First and foremost, SpaceX achieved its funding through voluntary means, quite the opposite from how governments achieve their funding.
That's right: Investors voluntarily invest their money in SpaceX. But they do it mainly based on the expectation that SpaceX will win fat government contracts, so they can repay these same investors with a larger amount of money involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers.
...in exchange for providing services to the government--services the government would have demanded anyway--and in competition with other entities, spurring innovation and driving down cost, while also offering to the same service to other entities the private sector.
Or are you saying that everybody who ever sold a product to a government is morally identical to that government creating that product itself?
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
...by taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who haven't? Isn't that pretty much the definition of redistribution? We can argue all day about whether that's a good thing or not, but are you actually trying to take the position that taking from one person and giving to another isn't redistribution?
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Reducing taxes isn't redistribution, it's "taking less away from people." There's plenty of redistribution going on that favors the wealthy--corporate welfare, bailouts, barriers to entry, etc--but "not taking their money" isn't redistribution.
She was not "completely innocent." She did share the files*. "Innocent" means "didn't do it." Her claim is that she didn't know it was illegal; unfortunately, ignorance of the law is not, and never has been, a defense.
* From a link in TFA: "Whitney admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong."
Do, please, make your argument as to how this is "clearly unconstitutional." Be sure to cite the relevant precedents that would support your argument. Oh, and tell us where you went to law school. Thanks!
That's right, complete CNC files. No need to translate the blueprints and drawings into instruction lists. And light-duty CNC mills can be had for under $10k new. Sure, that sounds like a lot of money, but how many people have two or three times that in a bass boat? If machinework is your hobby, you can have your "3D printer" right now, and it'll make real metal objects, not plastic toys.
They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
So, basically, you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."
By society's "norm" i'm a waste. disabled, living off the government. By my goals, I have a my own place, a cat, computers, internet. I'm a slacker, taking this life off.
Well, thank you for giving me the opportunity to work to support your chosen lifestyle. Is there anything else I can do for you? A pillow, perhaps?
Corporations, PACs, trusts, and unions are all abstract concepts; they're all made of individuals, and it is the individuals who actually do anything.
Put another way--the people have the right to free speech, and they have the right to assemble peaceably. You propose forcing them to choose one or the other: "either speak, or assemble, but you can't assemble and then speak together!"
If I have the right to remain silent, do I also have the right to refuse giving my DNA away? IANAL but if I have the right to not speak so as to not incriminate myself, why wouldn't I also have the right to not have my blood drawn (or mucus swabbed) so as to not incriminate myself?
I don't live in New York but, I'm often there. If an officer there wanted to take a sample of my DNA for an offense such as speeding, I'd refuse. If he persisted, I'd try to invoke Miranda Rights. If he persisted after that, I'd fight back as he tried to take the sample, recover for a few months in the hospital after he beat me senseless and then sue for police brutality. Essentially, that's what it's going to take to get this law overturned if it gets passed.
How do ignorant comments like this get modded up to +5?
First of all, since you describe an offense involving driving, you should know that the implied consent laws passed by the states requires that you give consent to brethalyzer, etc. It'd be trivial for the legislatures to add a DNA sample to the list. You can still refuse, but you'll lose your license.
Second, the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment only applies to testimonial evidence. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), the Supreme Court held that extracting blood against the suspect's will was permissible: "On the other hand, both federal and state courts have usually held that it offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements, to write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture. . . . Not even a shadow of testimonial compulsion upon or enforced communication by the accused was involved either in the extraction or in the chemical analysis. Petitioner's testimonial capacities were in no way implicated; indeed, his participation, except as a donor, was irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone. Since the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner's testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."
More recently, Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988) cites Schmerber and others:
An examination of the Court's application of these [487 U.S. 201, 210] principles in other cases indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. 9 Only then is a person compelled to be a "witness" against himself.
This understanding is perhaps most clearly revealed in those cases in which the Court has held that certain acts, though incriminating, are not within the privilege. Thus, a suspect may be compelled to furnish a blood sample, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., at 765 ; to provide a handwriting exemplar, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S., at 266 -267, or a voice exemplar, United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 7 (1973); to stand in a lineup, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S., at 221 -222; and to wear particular clothing, Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252 -253 (1910). These decisions are grounded on the proposition that "the privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature." Schmerber, 384 U.S., at 761 . The Court accordingly held that the privilege [487 U.S. 201, 211] was not implicated in each of those cases, because the suspect was not required "to disclose any knowledge he might have," or "to speak his guilt," Wade, 388 U.S., at 222 -223. See Dionisio, 410 U.S., at 7 ; Gilbert, 388 U.S., at 266 -267. It is the "extortion of information from the accused," Couch v. United States, 409 U.S., at 328 , the attempt to force him
The right to a trial by jury of your "peers" doesn't exist in the American system. "A jury of your peers" refers to those who have a peerage--that is, lords--not being tried by commoners. We don't have a noble class in America, so the point is moot. Everybody in the country is your peer by definition, thus there is no language about your "peers" anywhere in the Constitution.
Let's start with links. You opened with Wikipedia; I'll see your Wikipedia and raise you Oklahoma's Legislative Service Bureau, http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/. Click the nifty underlined bit and it'll take you to the text of the entire body of Oklahoma statutes (I picked Oklahoma because it's a noted hotbed of tornado activity). "Reckless endangerment," by name or concept, didn't exist under Title 21, Crimes and Punishments, but Title 47, Motor Vehicles, contains "reckless driving:"
47 11 901. Reckless driving. A. It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11 801 of this title. B. Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a period of not less than five (5) days nor more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment; on a second or subsequent conviction, punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than six (6) months, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Now, that makes true reckless driving a misdemeanor. However, you're arguing that driving in a place where one has every legal right to be becomes reckless driving simply because of inclement weather. The courts disagree. To wit:
Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347 (Okla. 1991). "Snow and sleet were falling on the ice-covered road. . . . The fact that a motor vehicle collision occurred does not necessarily raise the presumption that the defendant was following too closely, driving too fast to bring the car to a stop, or driving too fast for highway conditions." The Court did not even consider the idea that the driver shouldn't have been out in the weather at all.
Wade v. Reimer, 359 P.2d 1071 (Okla. 1961). "Shortly after they left [the city of] Yale it started raining hard and puddles of water began to accumulate on the surface of the highway. Defendant, driving at a speed estimated variously from 50 to 65 miles per hour, steered the vehicle so as to avoid these puddles. As they approached a point approximately 10 miles west of Yale, the two right wheels of the pick-up suddenly came off the pavement to the right shoulder of the road. The vehicle slid ‘sideways' back across the entire concrete width of the highway and then through the adjoining bar ditch crashing into a tree. . . . Before a driver may be found guilty of [reckless driving], the triers must necessarily conclude first that his actions amounted to ordinary common law negligence." The court held that even a guilty plea to reckless driving does not establish negligence per se; the jury still has to decide whether the specific actions were negligent. The jury did not find the defendant negligent. Again, the idea that "you shouldn't have been out in this weather" was never even considered, let alone seriously entertained by the Court.
Green v. Thompson, 344 P.2d 272 (Okla. 1959). Holding that the fact that an accident occurred does not necessarily mean anybody was negligent; citations to Taylor v. Ray, 56 P.2d 376 (Okla 1936) and National Tank Co. v. Scott, 130 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1942) and Kraft Foods Co. v. Chadwell, 249 P.2d 1002 (Okla. 1952), all of which also held that the mere fact of an accident doesn't prove negligence or recklessness.
So, if you'll bother to read the provided cases, I think you'll find that chasing tornadoes does not ipso factor constitute "reckless endangerment" (or even the actual crime of reckless driving), nor the tort of negligence. The specific circumstances of the case may give rise to an action in either, but it's not "the literal definition."
But what's to stop a criminal from possessing guns?
You know, in the USA, one of the reasons it's so easy for criminals to get guns is that even if your locality passes a law restricting gun purchases very severely, somebody can always drive to the next state over with the lax gun laws, buy a gazillion guns, then come back and sell them to criminals for inflated prices in a black market.
There are some pretty simple measures that, if implemented at the federal level, would make it significantly harder or more expensive for criminals to get guns:
Limits on how many guns a non-dealer may purchase in a given time period. E.g., one gun per month per adult household member.
Waiting periods on gun purchases. If you buy a gun today, you can't pick it up until a week from now.
Close the fucking gun show loophole already; make all gun sales require a background check of the buyer.
None of these would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. But guess what? The NRA is rabidly opposed to all of them.
Most guns used in crimes aren't bought from a dealer, they're stolen. In fact, it's often cheaper to buy a gun "on the street" than it is to do so through a dealer...so much for markup or "inflated prices in a black market." Additionally, it's illegal to buy a handgun in any state other than your state of residence, so crossing state lines to buy handguns isn't a factor--dealers won't sell them without an in-state ID. Criminals--being the law-breaking sort, pretty much by definition--obtain them through (wait for it) illegal means. Long guns just don't turn up often in crimes (source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports).
There's a little more to it than even that. (Caution: law student, and we were talking about nuisance in Property class just last night.)
In order to be a nuisance, the behavior has to create a substantial harm to a person of ordinary sensitivity. The classic case is Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 198 P.2d 847 (Ore. 1948), in which the defendant, a horse track, had bright lights which spilled over and illuminated plaintiff's drive-in movie screen. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the light spillover did not constitute a nuisance merely because it damaged one who was abnormally sensitive (emphasis mine). The analysis was somewhat more complicated, but that's the important bit: abnormal sensitivity creates a duty for the injured party to mitigate, not for the injuring party.
This, of course, assumes that Firstenberg is bringing his suit under nuisance; other standards apply to other claims.
And good luck on that no severance pay thing. "I'd fire anyone in my organization who suggested we callously disregard labor laws like that.":)
Not everybody works in jurisdictions that require severance pay. In some places, employers are actually allowed to terminate an employer-employee relationship as freely as the workers themselves are.
If you are donating something to charity, why would you want (or be allowed) to pass that cost onto the rest of the taxpayers?
Because not all of us subscribe to the theory that all money (or productive output) belongs to the government and that anything we keep is taken from our masters?
A tax deduction is not "passing on" a cost any more than not buying a hamburger is taking money from McDonald's.
Slashdot Mirror
First and foremost, SpaceX achieved its funding through voluntary means, quite the opposite from how governments achieve their funding.
That's right: Investors voluntarily invest their money in SpaceX. But they do it mainly based on the expectation that SpaceX will win fat government contracts, so they can repay these same investors with a larger amount of money involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers.
...in exchange for providing services to the government--services the government would have demanded anyway--and in competition with other entities, spurring innovation and driving down cost, while also offering to the same service to other entities the private sector.
Or are you saying that everybody who ever sold a product to a government is morally identical to that government creating that product itself?
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
...by taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who haven't? Isn't that pretty much the definition of redistribution? We can argue all day about whether that's a good thing or not, but are you actually trying to take the position that taking from one person and giving to another isn't redistribution?
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Reducing taxes isn't redistribution, it's "taking less away from people." There's plenty of redistribution going on that favors the wealthy--corporate welfare, bailouts, barriers to entry, etc--but "not taking their money" isn't redistribution.
She was not "completely innocent." She did share the files*. "Innocent" means "didn't do it." Her claim is that she didn't know it was illegal; unfortunately, ignorance of the law is not, and never has been, a defense.
* From a link in TFA: "Whitney admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong."
They can allow clearly unconstitutional laws....
Do, please, make your argument as to how this is "clearly unconstitutional." Be sure to cite the relevant precedents that would support your argument. Oh, and tell us where you went to law school. Thanks!
They were in Oklahoma.
Where's the -1, Not Funny mod?
Even more fun than blueprints: http://www.cncguns.com/projects/1911a1frame.html
That's right, complete CNC files. No need to translate the blueprints and drawings into instruction lists. And light-duty CNC mills can be had for under $10k new. Sure, that sounds like a lot of money, but how many people have two or three times that in a bass boat? If machinework is your hobby, you can have your "3D printer" right now, and it'll make real metal objects, not plastic toys.
God, I love living in the future!
They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
So, basically, you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."
It's going to be up and down for the next few years.
By society's "norm" i'm a waste. disabled, living off the government.
By my goals, I have a my own place, a cat, computers, internet. I'm a slacker, taking this life off.
Well, thank you for giving me the opportunity to work to support your chosen lifestyle. Is there anything else I can do for you? A pillow, perhaps?
Corporations, PACs, trusts, and unions are all abstract concepts; they're all made of individuals, and it is the individuals who actually do anything.
Put another way--the people have the right to free speech, and they have the right to assemble peaceably. You propose forcing them to choose one or the other: "either speak, or assemble, but you can't assemble and then speak together!"
Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954).
If I have the right to remain silent, do I also have the right to refuse giving my DNA away? IANAL but if I have the right to not speak so as to not incriminate myself, why wouldn't I also have the right to not have my blood drawn (or mucus swabbed) so as to not incriminate myself?
I don't live in New York but, I'm often there. If an officer there wanted to take a sample of my DNA for an offense such as speeding, I'd refuse. If he persisted, I'd try to invoke Miranda Rights. If he persisted after that, I'd fight back as he tried to take the sample, recover for a few months in the hospital after he beat me senseless and then sue for police brutality. Essentially, that's what it's going to take to get this law overturned if it gets passed.
How do ignorant comments like this get modded up to +5?
First of all, since you describe an offense involving driving, you should know that the implied consent laws passed by the states requires that you give consent to brethalyzer, etc. It'd be trivial for the legislatures to add a DNA sample to the list. You can still refuse, but you'll lose your license.
Second, the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment only applies to testimonial evidence. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), the Supreme Court held that extracting blood against the suspect's will was permissible: "On the other hand, both federal and state courts have usually held that it offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements, to write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture. . . . Not even a shadow of testimonial compulsion upon or enforced communication by the accused was involved either in the extraction or in the chemical analysis. Petitioner's testimonial capacities were in no way implicated; indeed, his participation, except as a donor, was irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone. Since the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner's testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."
More recently, Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988) cites Schmerber and others:
The right to a trial by jury of your "peers" doesn't exist in the American system. "A jury of your peers" refers to those who have a peerage--that is, lords--not being tried by commoners. We don't have a noble class in America, so the point is moot. Everybody in the country is your peer by definition, thus there is no language about your "peers" anywhere in the Constitution.
Well, sure it possible--so is murder. Both are illegal, however. You can only sell to a resident of your state.
Oooh, can I play jailhouse lawyer too?
Let's start with links. You opened with Wikipedia; I'll see your Wikipedia and raise you Oklahoma's Legislative Service Bureau, http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/. Click the nifty underlined bit and it'll take you to the text of the entire body of Oklahoma statutes (I picked Oklahoma because it's a noted hotbed of tornado activity). "Reckless endangerment," by name or concept, didn't exist under Title 21, Crimes and Punishments, but Title 47, Motor Vehicles, contains "reckless driving:"
47 11 901. Reckless driving.
A. It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11 801 of this title.
B. Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a period of not less than five (5) days nor more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment; on a second or subsequent conviction, punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than six (6) months, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Now, that makes true reckless driving a misdemeanor. However, you're arguing that driving in a place where one has every legal right to be becomes reckless driving simply because of inclement weather. The courts disagree. To wit:
So, if you'll bother to read the provided cases, I think you'll find that chasing tornadoes does not ipso factor constitute "reckless endangerment" (or even the actual crime of reckless driving), nor the tort of negligence. The specific circumstances of the case may give rise to an action in either, but it's not "the literal definition."
Sorry to burst your bubble.
You know, in the USA, one of the reasons it's so easy for criminals to get guns is that even if your locality passes a law restricting gun purchases very severely, somebody can always drive to the next state over with the lax gun laws, buy a gazillion guns, then come back and sell them to criminals for inflated prices in a black market.
There are some pretty simple measures that, if implemented at the federal level, would make it significantly harder or more expensive for criminals to get guns:
None of these would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. But guess what? The NRA is rabidly opposed to all of them.
Most guns used in crimes aren't bought from a dealer, they're stolen. In fact, it's often cheaper to buy a gun "on the street" than it is to do so through a dealer...so much for markup or "inflated prices in a black market." Additionally, it's illegal to buy a handgun in any state other than your state of residence, so crossing state lines to buy handguns isn't a factor--dealers won't sell them without an in-state ID. Criminals--being the law-breaking sort, pretty much by definition--obtain them through (wait for it) illegal means. Long guns just don't turn up often in crimes (source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports).
Facts never were popular with your crowd, though.
3) Sell it all, invest heavily in hookers and blow.
(Side effect: if everybody tries to sell, the market tanks. Oh, and the earth didn't explode, so we're still here. Oops.)
So your argument is "Those People aren't like the rest of us"? LOL.
Close. It's "these people have affirmatively chosen to separate themselves from the rest of us." The difference is subtle, but critical.
There's a little more to it than even that. (Caution: law student, and we were talking about nuisance in Property class just last night.)
In order to be a nuisance, the behavior has to create a substantial harm to a person of ordinary sensitivity. The classic case is Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 198 P.2d 847 (Ore. 1948), in which the defendant, a horse track, had bright lights which spilled over and illuminated plaintiff's drive-in movie screen. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the light spillover did not constitute a nuisance merely because it damaged one who was abnormally sensitive (emphasis mine). The analysis was somewhat more complicated, but that's the important bit: abnormal sensitivity creates a duty for the injured party to mitigate, not for the injuring party.
This, of course, assumes that Firstenberg is bringing his suit under nuisance; other standards apply to other claims.
And good luck on that no severance pay thing. "I'd fire anyone in my organization who suggested we callously disregard labor laws like that." :)
Not everybody works in jurisdictions that require severance pay. In some places, employers are actually allowed to terminate an employer-employee relationship as freely as the workers themselves are.
If you are donating something to charity, why would you want (or be allowed) to pass that cost onto the rest of the taxpayers?
Because not all of us subscribe to the theory that all money (or productive output) belongs to the government and that anything we keep is taken from our masters?
A tax deduction is not "passing on" a cost any more than not buying a hamburger is taking money from McDonald's.
More than one per day? I guess the real question here is why are there so many perverts in Utah?
They don't tell you anything about the case during voir dire. They may not even have a case in mind at that point.
...the fourth was in his car, which was outfitted with a 1,000-watt bass box because he "liked to listen to loud music."
And yet some people still doubt Darwin!