasp* refusing to admit an affair -- not really high on that list.
Also plastics and the medical advances of the VA doctors from WWII. Government programs work. Boobjobs are proof.
The dangers of posting in my spare moments -- I usually only get an abridged version of my thoughts down.
Allow me to clarify -- After "on the other hand --" append "up til now" I think today's ruling calls that into question.
My specific example was how the policy had been abused up til now.
Today's ruling opens the argument that by looking in my window, a government agent is impinging on my property. It is a defacto visual search. The interesting question (which will play out over the next few years) is to what extent the SCOTUS ruling will roll back some of these police excesses.
-GiH
And.. not for nothing, MS DOES still endlessly promote its own products through its OS. This is how the game is played. Get over it. Also -- hands off my data.
For now, SCOTUS has said it is definitely a search, which means doing it at all is off-limits unless steps are taken to ensure it is a reasonable search (meaning you get a judge to sign off.) It is still possible to attach a GPS device to someone's car without their consent and without a warrant, but it may not be admissible in court without a warrant.
It's possible to go into your bedroom and plant a listening device and a camera there if a judge signs a warrant for it. (I'd love to see the application for that). With a warrant isn't really the issue. We're fairly comfortable, as a nation,. with the idea that police and do light B&E work with a warrant -- it's sort of how crimes get solved.
The key here is that the U.S. gov't has been forwarding an argument for years now that anything done in, on, or around the public can be interfered with or observed by a gov't agent without any check or balance. Today's ruling is a significant expansion of 4th Amendment rights. It says that your expectation of privacy no longer matters, the government cannot enter into or interfere with your property no matter where you are, without a court order.
I just assumed generally that folks would append "without a warrant."
IAL, but not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, go hire a lawyer if you want legal advice.
-GiH
I average about 10 Gig of download per month through verizon. That have yet to become gigantic pricks about it. I really can't complain about there service. (as a person that enjoys bitching, this is annoying at times, but I like my Netflix on my train ride to work -- so I will endure). I am one of the lucky ones with unlimited for $30 a month though.
-GiH
And you are exactly correct. If you want the contents your car/computer to remain completely private, you need to "park it on your own private property"/"keep it off the public Internet".
No. Wrong. Very bad wrong. Today's ruling states that the goverment cannot impinge on my property (i.e. my car) even if I DO park it on the public streets / drive on the public road.
On the other hand -- looking in the windows of a parked car on public property is usually allowed -- if there's a reason to be looking in windows. One of the suburbs around Chicago (Palatine for those that care) instituted a policy whereby officers are trained to look through windows in parking lots to see if the owners left cell-phones, wallets, big piles of coins, etc, where they can be seen by thieves. The officer then writes a warning or waits to advise the owner that there is a risk of Breaking and Entering in Palatine, and that such valuables shouldn't be left out in plain view. (I have actually been the recipient of such a warning). As a side effect they also get to do a visual search of every car in the parking lot. Then, when they come up to give you the warning, they also check for signs of drug use / anything that would give them an excuse to pat you down.
In effect its abusive, but on paper it looks okayish under a traditional 4th amendment analysis.
-GiH
Government Cookies should require warrants.
Fixed that for you.
This is an unmitigated good ruling, I don't care what side of the political spectrum you're on. The justices today expanded the scope of the 4th amendment -- the analysis now starts with "Is it an intrusion onto property" and then, if not, continues through the remainder of the existing 4th amendment analysis.
First time in awhile that the Supreme Court has gone the right way on this.
-GiH
My bionic is often faster than my home network connection. That was never true of any 3g phone I've used (and I've used a few I*hones.)
How do we the people change things so that we, not corporations, rule the country?
Federalize the law of corporations, and make it a breach of fiduciary duty for the managers and directors to spend money on any task not directly related to the scope of their business. You'll have to play with the language a few times to tell the Supreme Court you mean it, but that would work.
-GiH
Yes, Corporate America just wants to treat everyone like crap, on a level playing field, regardless of race, gender . . .
Woah now, slow your roll man. Do you know how much we SAVE every year paying women only .71-.76 cents for every dollar a man makes.
-GiH
Utter bullshit.