I'm more inclined to like Scalia than not, based on general principles, but in the area of interactions with the police my touchstone is Hudson v. Michigan, in which he gutted the Fourth Amendment protections against violations of knock-and-announce while praising the "increasing professionalism" of police forces. Increasingly militarized, yes. Professional? Nope.
i.e., almost nil? Your employer can monitor just about anything you do at work; if you work for the people, it stands to reason that the people can monitor you.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art that bears very little relation to what a reasonable person might reasonably expect to be private. For starters, and in general (IANAL) if you've told anyone your secret, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. So even if you post it as visible only to your friends, you've already felt comfortable sharing it with Facebook and with all those friends. It's no longer a secret. Getting the info from Facebook is just faster than subpoenaing your Facebook friends and compelling them to testify about what they saw there.
Not everywhere, you can't. I'd encourage you to be awfully careful between Atlanta and Birmingham. I saw at least 7 different radar zones in a 20 mile stretch (where the speed limit was 55, not 70 as usual in AL). There was no construction, just a low speed limit for no reason other than to fleece motorists, who for some silly reason kept obliging them. I mean, you might miss the first one. Possibly the second. But after that, don't you have to figure that you're just going to have to do 55 or less until you get to the other end of the low-speed zone?
Same reason you'd pay a parking ticket in a town in another state: if you ever plan to go back. That private lot is fully justified in towing you, after all. Probably on the signage somewhere.
Not necessarily. Cities have been known to place signs dropping the speed limit by 10 mph or more and then obscure them with other signage or trees, and to be rather deficient in applying the law correctly.
They make pretty "sparks and arcs" while they die.
Do they ever. I had one blow up when I was maybe 15 feet from the pole it was on when I was a kid. Big blue flash - too bad I was looking the other way and just got to see the smoke rising.
I've never known one of those guys, but I've known a guy who knew them. He was a former Army helicopter pilot, he had done treetop-level night flying in combat zones, and he and his fellow pilots used to joke that the guy who flew the rescue helicopter on Mt McKinley had the passenger seat removed so as to leave room for his balls. Ego is a strong motivator for some people.
It's a skyscraper with vertical windows. It's just the matter of actually leaning against it. And I've got a fear of those kind of heights too, thankfully mild enough I was able to force myself to do it.
Pay someone, rent/buy a tall ladder, or put a plain brush on an extension. If it's that far away from your eyes, your edging doesn't have to be all that accurate so long as it's precise.
Your decision to be titchy made me look it up. Turns out that the money was given not to the RNC, but to the RGA - they're different organizations. Still, that sort of thing happens - you mean one thing, you say another, when they're all in the same business.
If Fox didn't serve a market, it wouldn't be successful. If a large number of people feel like their voice isn't being heard, and you provide them with that outlet, you will make a lot of money. Rush Limbaugh realized this and has made himself a multimillionaire out of getting on radio and rambling for a few hours a day. Fox did the same. Why get upset about it? If the biggest problem facing America today is that there is one cable network that has the guts to be come down on one side of the political divide, then I think we're safe. After all, it's not as though England is riven with Guardian vs Telegraph death feuds.
As for the money, if you check out this article you'll notice that the parent companies of other networks, while not quite as one-sided (and before the $1M to RGA, News Corp wasn't so one-sided), have generally been well to the advantage of Democrats.
Opensecrets doesn't do a D-R split for individual vs PAC contributions from a given company, but if you'll take a look at this chart from 2008 and look at the GE subsidiary donations (all from individuals), you'll notice something: in the media subdivisions, nearly all the money goes to Democrats. Do you suggest that these people are somehow so noble that they check every bit of political prejudice at the door when they enter unto the temple of Journalism?
I think you've confused Stephanopoulos and Soros there, my snorting friend. Actually, if you want to talk about wealthy people who support the Democrats, how about John Kerry, Warren Buffett, or Al Gore (who, unlike the others, is a really despicable human being)? Or a lot of the guys on Wall Street?
Oh, that's right. "Rethuglican". You can't bear the thought that someone who disagrees with you is anything other than a puppy-killing sociopath. Try insufflating 10 mg of something else, it'll take the edge off.
"Left-wing" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe the Clinton White House, although "Democratic" is a fair description of it. While I'd have to watch television news to have any meaningful idea about how much it leans one way or the other on a daily basis, they did hire a politico straight out of the White House and onto the news analysis desk, which generated quite a bit of buzz at the time. (Given your UID, you must remember it.)
First, people are attached to their existing mobile numbers. They're not going to be interested in losing them. Adding a mobile prefix is possible, but would end portability between landline and mobile (which currently exists). Probably not a winning method.
The only way to tell if a phone can get SMS is to send one and hope that 1) your carrier will detect that it can't send it and notify you or 2) the person will get it and reply.
The third problem is convincing Americans that they shouldn't be paying to receive messages and calls that shouldn't be that hard if the rest of the world can do it.
The problem isn't convincing us that we shouldn't pay to receive SMS; we already think that. The government won't do anything about it. As for paying to receive calls, it's not so much that we'd mind free incoming calls so much as that we don't want to pay to call a mobile phone number - especially since there's no way to tell when you're calling one. As for telemarketing, if someone calls a cell phone and starts a sales pitch - something I've never had happen - you can just tell them "this is a cell phone" and they have to put the number on the do-not-call list and hang up.
Price for service? Well, I'll grant that American phone service isn't cheap. But we also get a service that I don't think you can buy in Europe - free roaming across the continent. A Boston phone works in LA just like it does at home, with no extra charges. Can you get that?
But most driving is a chore. Why do you think rich people hire drivers? The freedom you get from having a car is totally independent of the responsibility of driving it.
Do your pleasure driving on courses designed for the purpose,and you'll have the fun of driving without any of the danger to others.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it probably did save you $2.50 a month.
I was speaking to a more general case, but in this one your point is well taken.
In the words of the great Larry Witkos (no, you've never heard of him, just a good guy who died too young): "That's not ironic. That just sucks."
Don't get too excited. In Illinois, you still can't record audio of your traffic stop (although the cops can). Possibly video, too.
I'm more inclined to like Scalia than not, based on general principles, but in the area of interactions with the police my touchstone is Hudson v. Michigan, in which he gutted the Fourth Amendment protections against violations of knock-and-announce while praising the "increasing professionalism" of police forces. Increasingly militarized, yes. Professional? Nope.
He'll just say that he said he was an officer of the law, it was just before you started recording.
i.e., almost nil? Your employer can monitor just about anything you do at work; if you work for the people, it stands to reason that the people can monitor you.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art that bears very little relation to what a reasonable person might reasonably expect to be private. For starters, and in general (IANAL) if you've told anyone your secret, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. So even if you post it as visible only to your friends, you've already felt comfortable sharing it with Facebook and with all those friends. It's no longer a secret. Getting the info from Facebook is just faster than subpoenaing your Facebook friends and compelling them to testify about what they saw there.
Strewth, I believe you are!
Not everywhere, you can't. I'd encourage you to be awfully careful between Atlanta and Birmingham. I saw at least 7 different radar zones in a 20 mile stretch (where the speed limit was 55, not 70 as usual in AL). There was no construction, just a low speed limit for no reason other than to fleece motorists, who for some silly reason kept obliging them. I mean, you might miss the first one. Possibly the second. But after that, don't you have to figure that you're just going to have to do 55 or less until you get to the other end of the low-speed zone?
Why the hell would you pay such a fine?
Same reason you'd pay a parking ticket in a town in another state: if you ever plan to go back. That private lot is fully justified in towing you, after all. Probably on the signage somewhere.
Not necessarily. Cities have been known to place signs dropping the speed limit by 10 mph or more and then obscure them with other signage or trees, and to be rather deficient in applying the law correctly.
They make pretty "sparks and arcs" while they die.
Do they ever. I had one blow up when I was maybe 15 feet from the pole it was on when I was a kid. Big blue flash - too bad I was looking the other way and just got to see the smoke rising.
Shouldn't have taken the job.
I've never known one of those guys, but I've known a guy who knew them. He was a former Army helicopter pilot, he had done treetop-level night flying in combat zones, and he and his fellow pilots used to joke that the guy who flew the rescue helicopter on Mt McKinley had the passenger seat removed so as to leave room for his balls. Ego is a strong motivator for some people.
It's a skyscraper with vertical windows. It's just the matter of actually leaning against it. And I've got a fear of those kind of heights too, thankfully mild enough I was able to force myself to do it.
Pay someone, rent/buy a tall ladder, or put a plain brush on an extension. If it's that far away from your eyes, your edging doesn't have to be all that accurate so long as it's precise.
I'm fine inside a skyscraper with a standard vertical window.
Spoken like someone who's never done a Ferris Bueller. I did one of those on the World Trade Center observation deck. It was a long fucking way down.
Your decision to be titchy made me look it up. Turns out that the money was given not to the RNC, but to the RGA - they're different organizations. Still, that sort of thing happens - you mean one thing, you say another, when they're all in the same business.
If Fox didn't serve a market, it wouldn't be successful. If a large number of people feel like their voice isn't being heard, and you provide them with that outlet, you will make a lot of money. Rush Limbaugh realized this and has made himself a multimillionaire out of getting on radio and rambling for a few hours a day. Fox did the same. Why get upset about it? If the biggest problem facing America today is that there is one cable network that has the guts to be come down on one side of the political divide, then I think we're safe. After all, it's not as though England is riven with Guardian vs Telegraph death feuds.
As for the money, if you check out this article you'll notice that the parent companies of other networks, while not quite as one-sided (and before the $1M to RGA, News Corp wasn't so one-sided), have generally been well to the advantage of Democrats.
Opensecrets doesn't do a D-R split for individual vs PAC contributions from a given company, but if you'll take a look at this chart from 2008 and look at the GE subsidiary donations (all from individuals), you'll notice something: in the media subdivisions, nearly all the money goes to Democrats. Do you suggest that these people are somehow so noble that they check every bit of political prejudice at the door when they enter unto the temple of Journalism?
I think you've confused Stephanopoulos and Soros there, my snorting friend. Actually, if you want to talk about wealthy people who support the Democrats, how about John Kerry, Warren Buffett, or Al Gore (who, unlike the others, is a really despicable human being)? Or a lot of the guys on Wall Street?
Oh, that's right. "Rethuglican". You can't bear the thought that someone who disagrees with you is anything other than a puppy-killing sociopath. Try insufflating 10 mg of something else, it'll take the edge off.
"Left-wing" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe the Clinton White House, although "Democratic" is a fair description of it. While I'd have to watch television news to have any meaningful idea about how much it leans one way or the other on a daily basis, they did hire a politico straight out of the White House and onto the news analysis desk, which generated quite a bit of buzz at the time. (Given your UID, you must remember it.)
True; George Stephanopoulos walked out of the White House and into ABC.
The only way to tell if a phone can get SMS is to send one and hope that 1) your carrier will detect that it can't send it and notify you or 2) the person will get it and reply.
The third problem is convincing Americans that they shouldn't be paying to receive messages and calls that shouldn't be that hard if the rest of the world can do it.
The problem isn't convincing us that we shouldn't pay to receive SMS; we already think that. The government won't do anything about it. As for paying to receive calls, it's not so much that we'd mind free incoming calls so much as that we don't want to pay to call a mobile phone number - especially since there's no way to tell when you're calling one. As for telemarketing, if someone calls a cell phone and starts a sales pitch - something I've never had happen - you can just tell them "this is a cell phone" and they have to put the number on the do-not-call list and hang up.
Price for service? Well, I'll grant that American phone service isn't cheap. But we also get a service that I don't think you can buy in Europe - free roaming across the continent. A Boston phone works in LA just like it does at home, with no extra charges. Can you get that?
But most driving is a chore. Why do you think rich people hire drivers? The freedom you get from having a car is totally independent of the responsibility of driving it.
Do your pleasure driving on courses designed for the purpose,and you'll have the fun of driving without any of the danger to others.
How do you propose filming a car driving at 14000' without being pretty near that altitude yourself?
Too true.