How do you know they didn't order a case of champaign and have a celebration over at Google?
MS is very very afraid of Google. Google is building a monopoly on advertising and they could use that monopoly against MS's monopoly. Google after all supports FOSS software, and I would go so far as to say that MS sees Google as their primary adversary long term. That means given MS's history of business tactics that they are working to try to stop Google's efforts at every turn, and that could also mean spending chunks of their 50+billion war chest trying to out maneuver Google with contracts while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
There are a number of European countries that have legalized marijuana and/or provide narcotics to users. Under the same logic being applied by the WTO, countries which produce narcotics could sue the European nations and argue (using the same logic as the gambling ruling) that by allowing recreational drugs that the European nations involved cannot make importation or distribution of narcotics illegal and enforce a judgment equal to those nations drug markets.
The WTO's ruling that all gambling is the same should be applied to those European nations that make some drugs legal or provide them to users. It's unfair of European nations to discriminate against foreign suppliers, crack and heroin should be available as equally as marijuana and methadone.
I doubt you would find more than a 0.5% of the US population that thinks buying a state lottery ticket (that supports education) online or betting on a horse race halfway across the nation is the same thing as internet table gambling. Very few people in the US consider casino gambling equivalent to other forms of gambling. The WTO doesn't draw a distinction, but there is one.
Personally I think we should just overthrow the government of Antigua, withdraw the complaint and arrest the US lawyer involved and charge him with Treason. That would send the appropriate message to those countries that are trying to take advantage of the moving on a moral situation.
This has NOTHING to do with onsite gambling. This solely deals with some states allowing the purchase of lottery tickets online and being able to bet on paramutual events (dog and horse races) by telephone.
The WTO in their ignorance is saying all gambling is the same. The claim is that Internet gambling is the same as a lottery ticket or betting on a horse race. Most in the US don't think all gambling is the same. That's why we have different rules for table gambling and poker versus lotteries.
The US has as much right to regulate this as the Islamic countries do under the WTO rules. It's a moral issue in the US just as it is in Islamic countries.
What a sensationalist headline. The reality of this research is that it's already occurring. For many years we have been trying to create animals with human organs so that tests can be done.
Ages ago when I was still in elementary school I remember a fund drive to buy mice that could grow human tumors. Recently they created mice with human livers and I remember a story about pigs with human blood (just think, disease free blood of any blood type, no transfusion risk because the pigs could be kept in a disease free environment, and no need to keep a huge storage of spoiling human blood). This is the human-animal hybrid used in research, it's still a mouse, it's just got human organs instead of mice organs. With a full hybrid, such as I listed (a mouse with all human organs) drug research can be done without the risks of harming people. Current drug trials on animals don't accurately predict the effects because the metabolism is different. Many more drugs could be tried with much more accurate predictions of success without moving to the phase 3 human trials. This eliminates the risk to people and it helps drug companies bring better drugs to market quicker.
Isn't this where the comment "Kill them all and let God sort them out" come in?
Isn't it conceivable today that with the technology civilization now has that an attempt at genocide similar to that perpetuated by Hitler could be much much more successful? Even if a few get away, if you empty an entire area of people, nature and time will take care of the few survivors. Not being able to tell who the enemy is, doesn't really matter under those circumstances so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it would be no longer an option.
Contrary to what many may think, such a situation occurring outside western countries would likely not be stopped. Darfur is a prime example, but beyond that, if America turns inward as a result of the Iraq war and Europe's lack of support with Afghanistan, there wouldn't be anyone to stop a country or leader committing genocide anyway. Frankly, Europe, Japan and all the other nations wouldn't do anything to stop something like that, not even if it was on their doorstop.
6 Police officers couldn't have carried him out of that stadium. With 10 they might have been able to do it but some of the police would have been hurt by him punching, kicking and possibly biting. When you can't put handcuffs on someone with 6 officers you have to do something to immobilize the subject, and based on how he was acting the guy in question wasn't feeling pain, they put him in a couple pain holds to try to force the handcuffs on and he didn't react other than getting more violent. His behavior actually makes me question whether he was on drugs, potentially PCP or Coke, as both tend to dull pain sensation.
Once someone has stepped off into "berserker" mode, like this idiot did, the police have two options: Immobilize him or kill him. They can immobilize him using various techniques, the old fashioned way, the way favored in the 60's was to take a wooden trunchen and beat him till he's unconscious or the pain causes him to submit. The newer options available to police are pepper spray and tazers, pepper spray can't be used indoors (unless you want to evacuate everyone). So the police had three total options to end the conflict, kill him, beat him senseless, or tazer him. I think they did the right thing.
There is NO reason an officer has to deliberately put himself in harms way to try to subdue a subject physically when there are technological means to do so. I expect the argument about that being part of the job description, but it isn't. Getting in fist fights with subjects isn't in the job description. Arresting subjects is in the description, if that means tazers, nightsticks, fists or a firearm are involved then the police have to choose and their obligation is to choose the one that will injure themselves and the subject the least. Regardless of what people around here think, Tazers are a very effective measure to subdue a subject that is resisting that not only protects the officers from harm, but the subject as well. The cops could have went all "LA" style (and pulled nightsticks) on the subject, but they deliberately choose a method that would defuse the situation with the least risk of harm to everyone involved. There are instances of Tazer abuse around the country, but this is clearly an appropriate use of the Tazer system.
Don't forget the person in question was likely trespassing as the event wasn't a public one or had previously been ejected, that's why the police followed him in.
It appears that there were links with the names of the complaining dealerships in the Sponsored Links section, which actually led to the web site of a competitor. Use as a keyword seems like it would not be a violation, but such links would be.
It would be my contention that under US law (this is in Australia under UK common law) such a use is NOT anywhere near a violation of trademark. Sponsored links that come up when a trademark is searched are completely different that altering the search results such that the competitor comes up when the search is displayed (something that would likely be a trademark violation). Advertising based on trademarked names has no basis in trademark law unless the advertisement serves to confuse readers as to the owner of the trademark. A trademark isn't a wholesale ban on the use of the trademark, especially the common words in said trademark, it's a prohibition on creating similar marks that serve to confuse the reader. For example, if google put up an advertisement for a company with the same name and a trademark that was so similar that you couldn't tell the difference without a careful study of the mark, then that would be a violation of trademarks laws.
This is very similar to the Lindows fight a few years back. Microsoft does not have the exclusive use of the word "Windows", but they do have a trademark on "Microsoft Windows". In the US court system Microsoft's lawsuit was tossed out, and that's in a situation where the word was very similar (and pronunciation even closer) and the Lindows trademark itself (the image) at the time was very similar to the Windows logo. Microsoft did win in Denmark as the windows word isn't a common word in Danish.
As the earlier poster said, Trademark protections only protect brand identity, in other words the perception of the consumer that they are dealing with the company that owns the trademark. Putting up an ad for John Walker Automotive when you search for Larry Miller Ford isn't a violation of trademark, especially when the advertisement is labeled as such and the actual search results aren't altered. Now if the ad itself said Larry Miller Ford and gave the appearance of being a link to the actual Larry Miller Ford and then linked to a page that looked like Larry Miller Ford but when you actually contact the phone numbers on site it's John Walker Automotive, then you would have a clear case of Trademark infringement.
Lets be totally clear on this, a trademark doesn't grant you nearly exclusive rights to a word. This is the reason you see companies misspell or alter common words (Xtreme Skiing, iPhone, Blu-Ray, etc..) such that the spelling of the word is unique. It's a deliberate measure to give them greater control over the use of the word (not exclusive use). But even in the case of restrictive marks like those mentioned the rest of humanity still has what are essentially fair-use rights to the mark. The general rule is that if you aren't confusing customers as to the real owner of the mark then you are generally in the clear and frankly I don't see how an adwords advertisement, clearly labeled as such, without a reference to the mark (other than it comes up when the mark is entered into the search) could be a violation under US law (IANAL, and I don't know Australian or Irish trademark law)
Actions of supplying Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and the other countries on the weapon export list with the technology or know how to build weapons can result in jail time. Being cavalier and saying he shouldn't worry about it till they shut him down is encouraging him to gamble with his freedom.
This isn't the situation where they send you a DCMA notice and turn your website off. This is where they show up with a warrant, search your house and incarcerate you with a million dollar bail because they are charging you with violation of the arms export laws of this country. This isn't the kind of thing you fool around with, if you think there is a possibility that the UAV project you are working on is being copied by a foreign military or anyone within a country on the export list you could be in serious trouble for continuing. Regardless of how you feel about the politics, if you don't want to go to jail, you implement controls on the information you are providing (to prevent access by countries on the weapons export list) or you get someone outside the US to head the project and control the website. That is, if you care about spending the next 25 years in federal prison.
The Russians are building the nuclear reactor. The Iranians are enriching the Uranium, using technology and the same skill set the Russians and the US had in 1950.
Update your list and it's gone. He made a bad decision, was derided for it and then reversed the decision based on the logic presented that the list is about ad's not slander. Everyone makes mistakes (particularly when angry), he learned from it and I doubt he will do it again. Had it remained after the backlash I would agree with you.
NO, that isn't the same logic. The same logic is you taking your newspaper and photocopying it and distributing those paper copies to 500 people while you retain the original copy. Had the company just passed the original paid for articles around they wouldn't have been in trouble. Photocopying and distributing the work WAS copyright infringement. This wasn't email (even though email would have also been a violation of copyright law), this was hard copy distributed to the employees of the company of articles they copied from publications.
Wow, Hollywood only produced 4 Movies this year!!!
I think you forgot: Transformers, Star Dust, Daddy Day Camp, Skinwalkers, Harry potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Hot Rod, Bratz, and Ratatouille, I know who killed me, Who's your Caddy, Becoming Jane, Talk to me, Rescue Dawn, Knocked up, Sicko and Evan Almighty to name just a few of the ones in theaters RIGHT NOW.
As far as sequels, you missed Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer and The Bourne Ultimatum.
The fact is there are always a number of sequels, Hollywood is a business and if you have a successful movie you sequel to maximize revenue from the franchise. It's entirely disingenuous to call that "out of ideas" as the sequels are not the same movie as previously, they require new scripts and new plot lines. But the reality is that there are hundreds of Movies produced every year by Hollywood. If all you care about is action movies, the selection is often limited and the large blockbuster action flicks this year were mostly sequels. But Hollywood hasn't run out of ideas (I find the idea of that alone rather silly as millions of scripts are year are produced and submitted to Hollywood every year) unless you only watch action movies which makes you a shallow and pointless movie viewer. There are as I said hundreds of unique movies produced yearly, and even more independent films some of which are equal to the best of Hollywood. Why don't your broden you viewing habits before you declare that the entire production capacity of the hundreds of studios, small and large is "out of ideas".
Stopping and Starting a disk causes the most wear on the disk. When in an idle state the spinning disk has fully lubricated bearings and is using just a tiny amount of energy. Strap in a stop and start and you have bearings on start that don't have their lubrication optimally spread (gravity and lack of motion cause the metal to get closer together and depending on the manufacturer may have some of the bearings without lubrication), and the spinup of the disks themselves is on average a 6W draw (idle is like.3W). Plus, when the disks are fully spinning wobble is going to be constrained a bit by the speed, whereas on startup and stopping the minor imperfections in the disk can let the minor wobbles show which strains the bearings and causes wear and tear. See if the bearings start to fail and are say 20% shot, the motor on the drive can just use a little more energy to drive them, but the startup cost might exceed what the motor is capable of outputing. Using the example above, the.3W draw on idle might climb to.6W, but on startup that could translate in moving from 6W to 12W (and exceeding what the motor can physically provide).
And if you don't believe any of that you shouldn't have any trouble using google to find Admins who tell horror stories about having to reboot a drive and losing the entire drive because the bearings were shot to the point that once the disks stopped the motor couldn't generate enough force to restart them. But the disk could have lasted years more as long as it wasn't stopped. In fact in companies where a lot of data is stored the disks are put on their own power source at least partially because the disks don't have to be stopped if a server needs to be rebooted because of failure or updates. This is also one of the reasons to be wary of purchasing used storage arrays. Might have worked great when they shut it off, but you might be able to restart the array.
Please, the "medical establishment" never saw medicare as a cash cow. When medicare was enacted during the great depression there were 10 workers for every qualified medicare recipient. As people started living longer and the life span increased that ratio has steadily been dropping. In the 1930's 90% of people died within 3 years of 65, the life expectancy now exceeds 80 years old. Costs have increased solely because of that, in fact medicare ran perfectly with major tax surpluses (from the payroll tax) up until a few years from now. The problem is congress took the extra money and spent it, if medicare is allowed to cash in all it's bonds the system won't be in trouble until 2040 (and might not be in trouble then because we don't know what birthrates and immigration look like 30 years from now), but notice the republicans keep telling you 2018 (the point where payroll taxes are exceeded by costs, without cashing in the 2 Trillion in bonds). Medicare by real measures has been very successful, but as I said the problem is because of the cost cutting it doesn't cover all the costs and as a result the private insurance is paying a significant chunk of the displaced costs. The cost cutting measures have all been a smoke screen for the real problem, congress took the money meant to be saved and spent it on nukes, protecting Europe, star wars, and overthrowing governments. You apparently have really bought into the propaganda that it's because of fraud or mismanagement. The spending of the social security and Medicare surplus is the biggest dirty secret in washington. People old enough to know what happened are the ones that get angry when the government (and mostly the republicans) start the propaganda machine up trying to spread the lie that Medicare is mismanaged and needs to be dissolved. In fact medicare has a fraud percentage that is lower than almost every private enterprise in existence (IIRC 1.8%) and is probably the best run insurance program in the nation. Don't get me wrong, the system could improve, mainly by turning all the responsibility over to the states with federal oversight (which has started).
The issue you are blaming on profiteering isn't profit motivated, it's mandated by their malpractice insurance. Malpractice lawsuits for failing to do X test are so common now that the doctors malpractice insurance mandates that they do every test in the book. Universal coverage would eliminate most of the basis for malpractice lawsuits as the person that was harmed by the mistake would still be able to obtain inexpensive health care. Almost the entire claim is focused around future medical costs and costs associated with more expensive insurance caused by the problem, eliminate the problem of finding and getting care and most malpractice suits wouldn't make it very far and probably wouldn't be considered. Consider something for a moment, of the $5000 cost of a single stent (to open a vein after blockage) $3000 of it is to cover lawsuits from the early development and ongoing use of stents. We could probably halve our medical costs if people didn't have to worry about the future (ie. we had decent safety nets in this country). A single universal insurance system that not only covered medical costs but malpractice and made real efforts to get rid of bad doctors (of which is probably less than 0.5%) would do wonders to reduce costs.
This is all part of the reason that medical costs as a percentage of GDP are so much cheaper in countries with universal coverage.
Moving off topic, one of the biggest problems facing our country right now is that CEO's are payed in stock. This has caused the insurance companies to care more about stock price than managed expenses or even the law in some cases. The problem is endemic, the major insurance companies used to be happy with profits of 6% or so, now that number is 20% with 0 chance of being exceeded because of a major incidence. The costs of Katrina were miniscule in consideration of revenue and profit, had the insurance companies just covered everyone autom
Red light cameras increase the accident rate as often as they decrease it. Also, the real dangerous drivers that actually run the middle of the red light and T-bone innocent drivers, aren't paying attention. Before red light cameras they weren't paying attention in a situation where their life was at stake, now they aren't paying attention in a situation where their life plus a $100 ticket is at stake. It isn't a deterrent to the real problem.
Red-light Camera's save lives, and reduce the largest intersection related fatal accidents significantly. Red light running is a serious problem in this country, when the FHWA started their enforcement campaign with the states Red Light running was causing 1000+ people a year lose their lives to it and was/is the single largest cause of urban moderate speed automobile related fatalities. Not only that but rate of red light running was increasing dramatically year on year (upwards of 5% a year at heavy intersections). It was and still is a serious problem that cannot be dismissed.
A basic understanding of crashes is needed to realize why red light crashes are so deadly. The majority of red light running accidents involve right-angle crashes (commonly known as T-bone). Right-angle crashes are the single largest cause of intersection related fatalities because the side of the car is very thin and offers very little crash protection, (or as one manufacturer put it, crumple zone) add in the fact that SUV bumpers sit at the height of the head of the occupant of a car and you have a recipe for disaster involving serious and quite often fatal head injuries. Car manufacturers have actually started to respond to this increase in right-angle crashes by equipping automobiles with side-air bags, a very expensive ($2-3000) option solely to negate some of the effects of right-angle crashes which are almost entirely intersection related and almost always involve red-light running accidents.
The following FHWA study concluded that the red-light cameras result in a 1-40% (the majority declined close to 30%, there was a single jurisdiction where the decline was 1% and the jurisdiction involved was obviously choosing poor locations for camera equipped intersections) decline in right-angle crashes AND the number of accidents decline year over year as people become aware of the cameras. And when factoring in the increase in rear-end collisions the decline is still a very hefty 27% on average, but the corresponding rear-end collision increase results in almost no increase to fatalities. The conclusion of the study was clear, when used at intersection where there is a problem with red-light running the decline in accidents is not only significant it's quite large, and the year over year gains are nothing to ignore as they approach 50-60% decline, saving numerous lives every year.
The fundamental objective of this research was to determine the effectiveness of red-light-camera (RLC) systems in reducing crashes. The study involved an empirical Bayes (EB) before-after research using data from seven jurisdictions across the United States to estimate the crash and associated economic effects of RLC systems. The study included 132 treatment sites, and specially derived rear end and right-angle unit crash costs for various severity levels. Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones. The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes. There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems. A disaggregate analysis found that greatest economic benefits are associated with factors of the highest total entering average annual daily traffic (AADT), the largest ratios of right-angle to rear end crashes, and with the p
All of your conclusions about the reason for increasing costs are muted by the fact that the number of individuals in long term care facilities and aging is rapidly increasing. America is approaching the point where we will have 2 working people for every retired person. It's difficult to contain cost when you have a generation of people that are beginning to retire that are larger than any other generation in the country (by nearly a 2:1 factor). An aging population as a whole increases medical costs nearly exponentially but tack in the fact that almost no one in America is taking care of aging relatives now, forcing the elderly into long term care facilities which cost an astronomical amount, usually in excess of $80,000 a year that is all paid for by the medical establishment.
But now you will be saying that those costs are all covered by Medicare or Medicade and don't affect private insurance right? The problem is they don't cover the costs anymore, they only cover about 60-70% of the costs so all the additional costs are forced onto the only paying customers, those with insurance. Tied into this is that because private insurance is now bearing a significant burden the costs have gone to such a level that now a significant portion of the population is unable to afford insurance so all those costs go directly as unrecoverable expenses to the hospitals that then get passed on to the insured. The worst part of this is that the costs have reached the point now that they have begun to spiral out of control leading to more people dropping insurance and increasing costs to the insured that then cause more people to drop insurance.
There are only a few solutions to this problem, either we take the opinion that old people should just die and that if you get sick and don't have insurance tough luck or we finally accept that the only solution to these problems is universal coverage. A basic universal coverage that covers doctors visits, instacare/urgentcare facilities and hospital visits with basic rationed coverage for complex conditions. On top of this system private insurance should be allowed to provide much quicker access when needed for those that can afford it. With a uniform tax to cover the system that would force everyone to pay equally the costs that are currently not being shared. Consider for a moment that the working poor, the poor and the illegal workers in this country don't contribute to the system other than through use of the system. A tax witheld at the payroll level would force everyone to contribute to the system, not just those that can afford to buy the insurance right now.
Honestly, anyone that thinks the right thing to do is deny medical coverage to people is someone that doesn't have any kind of moral conscious. We live in a country that's rich enough to ensure that people don't starve to death and that people don't die because they couldn't see a doctor. Basic human safety nets need to exist in society, no one is disposable and a human life isn't something you just shrug away. It's time our country moved away from the slave mentality and valued every person the same, at least to the degree that we make sure people don't die of treatable and curable conditions.
On the contrary. Their terms require that members of government agencies, or working for government agencies or the press must identify themselves. These terms are quite welcome by the attendees of the conference. In fact IIRC they have a spot the fed competition every year.
My 2006 4Runner came with a HU with CD changer, Digital Amplifier, MP3 Support and 10 speakers. I pulled the CD changer HU and replaced it with the CD changer Navigation unit from the Camry Solara. Now I have CD changer HU, Navigation, Bluetooth with hands free built into the steering wheel, this is amplified through the speakers with auto-mute of the music when a call is made/recieved. I still have the digital JBL Amp and 10 speakers and the HU still supports MP3's. In addition I can buy a IPOD hookup for $299 that uses the AUX port on the HU and puts a docking station in center console and allows direct control of the IPOD from the HU and steering wheel controls.
The stock headunits and navigation systems are nothing to laugh at, at least in Toyota. The Toyota navigation system is a re-branded Eclipse Nav, and although DVD based the DVD's are updated yearly. Because all these modern cars/trucks can be purchased with separate rear entertainment systems there is usually a nice expansion port or two on the back of the systems that can acccomdiate almost anything. In fact my HU supports a backup camera which I will add at some point (camera's can be had for around $100), such that when you put the car in reverse you get a backup image on the Nav screen.
The problem you have to ask yourself, is that by placing a machine that has such a behavior on the floor make it "cheating" by anyone that gets a payout from such an error? I'd like to think that when dealing with a machine that can payout or keep your money in a random manner, that anything the machine does is for keeps and that if the machine pays out immediately on insertion of money then that is what the casino intended. If the machine was refusing to payout due to a faulty ROM do you think the Casino operator would be charged with a crime? And most importantly of all, is it the place of government to recover losses to the Casino that are the direct responsibility of the Casino, for which the user only operated the machine and did not act to place the bug or fault in the machine? The user didn't cheat, the casino cheated themselves and now they want criminal charges against those that took a chance on payout and received it directly?
In fact I think the only criminal charges should be against the casino for placing a machine with an unapproved ROM on the floor for the patrons to use. In Nevada that's what would happen, the patrons keep the money and the Casino gets a fine for installing a machine with unapproved software. In Indiana it apparently means the prosecutor gets a payoff and the users get a criminal record.
Not only that, but if Indiana law is anything like Nevada gaming law, the installation of this machine on the floor was a criminal act by the Casino and not only would the patrons keep the money the Casino would be paying a large fine for installing the machine in the first place. In fact I doubt in Nevada that the casino would have reported it (and instead just removed the machine) for fear of the fine.
No, you would think that they would inspect the machine and verify that only the state approved ROM is installed. Because if indiana law is like Nevada law the installation of a machine with an unapproved ROM was a criminal violation by the Casino.
The letter I wrote to my Democratic representative was much more harsh in regards to the president and his past behavior, I'm much more delicate when speaking to my Republican Senators as Mr. Hatch is the prime example of someone that will write you off in a minute if he thinks you are a democrat or even slightly on the democratic side, even though the Iraq war has turned a fair number of moderate independents and undeclared republicans in the state to vote democratic. Finally, parts of this post were stolen from another that I felt was a bit too inflammatory, wasn't concise or to the point (nor is mine), and suffered from a bit of childishness in discussion such that I felt the need to modify it to express my concerns. Anyway, here goes...
Senator Hatch:
I am writing to you today regarding A recent Executive Order signed on the 17th by President Bush. Said order entitled: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" represents an assault on the basic principle of the constitution, namely that government cannot seize property without due process. In my opinion this represents blatant violations of the law by the executive.
Section 5 of the order states:
"Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order."
That is, in the President's determination alone it would be to slow to actually follow due process and would allow the transfer of funds out of reach of the government. Therefore he has determined that it is in the national security interests of the country to seize assets of those he alone determines are attempting to undermine or harm the Iraqi government. But the order provides no follow up judicial review and has no provisions for living expenses or assets (would limit damage to innocent people improperly identified or mistakenly added), which could render individuals homeless without the ability to challenge a national security order in the courts.
The broad scope of this order would allow the freezing of assets of those protesting the USA's continued participation in the Iraq war, because no definition is given for undermining the Iraqi government or the conditions necessary. I expect that this will be misused, much like the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act, and innocent people will have their assets frozen without judicial review or due process of law.
Not only that, but the entire claim by the President that due process would be so slow that the assets could be protected or moved offshore and would negatively impact national security is preposterous at best as there are currently measures that would allow a partial freeze (an immediate temporary injunction baring the financial institutions from transfer) that would prevent transfer but not the use of the assets. And I find the claim that the national security of this nation would be so threatened by someone not supporting the current regime in Iraq that it would necessitate the freezing of all assets of those individuals, including citizens or businesses of this nation.
Violation of property rights without judicial oversight is a violation of the constitution and due process of law, and property rights are a principle guarantee of the constitution and a major concern for myself, and dare I say most westerners. For without due process, judicial oversight and the ability to challenge the order before an impartial court the freezing of assets is nothing more than theft by the government eith
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know they didn't order a case of champaign and have a celebration over at Google?
MS is very very afraid of Google. Google is building a monopoly on advertising and they could use that monopoly against MS's monopoly. Google after all supports FOSS software, and I would go so far as to say that MS sees Google as their primary adversary long term. That means given MS's history of business tactics that they are working to try to stop Google's efforts at every turn, and that could also mean spending chunks of their 50+billion war chest trying to out maneuver Google with contracts while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
There are a number of European countries that have legalized marijuana and/or provide narcotics to users. Under the same logic being applied by the WTO, countries which produce narcotics could sue the European nations and argue (using the same logic as the gambling ruling) that by allowing recreational drugs that the European nations involved cannot make importation or distribution of narcotics illegal and enforce a judgment equal to those nations drug markets.
The WTO's ruling that all gambling is the same should be applied to those European nations that make some drugs legal or provide them to users. It's unfair of European nations to discriminate against foreign suppliers, crack and heroin should be available as equally as marijuana and methadone.
I doubt you would find more than a 0.5% of the US population that thinks buying a state lottery ticket (that supports education) online or betting on a horse race halfway across the nation is the same thing as internet table gambling. Very few people in the US consider casino gambling equivalent to other forms of gambling. The WTO doesn't draw a distinction, but there is one.
Personally I think we should just overthrow the government of Antigua, withdraw the complaint and arrest the US lawyer involved and charge him with Treason. That would send the appropriate message to those countries that are trying to take advantage of the moving on a moral situation.
This has NOTHING to do with onsite gambling. This solely deals with some states allowing the purchase of lottery tickets online and being able to bet on paramutual events (dog and horse races) by telephone.
The WTO in their ignorance is saying all gambling is the same. The claim is that Internet gambling is the same as a lottery ticket or betting on a horse race. Most in the US don't think all gambling is the same. That's why we have different rules for table gambling and poker versus lotteries.
The US has as much right to regulate this as the Islamic countries do under the WTO rules. It's a moral issue in the US just as it is in Islamic countries.
What a sensationalist headline. The reality of this research is that it's already occurring. For many years we have been trying to create animals with human organs so that tests can be done.
Ages ago when I was still in elementary school I remember a fund drive to buy mice that could grow human tumors. Recently they created mice with human livers and I remember a story about pigs with human blood (just think, disease free blood of any blood type, no transfusion risk because the pigs could be kept in a disease free environment, and no need to keep a huge storage of spoiling human blood). This is the human-animal hybrid used in research, it's still a mouse, it's just got human organs instead of mice organs. With a full hybrid, such as I listed (a mouse with all human organs) drug research can be done without the risks of harming people. Current drug trials on animals don't accurately predict the effects because the metabolism is different. Many more drugs could be tried with much more accurate predictions of success without moving to the phase 3 human trials. This eliminates the risk to people and it helps drug companies bring better drugs to market quicker.
Ask those large gentlemen in uniforms breaking down your door.
Isn't this where the comment "Kill them all and let God sort them out" come in?
Isn't it conceivable today that with the technology civilization now has that an attempt at genocide similar to that perpetuated by Hitler could be much much more successful? Even if a few get away, if you empty an entire area of people, nature and time will take care of the few survivors. Not being able to tell who the enemy is, doesn't really matter under those circumstances so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it would be no longer an option.
Contrary to what many may think, such a situation occurring outside western countries would likely not be stopped. Darfur is a prime example, but beyond that, if America turns inward as a result of the Iraq war and Europe's lack of support with Afghanistan, there wouldn't be anyone to stop a country or leader committing genocide anyway. Frankly, Europe, Japan and all the other nations wouldn't do anything to stop something like that, not even if it was on their doorstop.
6 Police officers couldn't have carried him out of that stadium. With 10 they might have been able to do it but some of the police would have been hurt by him punching, kicking and possibly biting. When you can't put handcuffs on someone with 6 officers you have to do something to immobilize the subject, and based on how he was acting the guy in question wasn't feeling pain, they put him in a couple pain holds to try to force the handcuffs on and he didn't react other than getting more violent. His behavior actually makes me question whether he was on drugs, potentially PCP or Coke, as both tend to dull pain sensation.
Once someone has stepped off into "berserker" mode, like this idiot did, the police have two options: Immobilize him or kill him. They can immobilize him using various techniques, the old fashioned way, the way favored in the 60's was to take a wooden trunchen and beat him till he's unconscious or the pain causes him to submit. The newer options available to police are pepper spray and tazers, pepper spray can't be used indoors (unless you want to evacuate everyone). So the police had three total options to end the conflict, kill him, beat him senseless, or tazer him. I think they did the right thing.
There is NO reason an officer has to deliberately put himself in harms way to try to subdue a subject physically when there are technological means to do so. I expect the argument about that being part of the job description, but it isn't. Getting in fist fights with subjects isn't in the job description. Arresting subjects is in the description, if that means tazers, nightsticks, fists or a firearm are involved then the police have to choose and their obligation is to choose the one that will injure themselves and the subject the least. Regardless of what people around here think, Tazers are a very effective measure to subdue a subject that is resisting that not only protects the officers from harm, but the subject as well. The cops could have went all "LA" style (and pulled nightsticks) on the subject, but they deliberately choose a method that would defuse the situation with the least risk of harm to everyone involved. There are instances of Tazer abuse around the country, but this is clearly an appropriate use of the Tazer system.
Don't forget the person in question was likely trespassing as the event wasn't a public one or had previously been ejected, that's why the police followed him in.
It would be my contention that under US law (this is in Australia under UK common law) such a use is NOT anywhere near a violation of trademark. Sponsored links that come up when a trademark is searched are completely different that altering the search results such that the competitor comes up when the search is displayed (something that would likely be a trademark violation). Advertising based on trademarked names has no basis in trademark law unless the advertisement serves to confuse readers as to the owner of the trademark. A trademark isn't a wholesale ban on the use of the trademark, especially the common words in said trademark, it's a prohibition on creating similar marks that serve to confuse the reader. For example, if google put up an advertisement for a company with the same name and a trademark that was so similar that you couldn't tell the difference without a careful study of the mark, then that would be a violation of trademarks laws.
This is very similar to the Lindows fight a few years back. Microsoft does not have the exclusive use of the word "Windows", but they do have a trademark on "Microsoft Windows". In the US court system Microsoft's lawsuit was tossed out, and that's in a situation where the word was very similar (and pronunciation even closer) and the Lindows trademark itself (the image) at the time was very similar to the Windows logo. Microsoft did win in Denmark as the windows word isn't a common word in Danish.
As the earlier poster said, Trademark protections only protect brand identity, in other words the perception of the consumer that they are dealing with the company that owns the trademark. Putting up an ad for John Walker Automotive when you search for Larry Miller Ford isn't a violation of trademark, especially when the advertisement is labeled as such and the actual search results aren't altered. Now if the ad itself said Larry Miller Ford and gave the appearance of being a link to the actual Larry Miller Ford and then linked to a page that looked like Larry Miller Ford but when you actually contact the phone numbers on site it's John Walker Automotive, then you would have a clear case of Trademark infringement.
Lets be totally clear on this, a trademark doesn't grant you nearly exclusive rights to a word. This is the reason you see companies misspell or alter common words (Xtreme Skiing, iPhone, Blu-Ray, etc..) such that the spelling of the word is unique. It's a deliberate measure to give them greater control over the use of the word (not exclusive use). But even in the case of restrictive marks like those mentioned the rest of humanity still has what are essentially fair-use rights to the mark. The general rule is that if you aren't confusing customers as to the real owner of the mark then you are generally in the clear and frankly I don't see how an adwords advertisement, clearly labeled as such, without a reference to the mark (other than it comes up when the mark is entered into the search) could be a violation under US law (IANAL, and I don't know Australian or Irish trademark law)
Actions of supplying Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and the other countries on the weapon export list with the technology or know how to build weapons can result in jail time. Being cavalier and saying he shouldn't worry about it till they shut him down is encouraging him to gamble with his freedom.
This isn't the situation where they send you a DCMA notice and turn your website off. This is where they show up with a warrant, search your house and incarcerate you with a million dollar bail because they are charging you with violation of the arms export laws of this country. This isn't the kind of thing you fool around with, if you think there is a possibility that the UAV project you are working on is being copied by a foreign military or anyone within a country on the export list you could be in serious trouble for continuing. Regardless of how you feel about the politics, if you don't want to go to jail, you implement controls on the information you are providing (to prevent access by countries on the weapons export list) or you get someone outside the US to head the project and control the website. That is, if you care about spending the next 25 years in federal prison.
The Russians are building the nuclear reactor. The Iranians are enriching the Uranium, using technology and the same skill set the Russians and the US had in 1950.
Update your list and it's gone. He made a bad decision, was derided for it and then reversed the decision based on the logic presented that the list is about ad's not slander. Everyone makes mistakes (particularly when angry), he learned from it and I doubt he will do it again. Had it remained after the backlash I would agree with you.
NO, that isn't the same logic. The same logic is you taking your newspaper and photocopying it and distributing those paper copies to 500 people while you retain the original copy. Had the company just passed the original paid for articles around they wouldn't have been in trouble. Photocopying and distributing the work WAS copyright infringement. This wasn't email (even though email would have also been a violation of copyright law), this was hard copy distributed to the employees of the company of articles they copied from publications.
Wow, Hollywood only produced 4 Movies this year!!!
I think you forgot: Transformers, Star Dust, Daddy Day Camp, Skinwalkers, Harry potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Hot Rod, Bratz, and Ratatouille, I know who killed me, Who's your Caddy, Becoming Jane, Talk to me, Rescue Dawn, Knocked up, Sicko and Evan Almighty to name just a few of the ones in theaters RIGHT NOW.
As far as sequels, you missed Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer and The Bourne Ultimatum.
The fact is there are always a number of sequels, Hollywood is a business and if you have a successful movie you sequel to maximize revenue from the franchise. It's entirely disingenuous to call that "out of ideas" as the sequels are not the same movie as previously, they require new scripts and new plot lines. But the reality is that there are hundreds of Movies produced every year by Hollywood. If all you care about is action movies, the selection is often limited and the large blockbuster action flicks this year were mostly sequels. But Hollywood hasn't run out of ideas (I find the idea of that alone rather silly as millions of scripts are year are produced and submitted to Hollywood every year) unless you only watch action movies which makes you a shallow and pointless movie viewer. There are as I said hundreds of unique movies produced yearly, and even more independent films some of which are equal to the best of Hollywood. Why don't your broden you viewing habits before you declare that the entire production capacity of the hundreds of studios, small and large is "out of ideas".
Stopping and Starting a disk causes the most wear on the disk. When in an idle state the spinning disk has fully lubricated bearings and is using just a tiny amount of energy. Strap in a stop and start and you have bearings on start that don't have their lubrication optimally spread (gravity and lack of motion cause the metal to get closer together and depending on the manufacturer may have some of the bearings without lubrication), and the spinup of the disks themselves is on average a 6W draw (idle is like .3W). Plus, when the disks are fully spinning wobble is going to be constrained a bit by the speed, whereas on startup and stopping the minor imperfections in the disk can let the minor wobbles show which strains the bearings and causes wear and tear. See if the bearings start to fail and are say 20% shot, the motor on the drive can just use a little more energy to drive them, but the startup cost might exceed what the motor is capable of outputing. Using the example above, the .3W draw on idle might climb to .6W, but on startup that could translate in moving from 6W to 12W (and exceeding what the motor can physically provide).
And if you don't believe any of that you shouldn't have any trouble using google to find Admins who tell horror stories about having to reboot a drive and losing the entire drive because the bearings were shot to the point that once the disks stopped the motor couldn't generate enough force to restart them. But the disk could have lasted years more as long as it wasn't stopped. In fact in companies where a lot of data is stored the disks are put on their own power source at least partially because the disks don't have to be stopped if a server needs to be rebooted because of failure or updates. This is also one of the reasons to be wary of purchasing used storage arrays. Might have worked great when they shut it off, but you might be able to restart the array.
Please, the "medical establishment" never saw medicare as a cash cow. When medicare was enacted during the great depression there were 10 workers for every qualified medicare recipient. As people started living longer and the life span increased that ratio has steadily been dropping. In the 1930's 90% of people died within 3 years of 65, the life expectancy now exceeds 80 years old. Costs have increased solely because of that, in fact medicare ran perfectly with major tax surpluses (from the payroll tax) up until a few years from now. The problem is congress took the extra money and spent it, if medicare is allowed to cash in all it's bonds the system won't be in trouble until 2040 (and might not be in trouble then because we don't know what birthrates and immigration look like 30 years from now), but notice the republicans keep telling you 2018 (the point where payroll taxes are exceeded by costs, without cashing in the 2 Trillion in bonds). Medicare by real measures has been very successful, but as I said the problem is because of the cost cutting it doesn't cover all the costs and as a result the private insurance is paying a significant chunk of the displaced costs. The cost cutting measures have all been a smoke screen for the real problem, congress took the money meant to be saved and spent it on nukes, protecting Europe, star wars, and overthrowing governments. You apparently have really bought into the propaganda that it's because of fraud or mismanagement. The spending of the social security and Medicare surplus is the biggest dirty secret in washington. People old enough to know what happened are the ones that get angry when the government (and mostly the republicans) start the propaganda machine up trying to spread the lie that Medicare is mismanaged and needs to be dissolved. In fact medicare has a fraud percentage that is lower than almost every private enterprise in existence (IIRC 1.8%) and is probably the best run insurance program in the nation. Don't get me wrong, the system could improve, mainly by turning all the responsibility over to the states with federal oversight (which has started).
The issue you are blaming on profiteering isn't profit motivated, it's mandated by their malpractice insurance. Malpractice lawsuits for failing to do X test are so common now that the doctors malpractice insurance mandates that they do every test in the book. Universal coverage would eliminate most of the basis for malpractice lawsuits as the person that was harmed by the mistake would still be able to obtain inexpensive health care. Almost the entire claim is focused around future medical costs and costs associated with more expensive insurance caused by the problem, eliminate the problem of finding and getting care and most malpractice suits wouldn't make it very far and probably wouldn't be considered. Consider something for a moment, of the $5000 cost of a single stent (to open a vein after blockage) $3000 of it is to cover lawsuits from the early development and ongoing use of stents. We could probably halve our medical costs if people didn't have to worry about the future (ie. we had decent safety nets in this country). A single universal insurance system that not only covered medical costs but malpractice and made real efforts to get rid of bad doctors (of which is probably less than 0.5%) would do wonders to reduce costs.
This is all part of the reason that medical costs as a percentage of GDP are so much cheaper in countries with universal coverage.
Moving off topic, one of the biggest problems facing our country right now is that CEO's are payed in stock. This has caused the insurance companies to care more about stock price than managed expenses or even the law in some cases. The problem is endemic, the major insurance companies used to be happy with profits of 6% or so, now that number is 20% with 0 chance of being exceeded because of a major incidence. The costs of Katrina were miniscule in consideration of revenue and profit, had the insurance companies just covered everyone autom
Red-light Camera's save lives, and reduce the largest intersection related fatal accidents significantly. Red light running is a serious problem in this country, when the FHWA started their enforcement campaign with the states Red Light running was causing 1000+ people a year lose their lives to it and was/is the single largest cause of urban moderate speed automobile related fatalities. Not only that but rate of red light running was increasing dramatically year on year (upwards of 5% a year at heavy intersections). It was and still is a serious problem that cannot be dismissed.
A basic understanding of crashes is needed to realize why red light crashes are so deadly. The majority of red light running accidents involve right-angle crashes (commonly known as T-bone). Right-angle crashes are the single largest cause of intersection related fatalities because the side of the car is very thin and offers very little crash protection, (or as one manufacturer put it, crumple zone) add in the fact that SUV bumpers sit at the height of the head of the occupant of a car and you have a recipe for disaster involving serious and quite often fatal head injuries. Car manufacturers have actually started to respond to this increase in right-angle crashes by equipping automobiles with side-air bags, a very expensive ($2-3000) option solely to negate some of the effects of right-angle crashes which are almost entirely intersection related and almost always involve red-light running accidents.
The following FHWA study concluded that the red-light cameras result in a 1-40% (the majority declined close to 30%, there was a single jurisdiction where the decline was 1% and the jurisdiction involved was obviously choosing poor locations for camera equipped intersections) decline in right-angle crashes AND the number of accidents decline year over year as people become aware of the cameras. And when factoring in the increase in rear-end collisions the decline is still a very hefty 27% on average, but the corresponding rear-end collision increase results in almost no increase to fatalities. The conclusion of the study was clear, when used at intersection where there is a problem with red-light running the decline in accidents is not only significant it's quite large, and the year over year gains are nothing to ignore as they approach 50-60% decline, saving numerous lives every year.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/
All of your conclusions about the reason for increasing costs are muted by the fact that the number of individuals in long term care facilities and aging is rapidly increasing. America is approaching the point where we will have 2 working people for every retired person. It's difficult to contain cost when you have a generation of people that are beginning to retire that are larger than any other generation in the country (by nearly a 2:1 factor). An aging population as a whole increases medical costs nearly exponentially but tack in the fact that almost no one in America is taking care of aging relatives now, forcing the elderly into long term care facilities which cost an astronomical amount, usually in excess of $80,000 a year that is all paid for by the medical establishment.
But now you will be saying that those costs are all covered by Medicare or Medicade and don't affect private insurance right? The problem is they don't cover the costs anymore, they only cover about 60-70% of the costs so all the additional costs are forced onto the only paying customers, those with insurance. Tied into this is that because private insurance is now bearing a significant burden the costs have gone to such a level that now a significant portion of the population is unable to afford insurance so all those costs go directly as unrecoverable expenses to the hospitals that then get passed on to the insured. The worst part of this is that the costs have reached the point now that they have begun to spiral out of control leading to more people dropping insurance and increasing costs to the insured that then cause more people to drop insurance.
There are only a few solutions to this problem, either we take the opinion that old people should just die and that if you get sick and don't have insurance tough luck or we finally accept that the only solution to these problems is universal coverage. A basic universal coverage that covers doctors visits, instacare/urgentcare facilities and hospital visits with basic rationed coverage for complex conditions. On top of this system private insurance should be allowed to provide much quicker access when needed for those that can afford it. With a uniform tax to cover the system that would force everyone to pay equally the costs that are currently not being shared. Consider for a moment that the working poor, the poor and the illegal workers in this country don't contribute to the system other than through use of the system. A tax witheld at the payroll level would force everyone to contribute to the system, not just those that can afford to buy the insurance right now.
Honestly, anyone that thinks the right thing to do is deny medical coverage to people is someone that doesn't have any kind of moral conscious. We live in a country that's rich enough to ensure that people don't starve to death and that people don't die because they couldn't see a doctor. Basic human safety nets need to exist in society, no one is disposable and a human life isn't something you just shrug away. It's time our country moved away from the slave mentality and valued every person the same, at least to the degree that we make sure people don't die of treatable and curable conditions.
On the contrary. Their terms require that members of government agencies, or working for government agencies or the press must identify themselves. These terms are quite welcome by the attendees of the conference. In fact IIRC they have a spot the fed competition every year.
I guess it's the time machine version of Linux as Linus posted the first version of Linux in 1991.
My 2006 4Runner came with a HU with CD changer, Digital Amplifier, MP3 Support and 10 speakers. I pulled the CD changer HU and replaced it with the CD changer Navigation unit from the Camry Solara. Now I have CD changer HU, Navigation, Bluetooth with hands free built into the steering wheel, this is amplified through the speakers with auto-mute of the music when a call is made/recieved. I still have the digital JBL Amp and 10 speakers and the HU still supports MP3's. In addition I can buy a IPOD hookup for $299 that uses the AUX port on the HU and puts a docking station in center console and allows direct control of the IPOD from the HU and steering wheel controls.
The stock headunits and navigation systems are nothing to laugh at, at least in Toyota. The Toyota navigation system is a re-branded Eclipse Nav, and although DVD based the DVD's are updated yearly. Because all these modern cars/trucks can be purchased with separate rear entertainment systems there is usually a nice expansion port or two on the back of the systems that can acccomdiate almost anything. In fact my HU supports a backup camera which I will add at some point (camera's can be had for around $100), such that when you put the car in reverse you get a backup image on the Nav screen.
The problem you have to ask yourself, is that by placing a machine that has such a behavior on the floor make it "cheating" by anyone that gets a payout from such an error? I'd like to think that when dealing with a machine that can payout or keep your money in a random manner, that anything the machine does is for keeps and that if the machine pays out immediately on insertion of money then that is what the casino intended. If the machine was refusing to payout due to a faulty ROM do you think the Casino operator would be charged with a crime? And most importantly of all, is it the place of government to recover losses to the Casino that are the direct responsibility of the Casino, for which the user only operated the machine and did not act to place the bug or fault in the machine? The user didn't cheat, the casino cheated themselves and now they want criminal charges against those that took a chance on payout and received it directly?
In fact I think the only criminal charges should be against the casino for placing a machine with an unapproved ROM on the floor for the patrons to use. In Nevada that's what would happen, the patrons keep the money and the Casino gets a fine for installing a machine with unapproved software. In Indiana it apparently means the prosecutor gets a payoff and the users get a criminal record.
Not only that, but if Indiana law is anything like Nevada gaming law, the installation of this machine on the floor was a criminal act by the Casino and not only would the patrons keep the money the Casino would be paying a large fine for installing the machine in the first place. In fact I doubt in Nevada that the casino would have reported it (and instead just removed the machine) for fear of the fine.
No, you would think that they would inspect the machine and verify that only the state approved ROM is installed. Because if indiana law is like Nevada law the installation of a machine with an unapproved ROM was a criminal violation by the Casino.
The letter I wrote to my Democratic representative was much more harsh in regards to the president and his past behavior, I'm much more delicate when speaking to my Republican Senators as Mr. Hatch is the prime example of someone that will write you off in a minute if he thinks you are a democrat or even slightly on the democratic side, even though the Iraq war has turned a fair number of moderate independents and undeclared republicans in the state to vote democratic. Finally, parts of this post were stolen from another that I felt was a bit too inflammatory, wasn't concise or to the point (nor is mine), and suffered from a bit of childishness in discussion such that I felt the need to modify it to express my concerns. Anyway, here goes...
Senator Hatch:
I am writing to you today regarding A recent Executive Order signed on the 17th by President Bush. Said order entitled: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" represents an assault on the basic principle of the constitution, namely that government cannot seize property without due process. In my opinion this represents blatant violations of the law by the executive.
Section 5 of the order states:
"Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order."
That is, in the President's determination alone it would be to slow to actually follow due process and would allow the transfer of funds out of reach of the government. Therefore he has determined that it is in the national security interests of the country to seize assets of those he alone determines are attempting to undermine or harm the Iraqi government. But the order provides no follow up judicial review and has no provisions for living expenses or assets (would limit damage to innocent people improperly identified or mistakenly added), which could render individuals homeless without the ability to challenge a national security order in the courts.
The broad scope of this order would allow the freezing of assets of those protesting the USA's continued participation in the Iraq war, because no definition is given for undermining the Iraqi government or the conditions necessary. I expect that this will be misused, much like the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act, and innocent people will have their assets frozen without judicial review or due process of law.
Not only that, but the entire claim by the President that due process would be so slow that the assets could be protected or moved offshore and would negatively impact national security is preposterous at best as there are currently measures that would allow a partial freeze (an immediate temporary injunction baring the financial institutions from transfer) that would prevent transfer but not the use of the assets. And I find the claim that the national security of this nation would be so threatened by someone not supporting the current regime in Iraq that it would necessitate the freezing of all assets of those individuals, including citizens or businesses of this nation.
Violation of property rights without judicial oversight is a violation of the constitution and due process of law, and property rights are a principle guarantee of the constitution and a major concern for myself, and dare I say most westerners. For without due process, judicial oversight and the ability to challenge the order before an impartial court the freezing of assets is nothing more than theft by the government eith