Would it upset you more if they were your civil liberties being violated? They are, you know. Civil liberties are shared by everyone, or lost for everyone.
I would think there's an expectation of privacy within my vehicle and non-tampering with the second largest material investment most people make after their home.
Someone who is supposed to be gathering official evidence shouldn't be avoiding accountability. That's the point. They are accountable to the citizens who employ them. It's called a public trust.
I'm no Muslim, and I believe that minor children are under the rule of their parents and that my home is for the shelter of my family and must not be violated without a compelling community interest as decided by a judge. Perhaps if your ideas are wildly divergent from those ideas, it's your ideas that have shot wide of the common mark.
The whole idea of proper jihad as I, a non-Muslim in the US, understand it is that a believer should gladly give his life in the defense of the innocent from invaders coming into the land and killing, pillaging, or forcing conversions. Under proper Islamic practice, again as I understand it, jihad has nothing to do with blowing up schools, offices, buses, dance clubs, hotels, police stations, embassies, hospitals, clinics, or killing journalists and aid workers. It also has nothing to do, even, with killing foreign armies that are there to protect the locals and hunt down murderers. It has only to do with being the defenders, not anything Al Qaeda or the Taliban have claimed as jihad.
Someone who is a Muslim please give me guidance on which parts of this are right and wrong.
Yes, I know that many don't believe the US and its allies are interested in protecting the locals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. Lets ignore those who really feel they are actually protecting Afghanis from the US for the moment. I'm more interested in whether there's writing in the Koran supporting maiming and killing Muslims for not believing exactly as you do and for going overseas to kill civilians by the thousands as a political statement about US troops invited into Arabia by the Saudi government to protect its borders from Hussein. I'm pretty sure there isn't.
Actually, Israel as a nation occupies the West Bank as a buffer zone they won when attacked on three fronts and their state survived. There are fundamentalists among the settlement builders who detest the idea that the government might actually let that land become Palestine, though.
If they continue to tamper with your car (or assault you, or steal your life saving from the family safe, or force their way in without a warrant, or...) after they've said they are agents of a government and you tell them to take a hike, then you're still defending yourself and your home. They need to be performing their lawful duty and to have identified themselves to make you liable for intentionally shooting an officer performing a lawful duty.
Defense of a third party is codified in other states as well. In fact, some states require some kind of assistance in addition to allowing it. I'm not sure if any "Good Samaritan" states overlap with deadly force to protect a third party states, though.
So let's say I reasonably believe someone tampering with my car was doing something to damage my life or body by tampering with a complex system which involves several hundred parts dedicated explicitly to safety features by the manufacturer. Am I allowed to protect my life from you disabling my brakes, putting an explosive under my seat, putting fragile spark-throwing devices in my fuel tank, or removing the recall-fix shim from my accelerator?
Law enforcement officers breaking into a home without identifying themselves are just people breaking into a home. They have no right to assume you know which invaders of your shelter and protection are the bad guy and which are the "good" guys. They need to make their entrance well-announced to the residents.
That was fire, not firearms. And it was murder, something of which the Federal agencies are supposed to be committing less against citizens these days.
No, they didn't act within the scope of the law. The Constitution is the law of the land, and this falls clearly outside it. That very idea is why courts can find things "unconstitutional" and that mere finding gets them blotted out of the books. A statute that is unconstitutional never has any true scope.
Without a warrant, they cannot access the interior of a locked vehicle. I don't think that has changed regardless of a court's ruling about needing a warrant to attach something to the exterior of the car.
Also, attaching it to my electrical system and stealing power I'm paying for is a crime, even if it's committed by a law enforcement agent. It's another crime if they damage the vehicle in the process.
Then those streamlining the process should be smart enough to "right size" the department, and select the obstructionists for position elimination for other reasons. It's the same process, but used to get work done rather than to stop work from getting done. It's used in the private sector, although too often the trick is used to get rid of people with long careers with the business and lots of raises and benefits grandfathered in rather than getting rid of the obstructionists.
You must have a much larger screen than I do, because I want other info on the screen instead. You also must have either an e-Ink display or a much better battery than I, because I want my backlight off most of the time I'm on the phone.
Ideally, you would have a way to see the display you mention, not that it be there "at all times".
I own a few Macs, but non with Intel CPUs in them. Mine all have 68xxx, G3, or G4 chips. I also own one iPod, but that was a gift from an employer. What I care about is the abilities of the system and the quality of the hardware and software. My older Macs serve the same purpose as my really old PCs: nostalgia.
All that said, it'd be stupid once you've built a hype-following fan base as a core part of your customer base not to keep them coming back for more hype. The company (while under good leadership) knows this, and won't lose its hype-loving fan base to Mac clones, BeOS, Haiku, Ubuntu, and other hype-happy developments if it can help it. Without Steve Jobs, they nearly lost their shirts without the hype. They'll give their market what it wants since he's back, and probably after he leaves again now that they've had a chance to learn the lesson the hard way.
Although Apple could probably pull it off, I'd be wary if I was naming an operating system to call it Lynx, but I agree with your general idea that they aren't limited to the exact divisions a zoologist or geneticist might impose upon the list.
There's no reason they couldn't change from cats to something else within 10, though. There's also no reason they couldn't bump the version numbers to 11 just to start a new list even if it's not a major rewrite of the system. Microsoft sure wouldn't be able to sue them for misleading version numbers on that count.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it upset you more if they were your civil liberties being violated? They are, you know. Civil liberties are shared by everyone, or lost for everyone.
For it to be obstruction of justice, wouldn't the device have to be placed in the support of justice and not harassment of someone with brown skin?
I would think there's an expectation of privacy within my vehicle and non-tampering with the second largest material investment most people make after their home.
Fall off? Hell, I'm going to have a good old-fashioned hot-rodders' parts swap with some travelling salesman or taxi cab driver.
Someone who is supposed to be gathering official evidence shouldn't be avoiding accountability. That's the point. They are accountable to the citizens who employ them. It's called a public trust.
Don't forget the accelerometers, that can even tell it's you carrying the phone given the right software.
I'm no Muslim, and I believe that minor children are under the rule of their parents and that my home is for the shelter of my family and must not be violated without a compelling community interest as decided by a judge. Perhaps if your ideas are wildly divergent from those ideas, it's your ideas that have shot wide of the common mark.
The whole idea of proper jihad as I, a non-Muslim in the US, understand it is that a believer should gladly give his life in the defense of the innocent from invaders coming into the land and killing, pillaging, or forcing conversions. Under proper Islamic practice, again as I understand it, jihad has nothing to do with blowing up schools, offices, buses, dance clubs, hotels, police stations, embassies, hospitals, clinics, or killing journalists and aid workers. It also has nothing to do, even, with killing foreign armies that are there to protect the locals and hunt down murderers. It has only to do with being the defenders, not anything Al Qaeda or the Taliban have claimed as jihad.
Someone who is a Muslim please give me guidance on which parts of this are right and wrong.
Yes, I know that many don't believe the US and its allies are interested in protecting the locals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. Lets ignore those who really feel they are actually protecting Afghanis from the US for the moment. I'm more interested in whether there's writing in the Koran supporting maiming and killing Muslims for not believing exactly as you do and for going overseas to kill civilians by the thousands as a political statement about US troops invited into Arabia by the Saudi government to protect its borders from Hussein. I'm pretty sure there isn't.
Actually, Israel as a nation occupies the West Bank as a buffer zone they won when attacked on three fronts and their state survived. There are fundamentalists among the settlement builders who detest the idea that the government might actually let that land become Palestine, though.
If they continue to tamper with your car (or assault you, or steal your life saving from the family safe, or force their way in without a warrant, or...) after they've said they are agents of a government and you tell them to take a hike, then you're still defending yourself and your home. They need to be performing their lawful duty and to have identified themselves to make you liable for intentionally shooting an officer performing a lawful duty.
Do you realize how easy it is to kill someone by tampering with their car?
Defense of a third party is codified in other states as well. In fact, some states require some kind of assistance in addition to allowing it. I'm not sure if any "Good Samaritan" states overlap with deadly force to protect a third party states, though.
Tampering with my car is illegal.
So let's say I reasonably believe someone tampering with my car was doing something to damage my life or body by tampering with a complex system which involves several hundred parts dedicated explicitly to safety features by the manufacturer. Am I allowed to protect my life from you disabling my brakes, putting an explosive under my seat, putting fragile spark-throwing devices in my fuel tank, or removing the recall-fix shim from my accelerator?
Law enforcement officers breaking into a home without identifying themselves are just people breaking into a home. They have no right to assume you know which invaders of your shelter and protection are the bad guy and which are the "good" guys. They need to make their entrance well-announced to the residents.
That was fire, not firearms. And it was murder, something of which the Federal agencies are supposed to be committing less against citizens these days.
We can't protect ourselves without protecting enough others. It's all self-defense.
No, they didn't act within the scope of the law. The Constitution is the law of the land, and this falls clearly outside it. That very idea is why courts can find things "unconstitutional" and that mere finding gets them blotted out of the books. A statute that is unconstitutional never has any true scope.
Without a warrant, they cannot access the interior of a locked vehicle. I don't think that has changed regardless of a court's ruling about needing a warrant to attach something to the exterior of the car.
Also, attaching it to my electrical system and stealing power I'm paying for is a crime, even if it's committed by a law enforcement agent. It's another crime if they damage the vehicle in the process.
Then those streamlining the process should be smart enough to "right size" the department, and select the obstructionists for position elimination for other reasons. It's the same process, but used to get work done rather than to stop work from getting done. It's used in the private sector, although too often the trick is used to get rid of people with long careers with the business and lots of raises and benefits grandfathered in rather than getting rid of the obstructionists.
If the backlight is off, as I said in my post, your screen isn't displaying anything.
You must have a much larger screen than I do, because I want other info on the screen instead. You also must have either an e-Ink display or a much better battery than I, because I want my backlight off most of the time I'm on the phone.
Ideally, you would have a way to see the display you mention, not that it be there "at all times".
US Cellular does this, but it is optional. The consumer has the ability to get it as part of the packages.
I own a few Macs, but non with Intel CPUs in them. Mine all have 68xxx, G3, or G4 chips. I also own one iPod, but that was a gift from an employer. What I care about is the abilities of the system and the quality of the hardware and software. My older Macs serve the same purpose as my really old PCs: nostalgia.
All that said, it'd be stupid once you've built a hype-following fan base as a core part of your customer base not to keep them coming back for more hype. The company (while under good leadership) knows this, and won't lose its hype-loving fan base to Mac clones, BeOS, Haiku, Ubuntu, and other hype-happy developments if it can help it. Without Steve Jobs, they nearly lost their shirts without the hype. They'll give their market what it wants since he's back, and probably after he leaves again now that they've had a chance to learn the lesson the hard way.
Although Apple could probably pull it off, I'd be wary if I was naming an operating system to call it Lynx, but I agree with your general idea that they aren't limited to the exact divisions a zoologist or geneticist might impose upon the list.
There's no reason they couldn't change from cats to something else within 10, though. There's also no reason they couldn't bump the version numbers to 11 just to start a new list even if it's not a major rewrite of the system. Microsoft sure wouldn't be able to sue them for misleading version numbers on that count.