DHS would use the more secret ones which were not part of the statistic. Those are held to a lesser standard than the ones that were included in the stat.
And I doubt DHS would love having me there since I am a frequent and vocal critic.
Because an appeal based on federal law can be heard in federal court, just like the UMich lawsuits were.
I just say "Detroit" becase that's where it is in this part of the state. Cinncinnati would equate to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals where MI's federal cases funnel into.
Well, if they have a slam-dunk defense, those things will be released back to the suspct and he can pay an attorney based on that. If that fails, one can contact an organization like the ACLU and see if they will take the case. The ACLU usually does regardlss of the offense in question if there is an obvious abuse.
And even if a state judge says "the 4th does not apply", their word does not mean anything if Detroit disagrees. Seeing as there is a violation of the US' 4th Amendment, Detroit would have juristiction for an appeal.
I find it hard to believe that these are just "rubberstamps" seeing aswithout any concrete evidence to justify the wiretap, any evidence they would gather from one or as a direct result from one would be not be admitted as evidence due to that whole 4th Amendment thingy.
Plus the article gives a plausible technological reason the increase given that it takes more stuff these days to nail people. Can't exactly bust someone plotting over blackberry, etc through pre-blackberry techniues.
This is exactly like Spike Lee's lawsuit agaist the old The Nashville/National Network when it rebranded itself as a network aimed at a predominantly male audience (think Lifetime/Oxygen excep for people with testicles) and wanted to use the name "SpikeTV" for itself.
Days before the change over was supposed to happen, Spike Lee, whose real name is not even close to that, sued stating that the network would damage his image because of shows like Striperella and such. He whined his way into an injunction against the network but thankfully they ultimately prevailed. Lee probably would have sued every person who named their dog "Spike" too.
While I am no big fan of Apple's, Tiger is full of shit on this one. First of all TigerDirect has no stake in the computer operating systems business as they are a reseller like CDW. Not to mention TD does not even sell Apple products with the exception of two iPod models which are the HP-rebranded ones anyways.
Second, it has been well known that Apple is using species in the cat family as names for its OS X point releases (Jaguar, Panther, etc.) so "Tiger" would be a logical choice. It would be like Rubicon Express (they make suspension syustems for Jeep) suing Paramount because Deep Space Nine used the name "Rubicon" for one of its runabouts.
What this whole situation stinks of is TigerDirect wanting to pocket some of Apple's money. Greed is the only logical explaination for such a stupid move on the part of TigerDirect.
True, but vendors respond to that stuff. OEMs are including virus protection, Microsoft has removed several features abused (like the ability to access the address book in Outlook w/o users' express permission), and so forth. ISPs are jumping on the band wagon and pulling clients off too.
Even in your analogy it has happened. Several big SUVs will not see the 2006 model year because of the makers are responding to the market.
That may or may not be what be the reference a faculty member was referring to. I just googled various terms she used her her summarization of it as an example of reliability in experiments.
Since she does not work the spring semester and has already left since her obligations for winter semester have been met, I cannot get the exact one until July.
The closest thing I can find to it is this. For an exact reference to what one of my professors uses in her Experimental Psychology course, I am going to have to wait until she returns to campus in July.
And your evidence does not explain why male rats can literally be manufactured. These rats do not "choose" to have a reflex, present in females only under normal conditions, that involves sexual activity (A certain part of the back, when grabbed, causes the rat to reflexively rear-up for mounting) and they will allow themselves ot be mounted. Conversely, lesbian rats can be manufactured as well. They lack the reflex at that point and will mount other female rats.
Germany provided converging evidence in humans since replicating the way it is done with rats is illegal and unethical.
It also does not explain why a study done at UCLA found measurable differences in brain physiology too.
And by your logic then, all religious protections need to be removed. Since people have chosen them, they should not be protexted.
Actually, Puritanical sex issues mainly cause turd eaters so it is religion that needs to fix that one.
The fetishes you list are allo pretty much "nurture" because they are conditioned and are quite easily treated.
But as for removing them from the DSM first of all turd eating, like many fetishes, does not have a specific code since most of them are the same function and the same pathology so they are given an NOS diagnostic.
Homosexuality was removed because there was no scientific data proving that it was a pathology. Also, it failed to meet the general criteria for disorder because it does not impair the individual's functioning in and of itself. Society + Homosexuality can cause comorbidities like Major Depressive Disorder, but that is more society.
Sorry dude, but gay male rats can be manufactured in a lab quite easily (They are gay because they have a sex reflex only normal femals possess and they will allow themselves to be mounted) and a UCLA study found measurable brain physiological differences.
So, how is "family member" defined by law? Would the civil union idea fix this?
As a bloodline relative or spouse. Civil Union would fix this but the conservatives will not allow it.
Care to explain the whole concept in a nutshell or are you going to provide twelve links to verbose web pages with a slant towards your viewpoint?
SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States. In their decision of the case Brown v Board of Education, laws of segregation were negated so no more "this for the whites and that for the 'coloreds'".
The south was violently opposed to racial integration. By your logic of gay rights being "forced onto the majority" makes the push for them wrong. The push for civil rights was "forced onto the majority" as well so you say they are/were wrong too.
Obviously you can't deny that there are 'reformed homosexuals' who are now heterosexual, but I don't have the gall to think that several incidents therefore disprove your point too.
All three APAs (American Psychology Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychoanalytic Assocation) agree that there homoseuxality is not a pathology. Therefore there is no credible treatment for it.
The cases you refer too are alo liberally seasoned with cases of the so-called reparative therapy not working and the individual reverting back to their normal state or they develop a true patohlogy like GAD, Depression, or one of the lovely personality disorders.
That whole "special rights" argument is tired not to mention innacurate. I do not think having the right to see your romantic partner in the hospital is a "special" right. Nor do I think estate inheritance backdoors like the ones enjoyed by spouses is one either. If anything, married people enjoy 1049 "special rights" granted by the federal government alone.
As for "forcing" things, then you are saying SCOTUS "forced" desegration onto the south as well because the majority there did not want it. The majority != infalibility.
The problem with civil unions is that reaction formation indulging "religious" folk still see it as a threat. I personally see marriage as a mere word that is interchangible with "civil union". The religious conservatives portray marriage as "under attack" even when Vermont did pass Civil Unions into law.
These so-called marriage "protection" amendments like those past in the Sinister Eleven last November killed everything. The one in Ohio even went so far as to turn felony wife-beating into a misdemeanor in a good chunk of cases. Say your Uncle is single and gave your father a durable power of attorney to handle his medical care and so forth in the event of his incapacitation. That would be null and void under many of these laws and amendments too.
Slashdot Mirror
DHS would use the more secret ones which were not part of the statistic. Those are held to a lesser standard than the ones that were included in the stat.
And I doubt DHS would love having me there since I am a frequent and vocal critic.
Because an appeal based on federal law can be heard in federal court, just like the UMich lawsuits were.
I just say "Detroit" becase that's where it is in this part of the state. Cinncinnati would equate to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals where MI's federal cases funnel into.
Well, if they have a slam-dunk defense, those things will be released back to the suspct and he can pay an attorney based on that. If that fails, one can contact an organization like the ACLU and see if they will take the case. The ACLU usually does regardlss of the offense in question if there is an obvious abuse.
And even if a state judge says "the 4th does not apply", their word does not mean anything if Detroit disagrees. Seeing as there is a violation of the US' 4th Amendment, Detroit would have juristiction for an appeal.
That conversation runs a high risk of evidence being tossed out either at trial or on appeal.
I find it hard to believe that these are just "rubberstamps" seeing aswithout any concrete evidence to justify the wiretap, any evidence they would gather from one or as a direct result from one would be not be admitted as evidence due to that whole 4th Amendment thingy.
Plus the article gives a plausible technological reason the increase given that it takes more stuff these days to nail people. Can't exactly bust someone plotting over blackberry, etc through pre-blackberry techniues.
I'll let the court record speak for itself.
Ooops! Forgot to add somthing
This is exactly like Spike Lee's lawsuit agaist the old The Nashville/National Network when it rebranded itself as a network aimed at a predominantly male audience (think Lifetime/Oxygen excep for people with testicles) and wanted to use the name "SpikeTV" for itself.
Days before the change over was supposed to happen, Spike Lee, whose real name is not even close to that, sued stating that the network would damage his image because of shows like Striperella and such. He whined his way into an injunction against the network but thankfully they ultimately prevailed. Lee probably would have sued every person who named their dog "Spike" too.
While I am no big fan of Apple's, Tiger is full of shit on this one. First of all TigerDirect has no stake in the computer operating systems business as they are a reseller like CDW. Not to mention TD does not even sell Apple products with the exception of two iPod models which are the HP-rebranded ones anyways.
Second, it has been well known that Apple is using species in the cat family as names for its OS X point releases (Jaguar, Panther, etc.) so "Tiger" would be a logical choice. It would be like Rubicon Express (they make suspension syustems for Jeep) suing Paramount because Deep Space Nine used the name "Rubicon" for one of its runabouts.
What this whole situation stinks of is TigerDirect wanting to pocket some of Apple's money. Greed is the only logical explaination for such a stupid move on the part of TigerDirect.
Actually, you'd be hearing from the Beatles first since their oversight corporation actually owns the trademark for Apple.
Steve Jobs' Apple got to keep the name because they were allowed to.
It's your system when you're the target. Is the phone on the other end of a number you are calling yours when it rings busy?
True, but vendors respond to that stuff. OEMs are including virus protection, Microsoft has removed several features abused (like the ability to access the address book in Outlook w/o users' express permission), and so forth. ISPs are jumping on the band wagon and pulling clients off too. Even in your analogy it has happened. Several big SUVs will not see the 2006 model year because of the makers are responding to the market.
It's not your system so why worry about it?
Since she does not work the spring semester and has already left since her obligations for winter semester have been met, I cannot get the exact one until July.
The closest thing I can find to it is this. For an exact reference to what one of my professors uses in her Experimental Psychology course, I am going to have to wait until she returns to campus in July.
And your evidence does not explain why male rats can literally be manufactured. These rats do not "choose" to have a reflex, present in females only under normal conditions, that involves sexual activity (A certain part of the back, when grabbed, causes the rat to reflexively rear-up for mounting) and they will allow themselves ot be mounted. Conversely, lesbian rats can be manufactured as well. They lack the reflex at that point and will mount other female rats.
Germany provided converging evidence in humans since replicating the way it is done with rats is illegal and unethical.
It also does not explain why a study done at UCLA found measurable differences in brain physiology too.
And by your logic then, all religious protections need to be removed. Since people have chosen them, they should not be protexted.
Actually, Puritanical sex issues mainly cause turd eaters so it is religion that needs to fix that one.
The fetishes you list are allo pretty much "nurture" because they are conditioned and are quite easily treated.
But as for removing them from the DSM first of all turd eating, like many fetishes, does not have a specific code since most of them are the same function and the same pathology so they are given an NOS diagnostic.
Homosexuality was removed because there was no scientific data proving that it was a pathology. Also, it failed to meet the general criteria for disorder because it does not impair the individual's functioning in and of itself. Society + Homosexuality can cause comorbidities like Major Depressive Disorder, but that is more society.
SUch research is impossible unless it was made compulsury and ethical guidelines were suspended.
You forgot: State an opposing opinion, get labeled "unamerican", "unpatriotic", "anti-christian", or a "terrorist".
And you apparently get off on it
Superior to Premiere Pro? I think not. Superior to Photoshop CS 2? I think not. Superior to Encore DVD? I think not. Nice try though.
Sorry dude, but gay male rats can be manufactured in a lab quite easily (They are gay because they have a sex reflex only normal femals possess and they will allow themselves to be mounted) and a UCLA study found measurable brain physiological differences.
True, but when you try to work against them or even just ignore them, they cry anti-Christianity and other such bullshit.
So, how is "family member" defined by law? Would the civil union idea fix this?
As a bloodline relative or spouse. Civil Union would fix this but the conservatives will not allow it.
Care to explain the whole concept in a nutshell or are you going to provide twelve links to verbose web pages with a slant towards your viewpoint?
SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States. In their decision of the case Brown v Board of Education, laws of segregation were negated so no more "this for the whites and that for the 'coloreds'".
The south was violently opposed to racial integration. By your logic of gay rights being "forced onto the majority" makes the push for them wrong. The push for civil rights was "forced onto the majority" as well so you say they are/were wrong too.
Obviously you can't deny that there are 'reformed homosexuals' who are now heterosexual, but I don't have the gall to think that several incidents therefore disprove your point too.
All three APAs (American Psychology Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychoanalytic Assocation) agree that there homoseuxality is not a pathology. Therefore there is no credible treatment for it.
The cases you refer too are alo liberally seasoned with cases of the so-called reparative therapy not working and the individual reverting back to their normal state or they develop a true patohlogy like GAD, Depression, or one of the lovely personality disorders.
That whole "special rights" argument is tired not to mention innacurate. I do not think having the right to see your romantic partner in the hospital is a "special" right. Nor do I think estate inheritance backdoors like the ones enjoyed by spouses is one either. If anything, married people enjoy 1049 "special rights" granted by the federal government alone.
As for "forcing" things, then you are saying SCOTUS "forced" desegration onto the south as well because the majority there did not want it. The majority != infalibility.
The problem with civil unions is that reaction formation indulging "religious" folk still see it as a threat. I personally see marriage as a mere word that is interchangible with "civil union". The religious conservatives portray marriage as "under attack" even when Vermont did pass Civil Unions into law.
These so-called marriage "protection" amendments like those past in the Sinister Eleven last November killed everything. The one in Ohio even went so far as to turn felony wife-beating into a misdemeanor in a good chunk of cases. Say your Uncle is single and gave your father a durable power of attorney to handle his medical care and so forth in the event of his incapacitation. That would be null and void under many of these laws and amendments too.