At my school you had to pay for the locker each semester and there was also something to sign. I don't remember what it was I signed (7 years ago).
Wow, I'd never even heard of such a thing. As it is, when I left high-school (13 years ago) they were simply doing away with lockers because a few idiots had been caught bringing things to school which they shouldn't have.
I agree that the US idea of privacy is sorely lacking, and I can't say that I would be against having school lockers be considered in the same classification as private property; but, having seen guns show up at school, I can see why the schools want to be able to search a locker without going to the level of getting a warrant.
I'll admit it has been a while since I was in high school, but I don't recall paying for my locker; nor do I recall any sort of written agreement which gave me the exclusive right to occupy it. Has that all changed?
While I normally consider myself a bit of an absolutist on privacy, I just can't get worked up over searched of school kids lockers.
I'm glad that the Ninth Circuit had the insight to say that this was wrong, I only hope that the Supreme Court is picking this up so that they can more firmly put this in the "Not Allowed" category. Schools need to understand that these are not their children and that for anything more intrusive than a locker search the parents should be involved.
I pretty much did the same thing. When I stepped into the role of systems manager, the place's licensing was a mess. While they did have a license for Photoshop, they only had a license for Photoshop. Needless to say, that one license was stretched thinner than it should have been. Other software was similar.
The solution was to convince the higher ups that this was a bad idea and that we should work towards full compliance. And the easiest way to sell it was via upgrades. That one Photoshop license was years out of date, so for the few users we have who really did need it, we purchased new. Everyone else did without or with a free tool which was similar enough. (It's amazing how well either GIMP or Paint.Net fill in that role for most people).
Other software followed the same theory. In the end, all of the licenses were as close to compliance as I could make them without being a lawyer (i.e. I think they are all right, but there is enough legalese in there that I might be out of compliance for running them on alternating Tuesdays).
It certainly is a pain to go from a situation where everyone is used to having everything on their system and the management is used to not paying for it; but, if you are the "IT Guy" that is part your job. If the lawyers descend on your company, your arse is going to end up in a sling over it. While you're not likely to win the, "we must pay for everything right now" fight, you might win the, "we must pay for anything we want to get new or upgrade" fight.
Everyone I have ever spoken to about this, including non tech-savvy people, make it clear that they have never clicked an advertisement on a webpage. Except maybe when they first started out.
I don't know, if the item being advertised is actually interesting to me, I'll click on it to check it out and give the website the click revenue.
For example, on Penny Arcade they were advertising Starscape and the ad was good enough to capture my interest in the game. So, I clicked through to it. In the end, I liked the demo enough I bought the game.
Ads aren't a bane of existence and the internet. They can live in harmony and even add value; but, the advertisers haven't accepted that device they are sending their ads to provides the end user with a lot of control, and if they become too obnoxious, we will exercise that control.
Yes, I know exactly why they are flash and noisy: to get my attention. The problem is that they worked too well, they became so intrusive in my browsing that I went to the trouble to get rid of them. Hell, my hosts file used to be huge.
Mission Accomplised!
Unfortunately for the folks making the sites, my computer does not operate in the same manner as a TV; I actually have recourse for the commercials which shout at three times the volume of the show. And, that is what I, and many others, have done.
Therein lies the problem, the website operators and the people who come up with the ads have not accepted that the situation between them and me has changed. I don't mind ads, and am happy to have them, and even click on them occasionally; but because I now have the option to edit out the "in your face" type ads, I do. That type of ad is abusive to viewers like myself and I now refuse to put up with it. And, as long as advertisers continue to churn out such ads, and websites operators continue to have them on their sites, I will continue to install AdBlock.
I'm happy to meet in the middle, get rid of those ads and I'll happily turn off AdBlock. By way of example, the Google Chrome banner ad is happily sitting atop my Slashdot page right now. On Penny Arcade, their ads happily sit to the right and wait for me to get to them. I even ended up purchasing one of the games they advertised, which I would have never heard about otherwise.
But, website operators and advertisers need to accept that the world has changed. Viewers have an option to be rid of the abusive ads, and we're taking advantage of it. They are going to have to accept that we are no longer willing to accept whatever crap is shoved down our throats. Taking the hard-line stance that the viewers should just quietly accept it isn't going to win.
Cry me a river. AdBlock and its ilk didn't happen because we hate websites and all ads. It's a response to the over the top advertisements. Yes, I like to support good sites, and I will even disable AdBlock on pages I like, so long as the advertisements aren't noisy and intrusive. What do I mean by noisy and intrusive:
If they play and sound, they're gone.
If they flash, they're gone
If they grow to take up half the page, they're gone
If they send pieces of themselves across the text or other stuff on the page, they're gone.
If all they are is text links, banners or sidebars which sit there quietly, I have no problem with them. The problem is that far too many sites have gone to having these "in your face" advertisements. Sorry, but that's not something I'm going to put up with. If the web site operators are willing to say, "no" to this type of advertisement being on their site, I'll turn AdBlock off. But I'm done being shouted at by my computer to buy a product.
Wish I had mod points, I'd try to wipe out the Troll mod. I don't, so I'll respond instead.
AdBlock is the first add-on I download whenever I setup Firefox. I've gotten so used to browsing with it that I am dumbfounded every time I have to browse the web without it.
I didn't even get to the demo. I read this in the review:
It's important to note that HAWX (High-Altitude Warfare Experimental Squadron) is not a flight-sim. There's no fuel gauge to worry about, no real ammunition controls
And closed the tab with the game's home page on it. I guess I just remember Rogue Spear and Raven Shield a bit too fondly; and anytime I see the Tom Clancy moniker I expect a game which has at least a nod to realism (I'm still trying to forget that Lockdown existed). I realized that I will probably never see another flight-sim at the Jane's level. But, it would be nice to have a modern (as in modern aircraft) flight-sim which at least limits the ammunition and fuel.
Does 'attempted obstruction of justice' by refusing to answer their questions until you can obtain legal counsel count?
Not likely, our country may have gone pretty far down a dark road, thanks to the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror"; however, we're not quite that far gone, yet.
And since police are allowed to lie to you [transformcolumbusday.org], what's to keep them from lying that the undercover policeman that just entered the room is in fact an attorney, a public defender, and is there to help advise you on your rights? The police could lie at that point and say this 'attorney' can fill in for your attorney until yours actually gets there. Of course, anything said in confidence to this 'attorney' probably wouldn't be covered by any attorney-client priviledge since the 'attorney' is really a cop.
Again, we've gotten bad, but not likely that bad. While I don't doubt that this type idea has crossed the minds of some of the worst of the police, I think they realize the absolute smack down which a judge would hit them with for it. There isn't much which still pisses off judges enough to throw out evidence, but I have no doubt that this would fall well within that realm.
You can call me paranoid all day long, if you like. It's a free country after all, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how stupid. But until we stop seeing botched drug raids on a regular basis, I am going to continue to assume that the police are not my friend.
As this ruling goes to show, whenever you are talking with the police you should simply adopt a similar mindset as a prisoner of war being questioned.
Tell them:
-Your Name
-Your Address (if required by your local laws)
And then shut your god-damn pie-hole. The only response to any question should be, "I do not wish to answer any questions until I have consulted my lawyer." Keep in mind that they are not required to provide you with a lawyer until they actually charge you with something; until then, you are on your own.
If the police are asking you questions, it is because they either think you are a criminal, or think you know something about a criminal, which makes you an accomplice, and therefore a criminal. They are looking for any reason to arrest you and throw you in jail. Don't give them one. Be polite, be respectful to them as you would any other human being, but for your own sake do not answer any questions.
I'll admit to not being entirely certain, but I doubt that they take off vertically, it wastes a ton of fuel to do that.
As for landing the need for better landing gear still applies for vertical landing as with a horizontal landing. If the aircraft is currently descending and a wave pitches the aircraft carrier up, the two are going to meet much faster than expected. If the landing gear are not robust enough, they will fail and damage the aircraft. Granted, this probably wouldn't be as spectacular as during a horizontal landing, as the aircraft wouldn't then skid and spin, but it would still be dangerous.
RAF Harriers are currently deployed to our carriers
Wow, unless they really are the same aircraft that has got to be scary as hell for the pilots on landing. When the US Navy and US Air Force use similar aircraft at the same time the USN version's landing gear are usually beefed up a good bit to deal with the distinct possibility of the ship pitching up right as the aircraft was landing. That and the fact that USN aircraft don't really land, they just get above the deck and stop flying.
a Google maps/Zillow mashup showing the exact number of humans on the African sub-continent who could have survived for more than a month on the energy wasted through the carbon footprint of every house in America. That's right. Search for your house in Zillow and be instantly notified of how many people died so you could watch the superbowlcrapgame in comfort and style.
Feinstein as governor, now that's a scary thought. The CA state budget is a mess now, I can't imagine what would happen to it with her as governor.
I'd probably also have to get rid of my assault rifle (normally known as a sporterized WWII Russian bolt action rifle. But it goes bang, so it's an assault rifle in her book).
I think the only hope against her winning would be that the Southern end of California, sans LA, would turn out in droves to stop it. Still, with our budget still not passed, and the state government about to go bankrupt, she might be able to swoop in, claim to be the savior of California, and snowball enough people into voting for her, especially if her main opponent is Schwarzenegger. He's just about burned up all his political capital trying to get the budget passed, and is probably at the end of political career, unless he pulls off some miracle soon and turns the state around. Granted, very little of what is going on is his fault, but people like a scape-goat, and he's in the spot to be it.
Believe me, were she to be tossed out on here ear, I would be happy to see her gone; but, as I said, the numbers just aren't there. There are just too many people here who see her as a champion of the Left, and we have a lot of Left leaning people in California.
Add to that the type of candidate which the Republicans keep backing, and the idea of a replacement for Feinstein really starts to rank up there with jokes which start out... "A Priest, a Rabbi, and a hooker walk into a bar...". Sure, a Republican can win in CA, but he's going to have to be much more of centrist candidate than the Republicans have been fielding.
By way of example, take a look at Schwarzenegger. He's much more environmentally friendly and he's pro-choice. Both positions which are necessary to make it in the CA political landscape (other than localized areas). He also had the luck to be coming in after the monumental failure that was the Grey Davis administration. Though, if the budget doesn't happen soon, he may catch a lot of flak over it.
Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election. We can certainly find better Democrats than these people.
Wow, that had me laughing for a while. I have better odds at winning the California lottery than Feinstein and her buddy Boxer do of being ousted from the US Senate before they retire or drop dead.
I assume that you're not from CA, so I'm guessing that's where that idea came from. No, the California Democrats love her; and between San Francisco and Urban Los Angeles there are just too many people who will vote for the Democrat candidate.
Also, the California Republican party seems to be incapable of fielding a senate candidate who isn't from the far-right agenda, which has no hope for the popular vote. For example, on 2006 Dick Mountjoy was the Republican opposition to Feinstein. He's pretty much the standard theocratic neo-con fare the Republicans have a hard-on for these days.
In a nutshell, Feinstein and her fellow nut Boxer aren't going anywhere. The only hope we have of seeing either of them gone is that they get tired of screwing the public and decide to retire.
I don't know, the last time a chunk of spectrum was posted with "here there be dragons!" and otherwise left alone, we got Bluetooth and wireless networking.
Sure, there are some basic rules which keep the different devices from trampling each other, and there are licenses within that spectrum which are allowed to dominate anyone else and may not be interfered with. So, imagine what such a useful chunk of spectrum, without any licenses encumbering it, and left as a playground for anyone to use could result in.
On the whole, I'd love to see the vacated spectrum kept as a public resource with anyone allowed to put anything into it which they wish. The understanding would simply be that others will operate in that space as well so any device needs to be fault tolerant, and ideally, play nice with others.
Of course, the Federal Censorship Commission (FCC) being what it is, I imagine that we'd quickly see rules slapped onto it about "indecent" content.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
While that's a wonderfully poetic phrase, and a great concept, you do realize that it appears nowhere in our Constitution, right?
It's from the Declaration of Independence, a document which is really just a letter to King George III telling him to go fuck himself, and which has no binding, legal, power in our country. When you really get down to brass tacks our Constitution is pretty sketchy about what rights we do have, mostly because the intention was for Citizens to have rights and grant powers to the government, not the other way around as it is now. The question, "does the Consitution protect such and such a right?" was not ever supposed to be asked, the question was supposed to be, "does the federal government have the power to pass such a law?" Absent a grant of such a power, by the people, via the Constitution such laws were not supposed to be allowed.
Unfortunately, that idea has been pretty thoroughly eroded over the past two-hundred-odd years and we are now stuck in a position that the Constitution is being used to shield the rights of the people from the government, and not as a cage for the government to exist in.
So, whether such a poetic phrase includes women/children/amputee midget hermaphrodite porn actors is immaterial. The question is whether the Constitution grants the government the power to pass such laws at all? And I don't see a "Collect DNA from citizens" power listed anywhere in it.
True, but why the hell is the data not encrypted. I've worked with security RFID cards in the past, and I saw encrypted communications at least a decade ago, that something as important as a passport should be responding to queries in plain text is just insane.
Moreover, exactly how useful is the RFID tag for a passport? The entire point of a passport is that you have to present it at the borders and have it verified by a, hopefully, well trained person examining it. If you need to have other data in it, why not a barcode? Speed-wise it's only slightly slower to hand the passport to the guard who will hopefully spot the low end copies, and then the guard runs the passport barcode under a laser array to get the other data.
And a barcode is much harder to swipe than an RFID tag which will respond to any reader which interrogates it. As demonstrated, the RFID tag info can be swiped covertly from a distance with basic off the shelf parts and a small mistake in storage by the user. For a barcode, it would at least require a good camera and catching someone with the passport out and open. Still not fool proof, but nothing is, it can only be more fool resistant.
Slashdot Mirror
At my school you had to pay for the locker each semester and there was also something to sign. I don't remember what it was I signed (7 years ago).
Wow, I'd never even heard of such a thing. As it is, when I left high-school (13 years ago) they were simply doing away with lockers because a few idiots had been caught bringing things to school which they shouldn't have.
I agree that the US idea of privacy is sorely lacking, and I can't say that I would be against having school lockers be considered in the same classification as private property; but, having seen guns show up at school, I can see why the schools want to be able to search a locker without going to the level of getting a warrant.
I'll admit it has been a while since I was in high school, but I don't recall paying for my locker; nor do I recall any sort of written agreement which gave me the exclusive right to occupy it. Has that all changed?
While I normally consider myself a bit of an absolutist on privacy, I just can't get worked up over searched of school kids lockers.
Amen.
I'm glad that the Ninth Circuit had the insight to say that this was wrong, I only hope that the Supreme Court is picking this up so that they can more firmly put this in the "Not Allowed" category. Schools need to understand that these are not their children and that for anything more intrusive than a locker search the parents should be involved.
I pretty much did the same thing. When I stepped into the role of systems manager, the place's licensing was a mess. While they did have a license for Photoshop, they only had a license for Photoshop. Needless to say, that one license was stretched thinner than it should have been. Other software was similar.
The solution was to convince the higher ups that this was a bad idea and that we should work towards full compliance. And the easiest way to sell it was via upgrades. That one Photoshop license was years out of date, so for the few users we have who really did need it, we purchased new. Everyone else did without or with a free tool which was similar enough. (It's amazing how well either GIMP or Paint.Net fill in that role for most people).
Other software followed the same theory. In the end, all of the licenses were as close to compliance as I could make them without being a lawyer (i.e. I think they are all right, but there is enough legalese in there that I might be out of compliance for running them on alternating Tuesdays).
It certainly is a pain to go from a situation where everyone is used to having everything on their system and the management is used to not paying for it; but, if you are the "IT Guy" that is part your job. If the lawyers descend on your company, your arse is going to end up in a sling over it. While you're not likely to win the, "we must pay for everything right now" fight, you might win the, "we must pay for anything we want to get new or upgrade" fight.
Everyone I have ever spoken to about this, including non tech-savvy people, make it clear that they have never clicked an advertisement on a webpage. Except maybe when they first started out.
I don't know, if the item being advertised is actually interesting to me, I'll click on it to check it out and give the website the click revenue.
For example, on Penny Arcade they were advertising Starscape and the ad was good enough to capture my interest in the game. So, I clicked through to it. In the end, I liked the demo enough I bought the game.
Ads aren't a bane of existence and the internet. They can live in harmony and even add value; but, the advertisers haven't accepted that device they are sending their ads to provides the end user with a lot of control, and if they become too obnoxious, we will exercise that control.
Yes, I know exactly why they are flash and noisy: to get my attention. The problem is that they worked too well, they became so intrusive in my browsing that I went to the trouble to get rid of them. Hell, my hosts file used to be huge.
Mission Accomplised!
Unfortunately for the folks making the sites, my computer does not operate in the same manner as a TV; I actually have recourse for the commercials which shout at three times the volume of the show. And, that is what I, and many others, have done.
Therein lies the problem, the website operators and the people who come up with the ads have not accepted that the situation between them and me has changed. I don't mind ads, and am happy to have them, and even click on them occasionally; but because I now have the option to edit out the "in your face" type ads, I do. That type of ad is abusive to viewers like myself and I now refuse to put up with it. And, as long as advertisers continue to churn out such ads, and websites operators continue to have them on their sites, I will continue to install AdBlock.
I'm happy to meet in the middle, get rid of those ads and I'll happily turn off AdBlock. By way of example, the Google Chrome banner ad is happily sitting atop my Slashdot page right now. On Penny Arcade, their ads happily sit to the right and wait for me to get to them. I even ended up purchasing one of the games they advertised, which I would have never heard about otherwise.
But, website operators and advertisers need to accept that the world has changed. Viewers have an option to be rid of the abusive ads, and we're taking advantage of it. They are going to have to accept that we are no longer willing to accept whatever crap is shoved down our throats. Taking the hard-line stance that the viewers should just quietly accept it isn't going to win.
If all they are is text links, banners or sidebars which sit there quietly, I have no problem with them. The problem is that far too many sites have gone to having these "in your face" advertisements. Sorry, but that's not something I'm going to put up with. If the web site operators are willing to say, "no" to this type of advertisement being on their site, I'll turn AdBlock off. But I'm done being shouted at by my computer to buy a product.
Wish I had mod points, I'd try to wipe out the Troll mod. I don't, so I'll respond instead.
AdBlock is the first add-on I download whenever I setup Firefox. I've gotten so used to browsing with it that I am dumbfounded every time I have to browse the web without it.
Don't let Joel Anderson find out about street view, he'll want that blurred out as well.
I'm afraid he's already got that covered: (Directly from the bill text.)
The bill would also prohibit that operator from providing street view photographs or imagery of those buildings and facilities.
Once again the California State Legislature shows that stupidity has no bounds.
I didn't even get to the demo. I read this in the review:
It's important to note that HAWX (High-Altitude Warfare Experimental Squadron) is not a flight-sim. There's no fuel gauge to worry about, no real ammunition controls
And closed the tab with the game's home page on it. I guess I just remember Rogue Spear and Raven Shield a bit too fondly; and anytime I see the Tom Clancy moniker I expect a game which has at least a nod to realism (I'm still trying to forget that Lockdown existed). I realized that I will probably never see another flight-sim at the Jane's level. But, it would be nice to have a modern (as in modern aircraft) flight-sim which at least limits the ammunition and fuel.
Does 'attempted obstruction of justice' by refusing to answer their questions until you can obtain legal counsel count?
Not likely, our country may have gone pretty far down a dark road, thanks to the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror"; however, we're not quite that far gone, yet.
And since police are allowed to lie to you [transformcolumbusday.org], what's to keep them from lying that the undercover policeman that just entered the room is in fact an attorney, a public defender, and is there to help advise you on your rights? The police could lie at that point and say this 'attorney' can fill in for your attorney until yours actually gets there. Of course, anything said in confidence to this 'attorney' probably wouldn't be covered by any attorney-client priviledge since the 'attorney' is really a cop.
Again, we've gotten bad, but not likely that bad. While I don't doubt that this type idea has crossed the minds of some of the worst of the police, I think they realize the absolute smack down which a judge would hit them with for it. There isn't much which still pisses off judges enough to throw out evidence, but I have no doubt that this would fall well within that realm.
Are you paranoid enough yet?
Being careful is not being paranoid. The police, in this country, have become so emboldened with the War on Drugs that they are willing to Kick in a mayor's door and kill his dogs based on very thin pretenses. They are also willing to gun down elderly ladies in their homes, and plant evidence to cover up their crime.
You can call me paranoid all day long, if you like. It's a free country after all, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how stupid. But until we stop seeing botched drug raids on a regular basis, I am going to continue to assume that the police are not my friend.
As this ruling goes to show, whenever you are talking with the police you should simply adopt a similar mindset as a prisoner of war being questioned.
Tell them:
-Your Name
-Your Address (if required by your local laws)
And then shut your god-damn pie-hole. The only response to any question should be, "I do not wish to answer any questions until I have consulted my lawyer." Keep in mind that they are not required to provide you with a lawyer until they actually charge you with something; until then, you are on your own.
If the police are asking you questions, it is because they either think you are a criminal, or think you know something about a criminal, which makes you an accomplice, and therefore a criminal. They are looking for any reason to arrest you and throw you in jail. Don't give them one. Be polite, be respectful to them as you would any other human being, but for your own sake do not answer any questions.
An amicus curiae brief from the Buggy Whip Manufaturer's Guild will forthcoming.
I'll admit to not being entirely certain, but I doubt that they take off vertically, it wastes a ton of fuel to do that.
As for landing the need for better landing gear still applies for vertical landing as with a horizontal landing. If the aircraft is currently descending and a wave pitches the aircraft carrier up, the two are going to meet much faster than expected. If the landing gear are not robust enough, they will fail and damage the aircraft. Granted, this probably wouldn't be as spectacular as during a horizontal landing, as the aircraft wouldn't then skid and spin, but it would still be dangerous.
Rum, sodomy and the lash!
RAF Harriers are currently deployed to our carriers
Wow, unless they really are the same aircraft that has got to be scary as hell for the pilots on landing. When the US Navy and US Air Force use similar aircraft at the same time the USN version's landing gear are usually beefed up a good bit to deal with the distinct possibility of the ship pitching up right as the aircraft was landing. That and the fact that USN aircraft don't really land, they just get above the deck and stop flying.
a Google maps/Zillow mashup showing the exact number of humans on the African sub-continent who could have survived for more than a month on the energy wasted through the carbon footprint of every house in America. That's right. Search for your house in Zillow and be instantly notified of how many people died so you could watch the superbowlcrapgame in comfort and style.
So what do I win for a high score?
For my mothers Ford (Fix or repair daily) Taurus it was the fuel pump. That damn thing must have burned up 4 of them during it's life.
Feinstein as governor, now that's a scary thought. The CA state budget is a mess now, I can't imagine what would happen to it with her as governor.
I'd probably also have to get rid of my assault rifle (normally known as a sporterized WWII Russian bolt action rifle. But it goes bang, so it's an assault rifle in her book).
I think the only hope against her winning would be that the Southern end of California, sans LA, would turn out in droves to stop it. Still, with our budget still not passed, and the state government about to go bankrupt, she might be able to swoop in, claim to be the savior of California, and snowball enough people into voting for her, especially if her main opponent is Schwarzenegger. He's just about burned up all his political capital trying to get the budget passed, and is probably at the end of political career, unless he pulls off some miracle soon and turns the state around. Granted, very little of what is going on is his fault, but people like a scape-goat, and he's in the spot to be it.
Believe me, were she to be tossed out on here ear, I would be happy to see her gone; but, as I said, the numbers just aren't there. There are just too many people here who see her as a champion of the Left, and we have a lot of Left leaning people in California.
Add to that the type of candidate which the Republicans keep backing, and the idea of a replacement for Feinstein really starts to rank up there with jokes which start out... "A Priest, a Rabbi, and a hooker walk into a bar...". Sure, a Republican can win in CA, but he's going to have to be much more of centrist candidate than the Republicans have been fielding.
By way of example, take a look at Schwarzenegger. He's much more environmentally friendly and he's pro-choice. Both positions which are necessary to make it in the CA political landscape (other than localized areas). He also had the luck to be coming in after the monumental failure that was the Grey Davis administration. Though, if the budget doesn't happen soon, he may catch a lot of flak over it.
Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election. We can certainly find better Democrats than these people.
Wow, that had me laughing for a while. I have better odds at winning the California lottery than Feinstein and her buddy Boxer do of being ousted from the US Senate before they retire or drop dead.
I assume that you're not from CA, so I'm guessing that's where that idea came from. No, the California Democrats love her; and between San Francisco and Urban Los Angeles there are just too many people who will vote for the Democrat candidate.
Also, the California Republican party seems to be incapable of fielding a senate candidate who isn't from the far-right agenda, which has no hope for the popular vote. For example, on 2006 Dick Mountjoy was the Republican opposition to Feinstein. He's pretty much the standard theocratic neo-con fare the Republicans have a hard-on for these days.
In a nutshell, Feinstein and her fellow nut Boxer aren't going anywhere. The only hope we have of seeing either of them gone is that they get tired of screwing the public and decide to retire.
I don't know, the last time a chunk of spectrum was posted with "here there be dragons!" and otherwise left alone, we got Bluetooth and wireless networking.
Sure, there are some basic rules which keep the different devices from trampling each other, and there are licenses within that spectrum which are allowed to dominate anyone else and may not be interfered with. So, imagine what such a useful chunk of spectrum, without any licenses encumbering it, and left as a playground for anyone to use could result in.
On the whole, I'd love to see the vacated spectrum kept as a public resource with anyone allowed to put anything into it which they wish. The understanding would simply be that others will operate in that space as well so any device needs to be fault tolerant, and ideally, play nice with others.
Of course, the Federal Censorship Commission (FCC) being what it is, I imagine that we'd quickly see rules slapped onto it about "indecent" content.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
While that's a wonderfully poetic phrase, and a great concept, you do realize that it appears nowhere in our Constitution, right?
It's from the Declaration of Independence, a document which is really just a letter to King George III telling him to go fuck himself, and which has no binding, legal, power in our country. When you really get down to brass tacks our Constitution is pretty sketchy about what rights we do have, mostly because the intention was for Citizens to have rights and grant powers to the government, not the other way around as it is now. The question, "does the Consitution protect such and such a right?" was not ever supposed to be asked, the question was supposed to be, "does the federal government have the power to pass such a law?" Absent a grant of such a power, by the people, via the Constitution such laws were not supposed to be allowed.
Unfortunately, that idea has been pretty thoroughly eroded over the past two-hundred-odd years and we are now stuck in a position that the Constitution is being used to shield the rights of the people from the government, and not as a cage for the government to exist in.
So, whether such a poetic phrase includes women/children/amputee midget hermaphrodite porn actors is immaterial. The question is whether the Constitution grants the government the power to pass such laws at all? And I don't see a "Collect DNA from citizens" power listed anywhere in it.
True, but why the hell is the data not encrypted. I've worked with security RFID cards in the past, and I saw encrypted communications at least a decade ago, that something as important as a passport should be responding to queries in plain text is just insane.
Moreover, exactly how useful is the RFID tag for a passport? The entire point of a passport is that you have to present it at the borders and have it verified by a, hopefully, well trained person examining it. If you need to have other data in it, why not a barcode? Speed-wise it's only slightly slower to hand the passport to the guard who will hopefully spot the low end copies, and then the guard runs the passport barcode under a laser array to get the other data.
And a barcode is much harder to swipe than an RFID tag which will respond to any reader which interrogates it. As demonstrated, the RFID tag info can be swiped covertly from a distance with basic off the shelf parts and a small mistake in storage by the user. For a barcode, it would at least require a good camera and catching someone with the passport out and open. Still not fool proof, but nothing is, it can only be more fool resistant.
They said:
an administration promising transparency and openness
No one said anything about accountability, we charge extra for that!