Not to mention the fact that while the article pretends that sending Bitcoin via radio somehow removes government's ability to censor you, in order to legally use that spectrum, you need to first obtain a license from same government, which is revocable at any time. This is true in more countries than just the US.
I had a friend who was pulled over not for failure to stop at a stop sign, but for not waiting long enough at the stop sign "for the car to rock back on its springs." That one got tossed, but my friend got to waste time fighting it in court beforehand.
Politely but firmly refuse to consent to the search. All you need to say is "No, sir, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle or of my phone."
If the cops are determined to search your car, your phone, or your person anyway, that is most likely going to happen one way or another -- but your refusal to consent will likely be useful to your legal defense later.
Identify yourself, ask if you are being detained, ask for your lawyer, and say nothing else.
I always chuckle when I see one of those NRA "Stand and Fight" bumper stickers. 95% of the Second Amendment enthusiasts I've met or seen are obese and couldn't "stand and fight" if their lives depended on it.
Regarding you potentially being charged for driving without a license because your refusal invalidated your license to drive: were a prosecutor so foolish to try to prosecute you, it would be easily torn to shreds by a competent defense attorney. You were driving; you stopped driving in order to be detailed by a LEO; you refused the search; at that point your license was revoked. No driving occurred at any time your license was revoked.
Driving without a license does not allow for a search of your vehicle; however, having to show proof of insurance and a license to operate a motor vehicle serves as a pretext for LEOs to stop you at any time. You could be charged with operating a motor vehicle without a license, and depending on jurisdiction, I suppose you could be detained -- but that does not give police carte blanche to violate your civil rights.
This is *not* a Fourth Amendment issue, because the police were able to get a (supposedly) valid warrant from a judge. Thus it was a proper search. This is, rather, a First Amendment issue.
Kid hates computers? Send her to a $1000/week camp that will teach her to hate computers even more. Boy, it must be nice to be rich and from Silicon Valley.
Don't know where you got that idea, but I've had mine more than two years and the only time the red LED has ever lit up is when the console has lost power. Is this info in the manual somewhere?
More than six years without a new console. Apparently, making a "mini" version of something you've already produced is what passes for innovation in today's world. I think it's sad.
...and what exactly is the point? To separate the rich hedonists from a little more of their disposable income? I sure don't see those of us commoners being able to take "advantage" of such a ridiculous luxury.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a poor business decision, and now you are reaping the rewards of that decision. Apple is not solely to blame here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. If we can get those babies in Federal databases before they're even born, so much the better. Homeland Security is totally on board.
Not to mention the fact that while the article pretends that sending Bitcoin via radio somehow removes government's ability to censor you, in order to legally use that spectrum, you need to first obtain a license from same government, which is revocable at any time. This is true in more countries than just the US.
I had a friend who was pulled over not for failure to stop at a stop sign, but for not waiting long enough at the stop sign "for the car to rock back on its springs." That one got tossed, but my friend got to waste time fighting it in court beforehand.
Nope.
Politely but firmly refuse to consent to the search. All you need to say is "No, sir, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle or of my phone."
If the cops are determined to search your car, your phone, or your person anyway, that is most likely going to happen one way or another -- but your refusal to consent will likely be useful to your legal defense later.
Identify yourself, ask if you are being detained, ask for your lawyer, and say nothing else.
I'm amazed you GNAA trolls have managed to stick with it for the better part of two decades. What do you get out of this?
Interesting idea, but how do you propose to do it without the cop going "Aha! He destroyed evidence -- we'll just charge him with that!"
That would seem an excellent way to add a charge of willful destruction of evidence to the list of sh*t they're going to throw at you.
Why do gun humpers always assume that anyone criticizing them must therefore be a liberal?
I always chuckle when I see one of those NRA "Stand and Fight" bumper stickers. 95% of the Second Amendment enthusiasts I've met or seen are obese and couldn't "stand and fight" if their lives depended on it.
Regarding you potentially being charged for driving without a license because your refusal invalidated your license to drive: were a prosecutor so foolish to try to prosecute you, it would be easily torn to shreds by a competent defense attorney. You were driving; you stopped driving in order to be detailed by a LEO; you refused the search; at that point your license was revoked. No driving occurred at any time your license was revoked.
Driving without a license does not allow for a search of your vehicle; however, having to show proof of insurance and a license to operate a motor vehicle serves as a pretext for LEOs to stop you at any time. You could be charged with operating a motor vehicle without a license, and depending on jurisdiction, I suppose you could be detained -- but that does not give police carte blanche to violate your civil rights.
This is *not* a Fourth Amendment issue, because the police were able to get a (supposedly) valid warrant from a judge. Thus it was a proper search. This is, rather, a First Amendment issue.
Hence the old UNIX error "/dev/lp0: on fire" ...
And Sandberg, I believe, went to "how to ghost write lousy pseudo-feminist books" camp.
Kid hates computers? Send her to a $1000/week camp that will teach her to hate computers even more. Boy, it must be nice to be rich and from Silicon Valley.
Where's the "like" button on this thing?
Interesting. So are you saying that if a person's last name ends with the letter "s", that person needs an apostrophe in his last name?
For example, Brian William's?
Bartles and Jayme's?
Richard's?
So if you're talking about one of these people being in possession of something, would you say "Brian William's's hooch" ?
Good to know. Thank you.
Huh. You're right. The commercials I saw led me to believe it worked in concert with your Wii, rather than being its successor. Mea culpa.
So no, you're talking out your rear end. How about some authoritative information?
Don't know where you got that idea, but I've had mine more than two years and the only time the red LED has ever lit up is when the console has lost power. Is this info in the manual somewhere?
More than six years without a new console. Apparently, making a "mini" version of something you've already produced is what passes for innovation in today's world. I think it's sad.
Huh. I was fully expecting someone with a four-digit UID (or, perhaps even one of the rarely-seen three-digits) and bitchslap me. C'mon guys...
...says the guy with a six-digit UID. Get off my lawn.
...and what exactly is the point? To separate the rich hedonists from a little more of their disposable income? I sure don't see those of us commoners being able to take "advantage" of such a ridiculous luxury.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a poor business decision, and now you are reaping the rewards of that decision. Apple is not solely to blame here.