This student is the kind of larval shyster whose contempt for the bill of rights should exclude him from ever being allowed to practice law in the United States. Kick him out of law school.
It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere.
How many examples would you like of people being imprisoned for what they've said or written, in blatant violation of the first amendment? Shall we go back to the Adams administration, or will the Wilson administration suffice?
I think the GP was talking about the form factor of the electronics, not the earpiece. Really small PCBs with surface-mount components aren't that easy to do in your home workshop.
There is no argument that the Democratic Party supported slavery, was the birth place of the KKK, and was historically a strong proponent of segregation.
Let's not forget as well, that it was the Democrats under LBJ who figured out how to bring the advancement of black people to a screeching halt by turning them into a new kind of sharecroppers. The "war on poverty" is and always was a war on poor people.
Mao didn't kill millions, the ordinary Chinese did.
This is splitting hairs. No tyrant has ever been able to kill each one of his victims personally. Nevertheless, he's still culpable for every murder on his watch.
I've seen estimates in the 77 million range. Whatever the exact figure, he killed more of his own people than any other tyrant in history. Pol Pot killed a higher proportion of his population, though.
Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
Li is a lying little tyrannical thug. What he would say if he were an honest man, is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both built hugely successful businesses. Schwartz was handed a hugely successful business, and he ran it into the ground. Why should anyone care what he has to say about people who did what he couldn't?
Yet the deregulation as a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall is at the center of the current financial crisis.
Nope. The current crisis is the result of the Fed flooding the economy with unlimited credit at an effectively negative interest rate (IE, interest rate below the rate of inflation). Greenspan and Bernanke have created the biggest bubble in the history of the Fed, and sooner or later all bubbles burst.
You said: Ignore the advice in this video. It is accurate for the US legal system, not the UK legal system.
and then you said: when asked state politely but firmly that you can not answer any questions regarding your arrest or enter an interview room until you have spoken to a professional legal representative.
Which is exactly the same advice given in the video I linked to. The key point is that you can not benefit from volunteering information to the police.
But unlike in the US it is not a defense and is normally interpreted by officers as an admittance of guilt.
In any country, the cops are going to arrest you if they feel like it, and they'll invent any pretext they care to. Your right to remain silent isn't a way to protect yourself from the arrest, it's a way to protect yourself from a conviction in court. You can not help yourself by volunteering information to the police.
Malaria is rather more dangerous than DDT. DDT was banned by a politician, who was overriding the decision of his own regulators who had actually heard and read all the evidence and concluded that the benefits of DDT outweighed the risks that alarmists trumped up.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why can DNA be taken from arrestees?
Do you understand the difference between someone who is under arrest, and someone who is not?
-jcr
It wouldn't surprise me if that's exactly the career he has in mind.
-jcr
This student is the kind of larval shyster whose contempt for the bill of rights should exclude him from ever being allowed to practice law in the United States. Kick him out of law school.
-jcr
>You can only reasonably call democratically-elected people dictators if and only if elections are subsequently abolished.
Bullshit. Plenty of dictators go through the motions of holding "elections" from time to time.
-jcr
Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election,
Oh, get serious. Chavez certainly isn't the first dictator who started out by getting elected.
-jcr
It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere.
How many examples would you like of people being imprisoned for what they've said or written, in blatant violation of the first amendment? Shall we go back to the Adams administration, or will the Wilson administration suffice?
you need to get over your baseless paranoia.
YOU need to get over your smug complacency.
-jcr
That's hardly fair to the driver, as being stuck in a traffic jam costs them more
Perhaps the cabbie has the experience (and the incentive) to take this kind of contingency into account when quoting the price.
-jcr
I think the GP was talking about the form factor of the electronics, not the earpiece. Really small PCBs with surface-mount components aren't that easy to do in your home workshop.
-jcr
There is no argument that the Democratic Party supported slavery, was the birth place of the KKK, and was historically a strong proponent of segregation.
Let's not forget as well, that it was the Democrats under LBJ who figured out how to bring the advancement of black people to a screeching halt by turning them into a new kind of sharecroppers. The "war on poverty" is and always was a war on poor people.
-jcr
Mao didn't kill millions, the ordinary Chinese did.
This is splitting hairs. No tyrant has ever been able to kill each one of his victims personally. Nevertheless, he's still culpable for every murder on his watch.
-jcr
I've seen estimates in the 77 million range. Whatever the exact figure, he killed more of his own people than any other tyrant in history. Pol Pot killed a higher proportion of his population, though.
-jcr
Their government does not want the kind of "openness" and free exchange of information that is Google's trade.
With you so far...
That is their prerogative.
but here I must disagree. The government doesn't own the country.
-jcr
Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
Li is a lying little tyrannical thug. What he would say if he were an honest man, is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.
-jcr
Floyd won their case, but this is going to cost them a shitload of money.
-jcr
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both built hugely successful businesses. Schwartz was handed a hugely successful business, and he ran it into the ground. Why should anyone care what he has to say about people who did what he couldn't?
-jcr
How much iron are we talking about? Is this tantamount to having ferrite beads on all connections now?
-jcr
A bottom of the line digital X-Ray machine for a Vet Clinic (I'm using this as an example, because I have experience with it) is $200, 000.
Why in the world is it that expensive? The FDA doesn't assert jurisdiction over equipment used in veterinary medicine, does it?
-jcr
Yet the deregulation as a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall is at the center of the current financial crisis.
Nope. The current crisis is the result of the Fed flooding the economy with unlimited credit at an effectively negative interest rate (IE, interest rate below the rate of inflation). Greenspan and Bernanke have created the biggest bubble in the history of the Fed, and sooner or later all bubbles burst.
-jcr
the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system,
Guess again. Our banking system is one of our most heavily-regulated industries, right up there with medicine and operating nuclear power plants.
-jcr
You said: Ignore the advice in this video. It is accurate for the US legal system, not the UK legal system.
and then you said: when asked state politely but firmly that you can not answer any questions regarding your arrest or enter an interview room until you have spoken to a professional legal representative.
Which is exactly the same advice given in the video I linked to. The key point is that you can not benefit from volunteering information to the police.
-jcr
But unlike in the US it is not a defense and is normally interpreted by officers as an admittance of guilt.
In any country, the cops are going to arrest you if they feel like it, and they'll invent any pretext they care to. Your right to remain silent isn't a way to protect yourself from the arrest, it's a way to protect yourself from a conviction in court. You can not help yourself by volunteering information to the police.
-jcr
DDT is still used actively to combat malaria
"Again", not "still". DDT use was resumed a couple years back, after tens of millions of needless deaths.
-jcr
This doesn't apply in the UK.
Yes, it does. Even in the UK, you have the right to remain silent.
-jcr
Watch and learn.
-jcr
Malaria is rather more dangerous than DDT. DDT was banned by a politician, who was overriding the decision of his own regulators who had actually heard and read all the evidence and concluded that the benefits of DDT outweighed the risks that alarmists trumped up.
-jcr