Growing up, my dad liked to tell me about one of the first computer viruses he & his classmates thought of in college.
It was a piece of string tied across a hallway that waited for programmers carrying carefully ordered (and hopefully for their sake, numbered) stacks of punch cards.
It replicated and evolved by way of angry programmers getting back at them in creative ways.
This pretty obviously needs to be a subpeona, a search warrant is from a law enforcement standpoint and that has zero use for data in a physical location outside the US. It's an attempt to end run around the system and it's far reaching and needs to be quashed immediately.
I see lots of money being made in the WAN acceleration industry.
Aereo is not producing (or paying for) content, ABC is
Neither is Tivo (DVR), RCA (antenna), Slingbox, or any company that provides such devices for rent.
Aereo is, in fact, entirely dependant on ABC et al, they just don't think they need to pay for that.
Neither does the rest of the planet. Name one other instance of some company being required to pay for the privilege of being dependent on some other company.
If Aereo wants to put ABC out of business by producing their own content and drawing viewers from ABC, ABC can't do anything about it.
Tell that to Comcast & Netflix.
But as long as their model is 'bleed the host until it is dead', you can expect the host to put up a fight.
Sooo... what does ABC lose if I rent Aereo's antenna/DVR setup, instead of renting the exact same setup elsewhere and having it at my house?
No, I'm assuming that your only need to be at a border is international travel. And that's a very specific exception that's been interpreted from the fourth amendment. A warrant is only one way to establish reasonableness. At the border, it's been reasoned to be not unreasonable.
The border is everything within 100 miles of the actual border, or any other reasonable entry/exit point, such as an international airport.
DHS jurisdiction includes anybody attempting to cross the border in either direction.
An anonymous 9-1-1 call while you're within 100 miles of any border is all that is needed to have reasonable suspicion that you are attempting to cross the border with something illegal stuffed up your crack, providing legal justification for a body cavity search & seizing any property you have for further analysis.
You are an idiot. There is a huge difference between science dealing with facts and politics which deals with policies. If you can't grasp that difference, it's entirely your problem, but I do suggest you keep your mouth shut in public to avoid looking like a total donkey.
However, the fact that you are obviously a donkey doesn't make your argument valid. HAND.
Yes. Why can nobody see the difference between science dealing with facts and politics that deal with policies when a political organization is using policy to retrieve scientific facts from a huge public institution...
And then the post, as mysteriously as it arrived, vanished. Astroturfing expedition aborted? Its certainly much harder to imagine dirty pool is not involved now.
Whoah there partner.
Turn up the tinfoil and turn down your threshold. It was modded down.
Now its in the trash.
Pen & paper don't spy on me anymore when I record my workouts & food.
The pencils though... Haven't figured out how to stop them yet...
Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world.
At the time the constitution was penned there were already laws regulating artillery, canons and warships, so there is well established precedent that the 2nd amendment is referring to personal arms and not battery weapons.
With only 65 total ships in the Continental Navy, and over 2000 letters of marque issued to privateers, I doubt there was any meaningful bans on cannon or warship ownership at the time. So, please, prove me wrong by citing the law banning cannons that predates the 1934 NFA
So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?
No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.
The real issue is context. What you see me doing, is not what I'm doing. It is what you think I'm doing. If you record it, and then play it for somebody else, then what they see is not only not what I'm doing, it is not what you think I'm doing. You are not recording my thoughts & emotions, nor does your recording include my entire life history. So, I don't want you slandering me to Google, et. all, by telling them I'm doing something that I'm not. And I definitely don't want the context to be distorted even further by such a recording being interpreted and reinterpreted, edited, and then interpreted again, for as long as Google decides it should be available, which Glass makes far more likely by virtue of reducing the effort to do so.
I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?
Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.
Horrible. You start by saying how unreliable brains are, then say the only difference between human memory and a recorded image is the ability to play it back.
Our memory, besides forgetting stuff, is also non-deterministic. Every memory is impacted by future memories and emotions on the subject. A memory of you happily going to the ice cream shop can, 30 years later, be a horrible journey of agony because your parents love your sister more than you. If we get the ability to play back memories (and we no doubt will eventually), it will be no more or less reliable than a verbal explanation in determining what really happened, and thus no less irritating to some people as Glass is today.
B) Crime is related to education. the better educated the general populace, the less violent crime there is. This has noting to do with firearms at all. We see this in countries regardless of gun laws.
So why focus on the 2nd Amendment, demonizing the NRA & their arguments, and restricting private gun ownership then? Stevens wants to talk about the "intelligent debate", while obviously ignoring this kind of argument. The anti-gun crowd is effectively saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people; but we're going to get rid of guns because that will stop people from killing people", and calling it "intelligent debate".
to pretend that the Founders meant anything other than general gun ownership is revisionism of the most extreme kind.
Absolutely. I think his misinterpretation (I won't get into whether or not I think its intentional) can be summed up in just a couple quotes from the article:
(and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.
First, here (emphasis mine). He has the 2nd amendment backwards. He is claiming a militia is a required piece of the Amendment. It isn't. A well-regulated militia is the goal of the amendment, and it accomplishes that by making sure the People, who would compose the militia should it be needed, have the weapons and experience using them.
But that (my) definition isn't even on his radar:
Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.
Granted he is talking specifically about Sandyhook styled shootings, but to say "unquestionably"? I question it. I think Sandyhook is an acceptable risk when it comes to gun ownership. Additionally, removing guns in this day & age is just wiping somebody's nose and claiming you cured their flu. McVeigh & Nichols filled a truck with gasoline and fertilizer. 9/11 used box-cutters & a plane. Technology improvements don't only make cell phones cheaper & more useful than the pony express, it also means explosives and other weapons (3-d printers anybody?) are cheaper & more useful than bows & arrows. So if you want to actually stop mass killings, then go after mass killings. Fund mental health research & treatment, balance wealth inequality, accept that public assistance is required in a world where technology is raising the education bar higher than most people can reach and that when public assistance is as laughable as it is today... the have-nots are going to be restless.
Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world. Especially if you consider some of the original arguments behind the 2nd amendment: tyrannical governments abusing the people with the military, so you "outlaw" a standing army and rely on The People forming a militia for self-defense until a regular army can be formed. Requiring "some other lawful purpose" is putting an additional restriction, or infringement, on the right to own guns and preventing a militia from behind formed. And since it is easy enough to simply declare there is no other lawful purpose for any gun (Police fill the defense role, beef industry fills the hunting role, so, done), such logic invalidates the entire amendment. (Specifically to sawed-off shotguns, there is a place for them with today's style of house-to-house close-quarters fighting where unskilled shooters need to hit whatever baddy is directly in front of them without penetrating walls or the people behind them; there is even more of a reason as better guns are outlawed/restricted/demonized, thus severely limiting people's chances of learning to hit the broad side of a barn).
Continuing
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.
Whereas I say no, they remind you that you're begging the question by simply assuming the debate has already moved on to "how to get guns out of the hands of mass-killers". Like I said above, people owning guns is not the problem. Revolutions don't happen just because people have guns. Mass killings don't happen just because people hav
Yes, you can overtly accept debt when accepting assets, but you cannot take on stealth debt by accepting assets that appear to be free and clear when the estate is closed. That is a blatant violation of due process.
Some debts, such as social security over-payments, do survive the death of the original recipient in certain situations. This link describes some of those situations.
Furthermore, as you describe it "appear to be free and clear" is absolute bubkis. Acting in good faith may protect you from criminal prosecution, but does not transfer property free & clear just because you thought it was. Shit, just ask somebody that got kicked out of their "free & clear" inherited house once an old loan popped up (fyi: title companies are not responsible in such situations, even if they cleared the title).
If the IRS failed to give reasonable notice to the estate of the intention to attach a lien on assets, the debts are gone. They are creditors. Creditors who do not act in a timely manner when an estate is closing or a corporation is being liquidated are simply SoL.
You're making 2 very flawed assumptions here (with your entire post actually):
1. That the Federal Government follows the same laws as a private entity in this or any other matter
2. That the law follows common sense.
Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.
You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.
Ya. Whatever the terminology is, it seems people understand things. So, close enough.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I had customers from 94-06/07 who were going through a PC a year or more chasing that ultimate FPS
Well, I hope you're enjoying the house I helped you buy. :)
It was a piece of string tied across a hallway that waited for programmers carrying carefully ordered (and hopefully for their sake, numbered) stacks of punch cards.
It replicated and evolved by way of angry programmers getting back at them in creative ways.
Digital or not, it's someone's property. Get over yourself and get a warrant to search/seize it.
tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack [it] open
And fire-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained in their house. What's the difference?
You can send in a SWAT team on a "no knock" warrant if you think a suspect might destroy physical evidence inside a house.
Fine. Get a fucking "no knock" WARRANT and seize the phone before they wipe it.
This pretty obviously needs to be a subpeona, a search warrant is from a law enforcement standpoint and that has zero use for data in a physical location outside the US. It's an attempt to end run around the system and it's far reaching and needs to be quashed immediately.
I see lots of money being made in the WAN acceleration industry.
Aereo is not producing (or paying for) content, ABC is
Neither is Tivo (DVR), RCA (antenna), Slingbox, or any company that provides such devices for rent.
Aereo is, in fact, entirely dependant on ABC et al, they just don't think they need to pay for that.
Neither does the rest of the planet. Name one other instance of some company being required to pay for the privilege of being dependent on some other company.
If Aereo wants to put ABC out of business by producing their own content and drawing viewers from ABC, ABC can't do anything about it.
Tell that to Comcast & Netflix.
But as long as their model is 'bleed the host until it is dead', you can expect the host to put up a fight.
Sooo... what does ABC lose if I rent Aereo's antenna/DVR setup, instead of renting the exact same setup elsewhere and having it at my house?
No, I'm assuming that your only need to be at a border is international travel. And that's a very specific exception that's been interpreted from the fourth amendment. A warrant is only one way to establish reasonableness. At the border, it's been reasoned to be not unreasonable.
The border is everything within 100 miles of the actual border, or any other reasonable entry/exit point, such as an international airport.
DHS jurisdiction includes anybody attempting to cross the border in either direction.
An anonymous 9-1-1 call while you're within 100 miles of any border is all that is needed to have reasonable suspicion that you are attempting to cross the border with something illegal stuffed up your crack, providing legal justification for a body cavity search & seizing any property you have for further analysis.
border...domestic... I sense a disconnect here.
Then you're assuming there is only 1 side to a border.
I love that "Feature Creep" is both adverbial and can be a noun. "Oh, look, it's the feature creep..." ;)
That sounds like something that walks near your red stone machine and adds worthless features to it.
To equate it to something domestic
Pulling someone over does not require probable cause - only reasonable suspicion. The anonymous tip satisfies that just fine.
To equate it to something else domestic, "only" reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a full body cavity search at the border.
An anonymous phone call can get a TSA hand up your ass. Enjoy.
I used to be a scientist like you, until I took a marshmallow in the eye.
Sounds like the typical "mad scientist" boiler plate.
So, when do you reveal your great invention that will make marshmallows tremble at the mere mention of your name?!
Muuaaaahahahahahhahahaha!
You are an idiot. There is a huge difference between science dealing with facts and politics which deals with policies. If you can't grasp that difference, it's entirely your problem, but I do suggest you keep your mouth shut in public to avoid looking like a total donkey.
However, the fact that you are obviously a donkey doesn't make your argument valid. HAND.
Yes. Why can nobody see the difference between science dealing with facts and politics that deal with policies when a political organization is using policy to retrieve scientific facts from a huge public institution...
Did I miss anything?
Hah!
And then the post, as mysteriously as it arrived, vanished. Astroturfing expedition aborted? Its certainly much harder to imagine dirty pool is not involved now.
Whoah there partner.
Turn up the tinfoil and turn down your threshold. It was modded down.
Who are you?
Who ARE you?
Now its in the trash.
Pen & paper don't spy on me anymore when I record my workouts & food.
The pencils though... Haven't figured out how to stop them yet...
No I don't think its like that at all. And please don't compare violating gun ownership rights to genocide.
lol ok. Glad you thought that through.
The fact that they required letters of marque should be sufficient evidence.
The fact that they owned the ships, instead of building them after receiving the letters, should indicate otherwise.
I'd say that his revision would have the direct effect of creating a more-effective police state, where the government need never fear The People.
The whole POINT of the 2nd Amendment was that government SHOULD fear The People.
It is one of the big reasons, ya.
That is exactly how it was intended.
Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world.
At the time the constitution was penned there were already laws regulating artillery, canons and warships, so there is well established precedent that the 2nd amendment is referring to personal arms and not battery weapons.
With only 65 total ships in the Continental Navy, and over 2000 letters of marque issued to privateers, I doubt there was any meaningful bans on cannon or warship ownership at the time. So, please, prove me wrong by citing the law banning cannons that predates the 1934 NFA
So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?
No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.
The real issue is context. What you see me doing, is not what I'm doing. It is what you think I'm doing. If you record it, and then play it for somebody else, then what they see is not only not what I'm doing, it is not what you think I'm doing. You are not recording my thoughts & emotions, nor does your recording include my entire life history. So, I don't want you slandering me to Google, et. all, by telling them I'm doing something that I'm not. And I definitely don't want the context to be distorted even further by such a recording being interpreted and reinterpreted, edited, and then interpreted again, for as long as Google decides it should be available, which Glass makes far more likely by virtue of reducing the effort to do so.
I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?
Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.
Horrible. You start by saying how unreliable brains are, then say the only difference between human memory and a recorded image is the ability to play it back.
Our memory, besides forgetting stuff, is also non-deterministic. Every memory is impacted by future memories and emotions on the subject. A memory of you happily going to the ice cream shop can, 30 years later, be a horrible journey of agony because your parents love your sister more than you. If we get the ability to play back memories (and we no doubt will eventually), it will be no more or less reliable than a verbal explanation in determining what really happened, and thus no less irritating to some people as Glass is today.
B) Crime is related to education. the better educated the general populace, the less violent crime there is. This has noting to do with firearms at all. We see this in countries regardless of gun laws.
So why focus on the 2nd Amendment, demonizing the NRA & their arguments, and restricting private gun ownership then? Stevens wants to talk about the "intelligent debate", while obviously ignoring this kind of argument. The anti-gun crowd is effectively saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people; but we're going to get rid of guns because that will stop people from killing people", and calling it "intelligent debate".
to pretend that the Founders meant anything other than general gun ownership is revisionism of the most extreme kind.
Absolutely. I think his misinterpretation (I won't get into whether or not I think its intentional) can be summed up in just a couple quotes from the article:
(and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.
First, here (emphasis mine). He has the 2nd amendment backwards. He is claiming a militia is a required piece of the Amendment. It isn't. A well-regulated militia is the goal of the amendment, and it accomplishes that by making sure the People, who would compose the militia should it be needed, have the weapons and experience using them.
But that (my) definition isn't even on his radar:
Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.
Granted he is talking specifically about Sandyhook styled shootings, but to say "unquestionably"? I question it. I think Sandyhook is an acceptable risk when it comes to gun ownership. Additionally, removing guns in this day & age is just wiping somebody's nose and claiming you cured their flu. McVeigh & Nichols filled a truck with gasoline and fertilizer. 9/11 used box-cutters & a plane. Technology improvements don't only make cell phones cheaper & more useful than the pony express, it also means explosives and other weapons (3-d printers anybody?) are cheaper & more useful than bows & arrows. So if you want to actually stop mass killings, then go after mass killings. Fund mental health research & treatment, balance wealth inequality, accept that public assistance is required in a world where technology is raising the education bar higher than most people can reach and that when public assistance is as laughable as it is today... the have-nots are going to be restless.
Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world. Especially if you consider some of the original arguments behind the 2nd amendment: tyrannical governments abusing the people with the military, so you "outlaw" a standing army and rely on The People forming a militia for self-defense until a regular army can be formed. Requiring "some other lawful purpose" is putting an additional restriction, or infringement, on the right to own guns and preventing a militia from behind formed. And since it is easy enough to simply declare there is no other lawful purpose for any gun (Police fill the defense role, beef industry fills the hunting role, so, done), such logic invalidates the entire amendment. (Specifically to sawed-off shotguns, there is a place for them with today's style of house-to-house close-quarters fighting where unskilled shooters need to hit whatever baddy is directly in front of them without penetrating walls or the people behind them; there is even more of a reason as better guns are outlawed/restricted/demonized, thus severely limiting people's chances of learning to hit the broad side of a barn).
Continuing
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.
Whereas I say no, they remind you that you're begging the question by simply assuming the debate has already moved on to "how to get guns out of the hands of mass-killers". Like I said above, people owning guns is not the problem. Revolutions don't happen just because people have guns. Mass killings don't happen just because people hav
Yes, you can overtly accept debt when accepting assets, but you cannot take on stealth debt by accepting assets that appear to be free and clear when the estate is closed. That is a blatant violation of due process.
Some debts, such as social security over-payments, do survive the death of the original recipient in certain situations. This link describes some of those situations.
Furthermore, as you describe it "appear to be free and clear" is absolute bubkis. Acting in good faith may protect you from criminal prosecution, but does not transfer property free & clear just because you thought it was. Shit, just ask somebody that got kicked out of their "free & clear" inherited house once an old loan popped up (fyi: title companies are not responsible in such situations, even if they cleared the title).
If the IRS failed to give reasonable notice to the estate of the intention to attach a lien on assets, the debts are gone. They are creditors. Creditors who do not act in a timely manner when an estate is closing or a corporation is being liquidated are simply SoL.
You're making 2 very flawed assumptions here (with your entire post actually):
1. That the Federal Government follows the same laws as a private entity in this or any other matter
2. That the law follows common sense.
Neither are true.
Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.
You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.
Ya. Whatever the terminology is, it seems people understand things. So, close enough. :)