I think most states have a law that requires you to turn over your drivers license when asked by a officer, or risk it being revoked. There are no states that I am aware of that will revoke your license if you do not provide it to a police officer. However, there are several states that require you to at least identify yourself (see the link). A few states like Colorado actually require you to provide ID if you have it. All other states (about 30) follow only the USSC definition of a Terry Stop, which does not require you to identify yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
All of the above assumes that you are not driving. If you are driving then you often times do have to show your drivers license (that's why they issue it to us in the first place...)
MADD has most certainly gotten out of hand. Their founder, Candy Leightner, has stated as much on numerous occasions. The group has been cooped by prohibitionists.
I really wish we could find a way to disband them or at least minimize their pull with State and Federal governments. They makeup stats by including calling it a drunk driving accident if a designated sober driver is driving his/her drunk friends home. Same goes for if you hit a drunk pedestrian. And if you look at the real stats they state that lowering the BAC below.10 has effect on the number of drunk accidents. Their whole movement is predicated on pushing the laws as far as they can to give them a reason to exist and get more money.
No, you cannot use a passport in lieu of a driver's license in these situations. This is not true in all cases. It varies from state to state. I have seen and verified that Colorado will allow you to use a passport in lieu of a State issued ID and it really should be this way in most states. Also, almost all states (might be federally mandated) have to allow a Military ID to serve in place of a State ID.
I think it's very likely in your case that the barman was simply ignorant of the state law.
I see this sort of system as easily being misused by all involved and I think we would be much better without going down this road.
Frankly I think society is far too permissive of alcoholism and drunk driving, and I'd like to see that changed. I see such a system as something that may help there, and I support this particular instance. We may have many tough laws, but they usually aren't mandatory and we tend to error on the side of caution (it's only their first offense...) despite the incredible danger of a drunk in a car with two little kids running down the highway at 70+ MPH. I think we should be quite a bit tougher on drivers licenses in general, not just with regard to drunks. While I certainly agree that we are too lax with our Drivers License requirements in this country, most of this is up to our individual states to fix and not something federal government can or should regulate. If you think we should permanently take away someone's license for a 2nd or 3rd offense, I could easily get behind this idea.
Secondly, I don't like you're nanny-state ideals that we should be cracking down even harder people drinking, part of being an adult in a freedom loving society is having the right to fuckup as well as do the right thing. We should only punish people when their fuckups cause harm to others. If they are simply trying to damage/destroy themselves through drinking then it is not the governments place to interfere.
Normally I would agree with you here and while IANAP (Physicist) I think you are not interpreting what he is saying properly.
He's not saying he found a more efficient solar cell (a doubling of that would be high on the BS scale). He is stating that he has created a new evolution of the Stirling Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine.
From what I've read he looks to be on the up and up but again IANAP. Obviously since he has yet to have a production model we need to take it with a grain of salt but it looks very promising. *Crosses fingers*
Yeah, I thought I was the only one as no one I've run across has noticed the same thing. I always get weird looks from people when I ask them if they hear that noise coming from a CRT monitor (or TV). It can be downright painful if it's too high (usually when the monitor is set to a Hz rating out of its range).
I had a old CRT monitor that I couldn't afford to replace and I had to live with that noise for the first 2-10 minutes while it warmed up. I'm so glad I've been able to replace that with an LCD and no longer have to listen to it.
Something like mandatory EMP destruction of all harddrives and memory sticks would cause rioting on the borders and likely within the borders too. That is something that would piss off almost everyone and no government in their right mind would do something so asinine (even China).
This whole "web as a social tool" is simply turning into another leash like television, where we get to be inundated with ads and the same bullshit we're spoon fed on TV, in the newspaper, magazines, billboards. You get this as a medium matures and becomes part of the social fabric of the mainstream populace.
The difference between the Internet medium and TV is that we can easily run channels/sites around central ideas like Slashdot (not that we really fall into the category that you define) or the Journal of Nature. As long as it's economical for people of all interests to put up websites that appeal to them we can exist within the same medium as "The Latest on Britney Crack Whore".
Ultimately I think this is a good thing because of it essentially appeals to everyone of any persuasion.
I want to qualify people's opinions through the election of candidates that will actually do something. Not by "Do you think Fred Thompson looked tired and puffy eyed?" Why do you want to even try to "qualify" that crap ("Romney looks young") as a useful opinion? I agree that there are much better things that we could/should be talking about with regards to our next political election. But at least with the Internet we can be better informed about the candidates than at any other point in history. I see this as a good thing and not all that detrimental.
This is something that he simply doesn't understand (based on the article, I haven't read his book). Everyone has their own unique set of software and data that they need to manage and while you may be able to outsource one function you're not going to outsource everything unless you can get a monolithic company that can provide everything you need. Also, you'll never get outsourced companies to be as good or as responsive as internal employees.
Figured I'd finally register a slashdot account to respond to this article after lurking around for so long. You got a pretty got UID. Only problem is there is no "2".
Queue Futurama:
Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere...[shudder] and I thought I saw a two." -- Bender
"It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as two". -- Fry
Welcome out from the shadow's LloydPickering:)
Interesting, I have no idea what they gave you but you bring up a good point that I've always had some issues with.
Once you're in the military it always seems like they "have you by the balls". They can do damn near anything to you like in your story. They can recall you to active duty after you've served your term. They can more easily convict you of crimes and put you away for a long time with little chance for appeal*.
*I can see the reason for this as things that happen on the battlefield make it a lot harder to dole out justice but the civil rights part of me can't get over the fact that they really have less rights if tried in a military tribunal vs. a normal court.
Great post! But I do have a few points of contention...
And these guys will do all of this for you for free! If the labels had adapted Napster instead of trying to crush it, they would have made record amounts of sales in those years. They did make records profits and CD sales during the Napster time. They have been on the decline ever since. They really killed the Golden Goose here.
The big problem, though, is that they could take copyright down with them, and that would be a very big problem for the rest of the artistic field. I don't see this happening. The current apathy of the American Public is too great (baring something akin to 9/11 to wake them up to the political reality they are in). Also, I want to see copyright take down but not totally, it just won't look like anything we have today.
But don't think of it like a bird soaring in the air and taking a nose dive, instead think of it like a pendulum. On the left is no copyrights at all (not reasonable) and on the right is very restrictive laws and no fair use. Right now we are pretty close to top on the right side but there is a lot of pushback as should be expected whether you're on either side far from the middle.
What I see (and hope) happens over the next 5 years is that we start moving that pendulum back to the left and I'm hoping that we can get it move about halfway up the left side. I would say this would be about the ideal for most people. Copyright terms would be very short (but still very profitable) at 5 - 20 years total (depending on medium would be my preference). We would have clearly defined fair use (not just the fair use test but exactly spelled out uses like making a backup). The DMCA would be gone and you would have companies being able to legally sell DVD copying (not ripping, 1:1 copies) software and it would be expressly forbidden for them to put DRM on copyrighted works. Lastly, in order for you to claim copyrights you have to provide the Library of Congress a full unencrypted copy of the work (including source code in the case of software). Once the work has been released into the public domain (or has been abandoned) then it's available to the public for free or a minimal duplication fee.
//This is what I hope will happen and I think it's still plenty fair for the people who want to make money but it will help free up our culture and I think we could very easily see an exponential growth new culture as a result of regaining everything that's been under lock and key since the 1920's.
They could have easily adapted in the (original) Napster heyday.
It has already been stated many times before on Slashdot and elsewhere that they were making the most money they ever had during the time of Napster. If they had partnered with Napster at that time we would have had legal MP3 downloads years before iTunes. They could have had variable pricing so long as they kept it reasonable. CDs probably still would be on the decline but I doubt they would have lost very much in overall revenue. And if they had decreased their prices to more reasonable levels (something that amazingly still hasn't been done) of $3 - $10 per CD then they could probably have increased their volume and thus probably made more money.
As it stands today, they've made way too many mistakes and their "enforcement arm" (RIAA) is the most reviled company in the US. They are most certainly dying now. I just hope they don't land any more successful punches (e.g. more DMCA or criminal copyright infringement) before they go down for good.
I've never blamed the criminals for this, but then again I'm in IT and I know better...
My view is that they are criminals and we'll always have criminals. Therefore we need to protect ourselves from those who would take advantage of us by making those responsible for the problems pay for their failures, as you stated. When we pass a law that says that the corporate world and specifically banks are responsible for these breaches you will see things change practically overnight.
There are several other things that need to be done to help rid of this problem and other personal security breaches, mainly from data aggregators. If we had Constitutional guarantees that our private information is ours and companies have to explicitly ask us to opt in to maintain our data and they can't give it out to others without our explicit consent (as it is in the EU) then you would see a lot issues resolved.
Lastly, there needs to be laws stating that if credit bureaus want our information that we have access to it at all times for free (it's our information after all) and we can dispute any part of it. Furthermore anytime that a part is in dispute that we can get the item temporarily removed until it is fixed. All records should be locked by default. This requires everyone to ask for it to be unlocked in order to open a new account or to do a check your credit history and provide proof that they are the person asking for more credit.
If the financial markets (nearly) completely go to shit then everyone will be in the same boat and the only way out will likely be a national jubilee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Christian).
There is talk of this happening along with other major financial changes because of how badly the financial markets in the US and elsewhere have been screwed up.
There are a few areas of Freedom of Speech that we have that you don't have in Europe. The fact that it's clearly defined by our penultimate "source" document certainly helps keep things in check (although lately that has been under tremendous pressure).
We don't have explicit privacy in the US even though it is implied by the 4th Amendment. This is an area that we could definitely learn from Europe.
You pay a lot of taxes in Europe but if you start adding up all the explicit taxes (income, sales) and implicit taxes (speeding tickets, property taxes, estate taxes, windfall taxes, taxes on services like the telephone, etc..) in the US, I really start to wonder whether we're paying just as much but we're getting a lot less for what we pay. I think a lot of this is a result of the fact that many taxes are obscured (implicit) and the lawmakers can much more easily get away with the implicit ones because they often don't target 100% of the population but instead target a minority group here and another minority group there.
Lastly, we do have a lot of religious freedom in this country as in people are free to practice just about anything they can dream up as a religion. Most of the European countries learned it from the US. I think we're still better off than most other countries in this regard although we certainly have some work to do to make it better here.
While in theory I like unions; based on what they have done in practice; they have done a lot of harm too.
Collectively asking for things like vacation and weekends off is generally a good thing. But once you get down to all the very specific stuff they require it begins to get very messy and very bad for both the employer and employee. A few examples are: 1. Requiring shutting down a whole plant in order to layoff even one person. So instead of 50 out of 1000 people getting laid off because of "tough times" for the company they have to close up shop and now 950 more people are out of a job. 2. Requiring everyone to get paid the same (except by seniority). This is a really big one. This can cause a lot of people to do the absolute minimum instead of trying to do their best. If they just skate by and do just as good as the guy who's terrible at their job then they have nothing to worry about. This severely hurts productively and discourages innovators that like to push themselves. 3. I could go on but those are the only ones I could think of off the top of my head at the moment. Since this is not an area I follow I don't have any more examples.
I trust that I've gotten my point across.
I wish I had a constructive answer to this conundrum as I usually try to give an alternative that we could adopt to resolve the issue. But unfortunately I don't have one and haven't heard any good ideas that would work in place of unions*.
*Though if anyone does have a good idea I'd love to hear it.
I like the idea of (A) as a better overall solution. In one form or another we've been trying to do (B) for more than 100 years and in my opinion we're losing the battle.
I like the ideas that I've heard coming out of the EU regarding companies (I'm a US citizen and haven't read up on all the details so please kindly point out anything that I might have misconstrued). They are setup as completely separate entities from citizens/people. This means you don't have to worry about whether or not they have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, for example. The system is setup so that they have a different (often more restricted) version of this right.
In my opinion this corrects the balance of rights in the correct order (Most important to least): Society -> Individuals -> Corporations
The way it is in the US now is: Corporations -> Society -> Individuals
This is one of the most important "sea changes" I think we need in this country. For now, I've got to hope that others outside of Slashdot can see this is a needed change and will help to move us in the right direction.
I think this would be a good test case to trod out for a reason we need an Amendment to the Constitution for Jury Nullification.
There are many amendments that I think we need added (about 6 in total) but I think a Jury Nullification would help further balance the power of the people in relation to the government. Thomas Jefferson put it best in his letter to Thomas Paine, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Unfortunately, judges over the last 200+ years have seen Jury Nullification as an afront to their power as judges and have seen to restrict and even remove jury who try to invoke the power they wield.
I'd say that the amendment should read as follows: "The right of the Jury to Nullify a law or set of laws against the accused shall not be infringed. The jury shall always be instructed by a judge on their right to nullify. Furthermore, a judge must accept a unanimous decision by the jury to nullify and may not remove a jury member for exercising this right or declare a mis-trial."
Ideally I would like the amendment to have that after some set number of times that a jury nullifies it would then result in the law being struck down and a new one put in its place that conforms to the desire of the people (in other words you couldn't just pass a new one with the same statutes with only minor changes).
You would also want to include as much information as possible: Name, Phone Number, Address, Email, DOB, SSN, Credit Score, etc.
I'm not sure why immigration gets more people riled up in this country than the fact that anyone with $50 can access most of your personal and professional information.
The only problem is who wants to be the fall-boy/girl who runs the website. I can almost guarantee that even if no law is broken you will get a civil lawsuit for each person's information you post.
Slashdot Mirror
All of the above assumes that you are not driving. If you are driving then you often times do have to show your drivers license (that's why they issue it to us in the first place...)
MADD has most certainly gotten out of hand. Their founder, Candy Leightner, has stated as much on numerous occasions. The group has been cooped by prohibitionists.
.10 has effect on the number of drunk accidents. Their whole movement is predicated on pushing the laws as far as they can to give them a reason to exist and get more money.
I really wish we could find a way to disband them or at least minimize their pull with State and Federal governments. They makeup stats by including calling it a drunk driving accident if a designated sober driver is driving his/her drunk friends home. Same goes for if you hit a drunk pedestrian. And if you look at the real stats they state that lowering the BAC below
I think it's very likely in your case that the barman was simply ignorant of the state law.
Colorado laws: http://www.revenue.state.co.us/liquor_dir/pdfs/04licenseehandbook.pdf
Secondly, I don't like you're nanny-state ideals that we should be cracking down even harder people drinking, part of being an adult in a freedom loving society is having the right to fuckup as well as do the right thing. We should only punish people when their fuckups cause harm to others. If they are simply trying to damage/destroy themselves through drinking then it is not the governments place to interfere.
Normally I would agree with you here and while IANAP (Physicist) I think you are not interpreting what he is saying properly.
He's not saying he found a more efficient solar cell (a doubling of that would be high on the BS scale). He is stating that he has created a new evolution of the Stirling Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine.
From what I've read he looks to be on the up and up but again IANAP. Obviously since he has yet to have a production model we need to take it with a grain of salt but it looks very promising. *Crosses fingers*
Yeah, I thought I was the only one as no one I've run across has noticed the same thing. I always get weird looks from people when I ask them if they hear that noise coming from a CRT monitor (or TV). It can be downright painful if it's too high (usually when the monitor is set to a Hz rating out of its range).
I had a old CRT monitor that I couldn't afford to replace and I had to live with that noise for the first 2-10 minutes while it warmed up. I'm so glad I've been able to replace that with an LCD and no longer have to listen to it.
Sounds like its time to take Old Yeller into the backroom and shoot it!
They deserve to have their corporate charter pulled and for ICANN to revoke their domain registrar status.
Something like mandatory EMP destruction of all harddrives and memory sticks would cause rioting on the borders and likely within the borders too. That is something that would piss off almost everyone and no government in their right mind would do something so asinine (even China).
The difference between the Internet medium and TV is that we can easily run channels/sites around central ideas like Slashdot (not that we really fall into the category that you define) or the Journal of Nature. As long as it's economical for people of all interests to put up websites that appeal to them we can exist within the same medium as "The Latest on Britney Crack Whore".
Ultimately I think this is a good thing because of it essentially appeals to everyone of any persuasion.
I want to qualify people's opinions through the election of candidates that will actually do something. Not by "Do you think Fred Thompson looked tired and puffy eyed?" Why do you want to even try to "qualify" that crap ("Romney looks young") as a useful opinion? I agree that there are much better things that we could/should be talking about with regards to our next political election. But at least with the Internet we can be better informed about the candidates than at any other point in history. I see this as a good thing and not all that detrimental.
LMAO. You win the award for the funniest post I've read on Slashdot in a while.
I only wish you had logged in. I never friend people with funny posts but I just might have for this one.
Thank you. I think you hit the nail on the head.
This is something that he simply doesn't understand (based on the article, I haven't read his book). Everyone has their own unique set of software and data that they need to manage and while you may be able to outsource one function you're not going to outsource everything unless you can get a monolithic company that can provide everything you need. Also, you'll never get outsourced companies to be as good or as responsive as internal employees.
The only explanation I can think of is that the guy had a psychological condition where he would sabotage relationships.
Here are several sources with explainations: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=psychological+disorder+sabotage+relationship&btnG=Search
Thanks for the link. It explained a lot of stuff I didn't know about FPS and how our eye's work in the light.
However, I wish it was more scientific method for the reasons why see the way we do.
Also it wasn't able to answer the question of how many FPS does it really take to so that it's not noticeable. Oh well...
Interesting, I have no idea what they gave you but you bring up a good point that I've always had some issues with.
Once you're in the military it always seems like they "have you by the balls". They can do damn near anything to you like in your story. They can recall you to active duty after you've served your term. They can more easily convict you of crimes and put you away for a long time with little chance for appeal*.
*I can see the reason for this as things that happen on the battlefield make it a lot harder to dole out justice but the civil rights part of me can't get over the fact that they really have less rights if tried in a military tribunal vs. a normal court.
And these guys will do all of this for you for free! If the labels had adapted Napster instead of trying to crush it, they would have made record amounts of sales in those years. They did make records profits and CD sales during the Napster time. They have been on the decline ever since. They really killed the Golden Goose here.
The big problem, though, is that they could take copyright down with them, and that would be a very big problem for the rest of the artistic field. I don't see this happening. The current apathy of the American Public is too great (baring something akin to 9/11 to wake them up to the political reality they are in). Also, I want to see copyright take down but not totally, it just won't look like anything we have today.
But don't think of it like a bird soaring in the air and taking a nose dive, instead think of it like a pendulum. On the left is no copyrights at all (not reasonable) and on the right is very restrictive laws and no fair use. Right now we are pretty close to top on the right side but there is a lot of pushback as should be expected whether you're on either side far from the middle.
What I see (and hope) happens over the next 5 years is that we start moving that pendulum back to the left and I'm hoping that we can get it move about halfway up the left side. I would say this would be about the ideal for most people. Copyright terms would be very short (but still very profitable) at 5 - 20 years total (depending on medium would be my preference). We would have clearly defined fair use (not just the fair use test but exactly spelled out uses like making a backup). The DMCA would be gone and you would have companies being able to legally sell DVD copying (not ripping, 1:1 copies) software and it would be expressly forbidden for them to put DRM on copyrighted works. Lastly, in order for you to claim copyrights you have to provide the Library of Congress a full unencrypted copy of the work (including source code in the case of software). Once the work has been released into the public domain (or has been abandoned) then it's available to the public for free or a minimal duplication fee.
They could have easily adapted in the (original) Napster heyday.
It has already been stated many times before on Slashdot and elsewhere that they were making the most money they ever had during the time of Napster. If they had partnered with Napster at that time we would have had legal MP3 downloads years before iTunes. They could have had variable pricing so long as they kept it reasonable. CDs probably still would be on the decline but I doubt they would have lost very much in overall revenue. And if they had decreased their prices to more reasonable levels (something that amazingly still hasn't been done) of $3 - $10 per CD then they could probably have increased their volume and thus probably made more money.
As it stands today, they've made way too many mistakes and their "enforcement arm" (RIAA) is the most reviled company in the US. They are most certainly dying now. I just hope they don't land any more successful punches (e.g. more DMCA or criminal copyright infringement) before they go down for good.
If we can't perceive anything faster than 24 FPS then tell me why I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in a game?
I've never blamed the criminals for this, but then again I'm in IT and I know better...
My view is that they are criminals and we'll always have criminals. Therefore we need to protect ourselves from those who would take advantage of us by making those responsible for the problems pay for their failures, as you stated. When we pass a law that says that the corporate world and specifically banks are responsible for these breaches you will see things change practically overnight.
There are several other things that need to be done to help rid of this problem and other personal security breaches, mainly from data aggregators. If we had Constitutional guarantees that our private information is ours and companies have to explicitly ask us to opt in to maintain our data and they can't give it out to others without our explicit consent (as it is in the EU) then you would see a lot issues resolved.
Lastly, there needs to be laws stating that if credit bureaus want our information that we have access to it at all times for free (it's our information after all) and we can dispute any part of it. Furthermore anytime that a part is in dispute that we can get the item temporarily removed until it is fixed. All records should be locked by default. This requires everyone to ask for it to be unlocked in order to open a new account or to do a check your credit history and provide proof that they are the person asking for more credit.
If the financial markets (nearly) completely go to shit then everyone will be in the same boat and the only way out will likely be a national jubilee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Christian).
There is talk of this happening along with other major financial changes because of how badly the financial markets in the US and elsewhere have been screwed up.
A few points of contention...
There are a few areas of Freedom of Speech that we have that you don't have in Europe. The fact that it's clearly defined by our penultimate "source" document certainly helps keep things in check (although lately that has been under tremendous pressure).
We don't have explicit privacy in the US even though it is implied by the 4th Amendment. This is an area that we could definitely learn from Europe.
You pay a lot of taxes in Europe but if you start adding up all the explicit taxes (income, sales) and implicit taxes (speeding tickets, property taxes, estate taxes, windfall taxes, taxes on services like the telephone, etc..) in the US, I really start to wonder whether we're paying just as much but we're getting a lot less for what we pay. I think a lot of this is a result of the fact that many taxes are obscured (implicit) and the lawmakers can much more easily get away with the implicit ones because they often don't target 100% of the population but instead target a minority group here and another minority group there.
Lastly, we do have a lot of religious freedom in this country as in people are free to practice just about anything they can dream up as a religion. Most of the European countries learned it from the US. I think we're still better off than most other countries in this regard although we certainly have some work to do to make it better here.
While in theory I like unions; based on what they have done in practice; they have done a lot of harm too.
Collectively asking for things like vacation and weekends off is generally a good thing. But once you get down to all the very specific stuff they require it begins to get very messy and very bad for both the employer and employee. A few examples are:
1. Requiring shutting down a whole plant in order to layoff even one person. So instead of 50 out of 1000 people getting laid off because of "tough times" for the company they have to close up shop and now 950 more people are out of a job.
2. Requiring everyone to get paid the same (except by seniority). This is a really big one. This can cause a lot of people to do the absolute minimum instead of trying to do their best. If they just skate by and do just as good as the guy who's terrible at their job then they have nothing to worry about. This severely hurts productively and discourages innovators that like to push themselves.
3. I could go on but those are the only ones I could think of off the top of my head at the moment. Since this is not an area I follow I don't have any more examples.
I trust that I've gotten my point across.
I wish I had a constructive answer to this conundrum as I usually try to give an alternative that we could adopt to resolve the issue. But unfortunately I don't have one and haven't heard any good ideas that would work in place of unions*.
*Though if anyone does have a good idea I'd love to hear it.
I like the idea of (A) as a better overall solution. In one form or another we've been trying to do (B) for more than 100 years and in my opinion we're losing the battle.
I like the ideas that I've heard coming out of the EU regarding companies (I'm a US citizen and haven't read up on all the details so please kindly point out anything that I might have misconstrued). They are setup as completely separate entities from citizens/people. This means you don't have to worry about whether or not they have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, for example. The system is setup so that they have a different (often more restricted) version of this right.
In my opinion this corrects the balance of rights in the correct order (Most important to least):
Society -> Individuals -> Corporations
The way it is in the US now is:
Corporations -> Society -> Individuals
This is one of the most important "sea changes" I think we need in this country. For now, I've got to hope that others outside of Slashdot can see this is a needed change and will help to move us in the right direction.
I think this would be a good test case to trod out for a reason we need an Amendment to the Constitution for Jury Nullification.
There are many amendments that I think we need added (about 6 in total) but I think a Jury Nullification would help further balance the power of the people in relation to the government. Thomas Jefferson put it best in his letter to Thomas Paine, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Unfortunately, judges over the last 200+ years have seen Jury Nullification as an afront to their power as judges and have seen to restrict and even remove jury who try to invoke the power they wield.
I'd say that the amendment should read as follows: "The right of the Jury to Nullify a law or set of laws against the accused shall not be infringed. The jury shall always be instructed by a judge on their right to nullify. Furthermore, a judge must accept a unanimous decision by the jury to nullify and may not remove a jury member for exercising this right or declare a mis-trial."
Ideally I would like the amendment to have that after some set number of times that a jury nullifies it would then result in the law being struck down and a new one put in its place that conforms to the desire of the people (in other words you couldn't just pass a new one with the same statutes with only minor changes).
I like that idea.
You would also want to include as much information as possible: Name, Phone Number, Address, Email, DOB, SSN, Credit Score, etc.
I'm not sure why immigration gets more people riled up in this country than the fact that anyone with $50 can access most of your personal and professional information.
The only problem is who wants to be the fall-boy/girl who runs the website. I can almost guarantee that even if no law is broken you will get a civil lawsuit for each person's information you post.