How is walking to the gate giving up your fourth amendment rights? Nowhere are you saying "yes you can search me"...
First of all, I belive if you read the text of the conditions you agree to when you buy a ticket, you'd find that you are, in fact, saying "yes you can search me."
When you have a gun pointed at you it is not consent. When you cannot go around the security checkpoint without a gun being pointed at you, it is not consent. you have not waived your rights.
Wrong. Because you have no right to walk around that checkpoint. Commercial air travel is 100% federally-regulated, and the airplanes and airports themselves are owned by private companies. Therefore, if you want to fly, you not only must abide by federal regulations, you must also abide by the rules set forth by the companies operating the airport and airlines. The airline, which is a private company, requires you to submit to a screening by federal employees before you can board their airplane. This is legal, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to provide you service if you refuse these terms.
Furthermore, and I'm getting sick of repeating this: since you can refuse those terms at any point up until you actually walk through the security checkpoint, it is wholly within the rights of the federal screeners to search you and your luggage. You are not being forced to do anything, because boarding a commercial jet is not a Constitutional right.
Now, I'm getting sick of trying to explain this to you, and arguing with me will get you nowhere because you are wrong. If this issue is really so important to you that you feel you absolutely must have closure, I strongly recommend that you talk to a lawyer. In fact, if you feel so strongly that you're right and I'm wrong, then threaten to sue next time someone tries to search you at an airport and watch as every lawyer you approach to represent you laughs in your face and throws you out of their office.
What exactly is the LEGAL difference between a plane and a car?
The point here is not whether it's a plane or a car. The point is that you are being given a choice whether or not you want to walk through the security checkpoint. If you want to board a commercial plane, then you've gotta do it, but you're perfectly free to turn back at any point up until you step over that line. Since nobody is forcing you to step over the line, there is no Constitutional violation.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from buying your own plane and flying it around unimpeded (except by FAA regulations, that is).
The fourth amendment applies because there is no probable cause simply by taking a plane.
I never said that boarding an airplane was probable cause. I said that by boarding an airplane, you waive your fourth amendment right and it is therefore perfectly legal for airport security personnel to search you.
It doesn't matter that you choose to buy a ticket-- hell, the fourth amendment is enforcing that you not only have the right to buy a ticket, but to fly without being searched.
No, that's completely wrong. The fourth amendment does not specify that I have the right not to be searched. It says that I have the right not to be searched without probable cause, and furthermore it does not specify that I cannot waive that right. By choosing to cross a security checkpoint, you waive that right.
Ask any lawyer. This is simple stuff that you should have been taught in high school.
I guess I have to explain this again. Nobody's stopping you from traveling across state lines without showing papers. You're perfectly free to drive, boat, walk, ride a bike, whatever. But nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to fly across state lines. You are given a choice: transport yourself across state lines without papers, or submit to a brief search and fly across. Nobody's forcing you to fly, so there's no violation of your rights.
The Constitution also guarantees us the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't mean it guarantees that we'll be happy.
To turn your argument around, YOU make the choice to leave the house every day. Before you leave the house you must inform your local sherrif so he can come over, pat you down, and ensure that you won't be walking the streets carrying a firearm. Would you consider that a volation of your rights? After all, you don't have to leave the house.
In the first place, that's a completely horrible analogy that doesn't even make any sense. Of course it would be a violation of my rights if I couldn't leave my house without being searched. But that's nothing at all like being searched at an airport checkpoint.
I also don't know where you got the idea that federal employees can never search you whether you give your consent or not. For example, if you get pulled over for speeding and the cop asks if he can search your car, he is asking for your consent, because he doesn't yet have probable cause. If you say yes, then you are waiving your 4th amendment right and it is perfectly legal for him to search your car. If you say no, you retain that right, and he can't search. The exact same thing applies at airports. By walking through that gate, you are consenting to be searched. If you don't want to be searched, go home.
Yes, if you want to board a plane, the search is mandatory. But it is not mandatory that you board the plane, and nobody's stopping you from driving to your destination.
Read the ammendment again. It says nothing about your choice to do diddly squat. The government simply is not granted the power to search you at its whim. The only arguing point about it is the definition of "unreasonable".
If you'd ever taken a high school government class, you'd know that you're completely wrong. The constitution guarantees us certain rights, yes, but it does not make those rights mandatory. This means that I am perfectly free to choose to waive my rights, and if I do so, the government and anybody else is perfectly free to take advantage of that. They can't legally force me to waive my rights, but they can ask me to.
I'm not sure what makes you think the 4th amendment has any application to airport searches. Nobody's forcing you to buy that ticket, and nobody's forcing you to walk through that metal detector. If, at any time up until you step across that line, you feel your personal right to privacy is being violated, you're completely free to turn around and walk away unhindered. But since you make the choice to walk through the metal detector and board that plane, the 4th amendment doesn't apply.
Now, if you walked up to the security checkpoint, decided it wasn't worth it, walked away, and then got detained, that would be another story.
My point was that if the XPI won't install, then a Nullsoft installer certainly isn't going to do any good.
You did remember to completely exit and then restart Mozilla, right? Sometimes it leaves a process hanging around for a while. Also, I seem to recall someplace on their website mentioning that some versions of Mozilla that were installed with the installer have problems.
Ahem. Why don't you just click on the "Install" button for the appropriate Enigmail version on their website? That's it. Voila. Enigmail is being installed. Who needs a seperate installer? The functionality is built into Mozilla.
Funny, it worked just fine for me on the latest nightly build on Windows.
Re:So..it's been /.'ed, here's a google cache link
on
Cappuccino PC, Round 3
·
· Score: 2
That's not the page. That's the TX3. The new one mentioned in the article is the Mocha. The TX3 is old news. There's no Google cache of the Mocha page.
I've got a Cappuccino GX1 (the second-gen Cappuccino), and I really love it except for one major hitch: heat. If it's doing anything other than idling, the processor generates tons of heat, and that heat has nowhere to go but into the tiny insufficient heatsink or into the hard drive, which is mashed right up next to the processor. This results in crashes after about 24 hours of uptime.
In the end, I had to take the case off the Cappuccino, remove the proprietary heatsink/ducted fun, jury-rig an old Athlon heatsink and fan to the processor and splice the power cable into the motherboard. I also removed the metal casing around the hard drive, which was retaining heat. Now, with this massive heatsink bulging out of the top, my Cappuccino will run for about a week before it locks up. Still not terribly reliable.
If this new Mocha (which is actually the 5th-gen, not the 3rd) has a better cooling system, it'll be well worth the money. Otherwise, it's a total waste. Unfortunately the page is Slashdotted and there's no Google cache, so I can't get any details.
Re:Please, AOLTW, switch to NS from IE for AOL..
on
Netscape 7.0 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree that Netscape/Mozilla has reached a point where it could easily replace IE as a browser of choice. However, my guess is that AOL's reasoning is that many sites still treat *all* versions of Netscape as if they were inferior to IE. A good number of online banking and credit card websites (CapitalOne, for instance) won't even let you log into your account unless you're using IE. This would result in AOL getting tons of calls from clueless users.
You don't need a special driver in most cases, but nothing is stopping you from writing one. Barcode scanners work on the exact same principles as optical mice, and all the hardware is there; it's just a matter of writing a driver that'll do the trick.
Okay, okay, you have a point. Even so, when referring to it by its proper name, most people say "Pioneer Courthouse Square" as opposed to "Pioneer Square".
Chinese, Japanese, Australian, what's the diff?
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 2
Thank you, Slashdot, for completely pissing off pretty much every reader with any amount of Japanese heritage. The haiku is a Japanese art form, not Chinese. Maybe you should have checked with the folks at Slashdot.jp before posting such a stupid, blatant error.
My problem is that even though I've got 512 megs of RAM and have never, to my knowledge, managed to use all of it, the perfectionist developer in me screams at seeing a single application consuming more than 20 megabytes of it. I guess I figure that if it's using that much memory, it had better be solving world hunger or making contact with aliens or, at the very least, letting me use Counter-Strike voice chat to tell my teammates to "set us up the bomb."
I'm really not sure. My main system (in which three of the drives have died) has no case on it, and has several high-flow fans and is in a cool, well-ventilated room. The power supply could be the culprit, but after my WD drives died I bought a 120GB IBM drive and it's been doing just fine (whereas a WD drive would typically be clunking painfully by now). I never dropped any of my drives, nor did I move the computer around with the drives in it.
This leaves only one common element: I buy all my hard drives from the same place. However, I also bought my new IBM drive from this place, and it hasn't had any problems. If they were mishandling drives, why would they abuse the WD drives but not the IBM drives? Curious.
Sounds like the exact same thing I've been experiencing. As far as I can tell, it seems like the drive head is disengaging, then re-engaging, but I have no clue what causes it to do this.
Am I the only one who has had every single Western Digital drive I've ever bought fail completely within months? The failure is usually preceded by a horrible clunking noise that lasts a month or two, followed by catastrophic data loss. And it's happened with every WD drive I've purchased (and that's six so far). Needless to say, I've stopped buying WD drives.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I belive if you read the text of the conditions you agree to when you buy a ticket, you'd find that you are, in fact, saying "yes you can search me."
When you have a gun pointed at you it is not consent. When you cannot go around the security checkpoint without a gun being pointed at you, it is not consent. you have not waived your rights.
Wrong. Because you have no right to walk around that checkpoint. Commercial air travel is 100% federally-regulated, and the airplanes and airports themselves are owned by private companies. Therefore, if you want to fly, you not only must abide by federal regulations, you must also abide by the rules set forth by the companies operating the airport and airlines. The airline, which is a private company, requires you to submit to a screening by federal employees before you can board their airplane. This is legal, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to provide you service if you refuse these terms.
Furthermore, and I'm getting sick of repeating this: since you can refuse those terms at any point up until you actually walk through the security checkpoint, it is wholly within the rights of the federal screeners to search you and your luggage. You are not being forced to do anything, because boarding a commercial jet is not a Constitutional right.
Now, I'm getting sick of trying to explain this to you, and arguing with me will get you nowhere because you are wrong. If this issue is really so important to you that you feel you absolutely must have closure, I strongly recommend that you talk to a lawyer. In fact, if you feel so strongly that you're right and I'm wrong, then threaten to sue next time someone tries to search you at an airport and watch as every lawyer you approach to represent you laughs in your face and throws you out of their office.
The point here is not whether it's a plane or a car. The point is that you are being given a choice whether or not you want to walk through the security checkpoint. If you want to board a commercial plane, then you've gotta do it, but you're perfectly free to turn back at any point up until you step over that line. Since nobody is forcing you to step over the line, there is no Constitutional violation.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from buying your own plane and flying it around unimpeded (except by FAA regulations, that is).
I never said that boarding an airplane was probable cause. I said that by boarding an airplane, you waive your fourth amendment right and it is therefore perfectly legal for airport security personnel to search you.
It doesn't matter that you choose to buy a ticket-- hell, the fourth amendment is enforcing that you not only have the right to buy a ticket, but to fly without being searched.
No, that's completely wrong. The fourth amendment does not specify that I have the right not to be searched. It says that I have the right not to be searched without probable cause, and furthermore it does not specify that I cannot waive that right. By choosing to cross a security checkpoint, you waive that right.
Ask any lawyer. This is simple stuff that you should have been taught in high school.
The Constitution also guarantees us the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't mean it guarantees that we'll be happy.
In the first place, that's a completely horrible analogy that doesn't even make any sense. Of course it would be a violation of my rights if I couldn't leave my house without being searched. But that's nothing at all like being searched at an airport checkpoint.
I also don't know where you got the idea that federal employees can never search you whether you give your consent or not. For example, if you get pulled over for speeding and the cop asks if he can search your car, he is asking for your consent, because he doesn't yet have probable cause. If you say yes, then you are waiving your 4th amendment right and it is perfectly legal for him to search your car. If you say no, you retain that right, and he can't search. The exact same thing applies at airports. By walking through that gate, you are consenting to be searched. If you don't want to be searched, go home.
Yes, if you want to board a plane, the search is mandatory. But it is not mandatory that you board the plane, and nobody's stopping you from driving to your destination.
Read the ammendment again. It says nothing about your choice to do diddly squat. The government simply is not granted the power to search you at its whim. The only arguing point about it is the definition of "unreasonable".
If you'd ever taken a high school government class, you'd know that you're completely wrong. The constitution guarantees us certain rights, yes, but it does not make those rights mandatory. This means that I am perfectly free to choose to waive my rights, and if I do so, the government and anybody else is perfectly free to take advantage of that. They can't legally force me to waive my rights, but they can ask me to.
Now, if you walked up to the security checkpoint, decided it wasn't worth it, walked away, and then got detained, that would be another story.
Jebus, I can't believe I'm the first one to mention this, but: ULLtimate? For crying out loud...
You seem to be forgetting that he wrote the first version of Access, too, and also had a lot of involvement with the first version of Excel.
I guess it's a pity you can't get it working. I really like it so far.
You did remember to completely exit and then restart Mozilla, right? Sometimes it leaves a process hanging around for a while. Also, I seem to recall someplace on their website mentioning that some versions of Mozilla that were installed with the installer have problems.
Ahem. Why don't you just click on the "Install" button for the appropriate Enigmail version on their website? That's it. Voila. Enigmail is being installed. Who needs a seperate installer? The functionality is built into Mozilla.
Funny, it worked just fine for me on the latest nightly build on Windows.
That's not the page. That's the TX3. The new one mentioned in the article is the Mocha. The TX3 is old news. There's no Google cache of the Mocha page.
In the end, I had to take the case off the Cappuccino, remove the proprietary heatsink/ducted fun, jury-rig an old Athlon heatsink and fan to the processor and splice the power cable into the motherboard. I also removed the metal casing around the hard drive, which was retaining heat. Now, with this massive heatsink bulging out of the top, my Cappuccino will run for about a week before it locks up. Still not terribly reliable.
If this new Mocha (which is actually the 5th-gen, not the 3rd) has a better cooling system, it'll be well worth the money. Otherwise, it's a total waste. Unfortunately the page is Slashdotted and there's no Google cache, so I can't get any details.
I agree that Netscape/Mozilla has reached a point where it could easily replace IE as a browser of choice. However, my guess is that AOL's reasoning is that many sites still treat *all* versions of Netscape as if they were inferior to IE. A good number of online banking and credit card websites (CapitalOne, for instance) won't even let you log into your account unless you're using IE. This would result in AOL getting tons of calls from clueless users.
You don't need a special driver in most cases, but nothing is stopping you from writing one. Barcode scanners work on the exact same principles as optical mice, and all the hardware is there; it's just a matter of writing a driver that'll do the trick.
Actually, XXX and Spy Kids 2 have both made tons and tons of money. Try another example, Sparky.
Okay, okay, you have a point. Even so, when referring to it by its proper name, most people say "Pioneer Courthouse Square" as opposed to "Pioneer Square".
Thank you, Slashdot, for completely pissing off pretty much every reader with any amount of Japanese heritage. The haiku is a Japanese art form, not Chinese. Maybe you should have checked with the folks at Slashdot.jp before posting such a stupid, blatant error.
Now, what we really need is free WiFi on the Max and the Portland Streetcar.
I'll second that. NSIS is the best installer ever; I use it for all my Windows projects. And on top of that, it's open source. Who could ask for more?
My problem is that even though I've got 512 megs of RAM and have never, to my knowledge, managed to use all of it, the perfectionist developer in me screams at seeing a single application consuming more than 20 megabytes of it. I guess I figure that if it's using that much memory, it had better be solving world hunger or making contact with aliens or, at the very least, letting me use Counter-Strike voice chat to tell my teammates to "set us up the bomb."
This leaves only one common element: I buy all my hard drives from the same place. However, I also bought my new IBM drive from this place, and it hasn't had any problems. If they were mishandling drives, why would they abuse the WD drives but not the IBM drives? Curious.
Sounds like the exact same thing I've been experiencing. As far as I can tell, it seems like the drive head is disengaging, then re-engaging, but I have no clue what causes it to do this.
Am I the only one who has had every single Western Digital drive I've ever bought fail completely within months? The failure is usually preceded by a horrible clunking noise that lasts a month or two, followed by catastrophic data loss. And it's happened with every WD drive I've purchased (and that's six so far). Needless to say, I've stopped buying WD drives.