Nor the cinema, they're a private property and you're in violation of their rules so they're entitled to ban you for life.
I'd really be upset if I were banned from going to the cinema for life. Really. I might even commit suicide in despair if that were to happen.
Or not. Is the cinema really so important to anyone other than cinema owners/employees that they'd really be bothered by not getting to see movies till months after opening night?
Traditionally, after the fighting is over, the US Army scales back to its usual peacetime levels (tiny, for the size of the country), and I think that Eisenhower expected that after 1945.
Note that we actually tried that, to some extent, up till the Korean War (which caught us with our pants down, with next to no troops available to send to Korea to stop the North Korean attack - a lot of reservists found themselves suddenly called up).
After Korea, there was basically no chance that the Army would scale back to pre-war levels. Though it should be noted that the entire Army today is smaller than the fraction of the Army that staged the breakout from Normandy in 1944.
Actually, I think it was the perjury about the BJ that was the proximate cause for impeachment.
Never mind that the instance violated workplace sexual harassment laws (yeah, when your boss suggests a BJ, it's a bit more of a problem than if some random guy in a bar does the same).
If we folded up our empire and downsized the military until it was something reasonably connected with defending our shores we could save enough money to slash taxes AND increase social spending while still paying down the deficit,
Well, no.
Over the last six years, the DEFICIT has been larger than the total military budget.
So we couldn't even begin to pay down the national debt if we ZEROED the military budget, much less do that, slash taxes, and increase social spending.
"people are just fucking lazy, so we find that by making organ donation on death the default option, there will be many more organs available that used not to be collected because people were too lazy to fill out the donation form, they'll still be too lazy to fill out the opt-out form".
Yeah, let's put an incentive in place to murder people who have organs that match someone wealthy enough to pay for them.
If the judge only ruled in favor of the blogger because she came across as a lunatic or that no reasonable person would believe her, then this is not at all a victory for "journalists," whether of the traditional kind or bloggers -- it's merely a victory for trolls and other people who say random crap that no one believes. I fail to see what that would have to do with "journalism" or freedom of the press at all.
The standard for defamation is that it be a factually incorrect statement, known to be factually incorrect at the time it was made. If the statement is factually correct, it cannot be defamation (in the USA - other jurisdictions have other rules, such as the UK, where a statement can be true, and still defamation). If the statement is opinion, it cannot be defamation - calling someone a son-of-a-bitch is opinion (unless he's a dog). Saying anything bad about him/her/it in non-specific terms is opinion.
What this ruling established is that a blogger gets the same privilege to say rude things as a "real journalist", rather than being required to PROVE their statements were opinion.
Why the heck to people have to go from fully conscious to dead in a single shot? Knock them out completely painlessly, and then kill them while they can feel nothing. I've never understood lethal injections at all!
Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand lethal injection.
Lethal injection is NOT a single shot. It's a series of shots, starting with a sedative to knock the victim out, followed up by lethal drugs. Under normal conditions, the victim doesn't feel a thing after the first needle.
Note that there is no evidence whatsoever that the victim felt a thing during this particular execution - him snoring/snorting a couple times after the sedative is administered isn't exactly rare (last time I was put out for a medical procedure, the nurse told me I snored the whole time till they stuck a tube down my throat).
The standard is NOT "cruel and unreasonable". The standard is "cruel and unusual".
Given the rarity of executions, it can be argued that all of them are "unusual".
On the other hand, "unusual" in this context (at the time the phrase was originally used) means "not usual" - so if you normally hang people, beheading them would be "unusual", but hanging, even if done once every decade would not be "unusual".
My personal take on it is that there's no point in executions given the years/decades it takes to work all the required appeals through the system, so they should just stop doing them.
So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?
No, the biggest difference is that we're no longer going to spy on foreign leaders. Which is one of the few things the NSA was doing that was within their legal mandate (foreign signals intelligence is what they were created to do - domestic signals intelligence is something they were forbidden to do).
Not unique to the USA. In pretty much every country, they use a nice, sanitized word to distinguish THEIR spies from the ones used by other countries against them.
it's about the large volume of methane escaping from these small leaks around the country. Given that methane is a potent greenhouse gas (20x more than CO2)
Hmm, running some numbers for North America, and using the 6% lost due to leaks mentioned in TFA, I get ~20 megatons of methane leaked annually, compared to ~7500 megatons of CO2 emitted annually.
With the 20x factor for methane as a greenhouse gas, those leaks would account for ~6% of greenhouse gas emissions.
While we'd be better off going nuclear, I can't see that extra 6% as being such a mind-boggling issue as y'all are making it sound like.
The clause you mention applies to equipment installed in the vehicle. SO, yes, under the letter of the law, a cell-phone in the hands of a passenger in the front seat would be a criminal offense.
The Constitution cannot be amended by act of Congress. It can only be amended by the votes of 3/4 of the individual States.
Congess may PROPOSE Amendments, but the act of proposing such does not guarantee that they'll be enacted.
In addition, a Constitutional Convention may be called by the States to propose Constitutional Amendments. If those Amendments are then ratified by 3/4 of the States, then Congress and the rest of the Federal Government just has to suck it up....
So, the phrase, "and if you ask any woman..." doesn't imply generalization? Sure sounds that way to me.
The two things that he was referring to were "eating chocolate" and "being skinny". Which, pretty much are mutually exclusive to men and women alike....
Slashdot Mirror
I'd really be upset if I were banned from going to the cinema for life. Really. I might even commit suicide in despair if that were to happen.
Or not. Is the cinema really so important to anyone other than cinema owners/employees that they'd really be bothered by not getting to see movies till months after opening night?
Eisenhower was a pre-war soldier.
Traditionally, after the fighting is over, the US Army scales back to its usual peacetime levels (tiny, for the size of the country), and I think that Eisenhower expected that after 1945.
Note that we actually tried that, to some extent, up till the Korean War (which caught us with our pants down, with next to no troops available to send to Korea to stop the North Korean attack - a lot of reservists found themselves suddenly called up).
After Korea, there was basically no chance that the Army would scale back to pre-war levels. Though it should be noted that the entire Army today is smaller than the fraction of the Army that staged the breakout from Normandy in 1944.
And if there had been search warrants issued, I'd probably be saying the FBI did their jobs and nothing more.
Alas, that doesn't seem to be the case here....
Actually, I think it was the perjury about the BJ that was the proximate cause for impeachment.
Never mind that the instance violated workplace sexual harassment laws (yeah, when your boss suggests a BJ, it's a bit more of a problem than if some random guy in a bar does the same).
Eisenhower's warning.
No,no, no! You pillage BEFORE you burn!
Amazing the number of people who get that wrong and do them out of order....
Of course, it's a lot easier to keep prices under control for rural customers if you can distribute their extra costs over your urban customers.
Unlike the case in TFA...
Well, no.
Over the last six years, the DEFICIT has been larger than the total military budget.
So we couldn't even begin to pay down the national debt if we ZEROED the military budget, much less do that, slash taxes, and increase social spending.
Yeah, let's put an incentive in place to murder people who have organs that match someone wealthy enough to pay for them.
You can't REQUIRE them to do that. You can ALLOW them to do that.
Insurance companies are regulated at the State level....
The standard for defamation is that it be a factually incorrect statement, known to be factually incorrect at the time it was made. If the statement is factually correct, it cannot be defamation (in the USA - other jurisdictions have other rules, such as the UK, where a statement can be true, and still defamation). If the statement is opinion, it cannot be defamation - calling someone a son-of-a-bitch is opinion (unless he's a dog). Saying anything bad about him/her/it in non-specific terms is opinion.
What this ruling established is that a blogger gets the same privilege to say rude things as a "real journalist", rather than being required to PROVE their statements were opinion.
More likely, the last hundred years are the period we have reasonably accurate temperature readings for a significant fraction of the world.
Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand lethal injection.
Lethal injection is NOT a single shot. It's a series of shots, starting with a sedative to knock the victim out, followed up by lethal drugs. Under normal conditions, the victim doesn't feel a thing after the first needle.
Note that there is no evidence whatsoever that the victim felt a thing during this particular execution - him snoring/snorting a couple times after the sedative is administered isn't exactly rare (last time I was put out for a medical procedure, the nurse told me I snored the whole time till they stuck a tube down my throat).
The standard is NOT "cruel and unreasonable". The standard is "cruel and unusual".
Given the rarity of executions, it can be argued that all of them are "unusual".
On the other hand, "unusual" in this context (at the time the phrase was originally used) means "not usual" - so if you normally hang people, beheading them would be "unusual", but hanging, even if done once every decade would not be "unusual".
My personal take on it is that there's no point in executions given the years/decades it takes to work all the required appeals through the system, so they should just stop doing them.
I take it you're unaware that Gitmo is still in operation, and that we still have troops in Afghanistan?
Admittedly, the troops are out of Iraq (on GWB's timetable, not Obama's)....
Constitutional scholar.
Believes mass surveillance of the general population is a good thing.
There is an inconsistency there. Unless he was studying the Constitution as a "quaint, archaic, no longer applicable historical document"....
No, the biggest difference is that we're no longer going to spy on foreign leaders. Which is one of the few things the NSA was doing that was within their legal mandate (foreign signals intelligence is what they were created to do - domestic signals intelligence is something they were forbidden to do).
"I would've been" - it's a contraction of "I would have been".
And your proof of that assertion is?
Note that the number of auto accidents has been declining steadily during the period that mobile phone usage has been climbing....
Not unique to the USA. In pretty much every country, they use a nice, sanitized word to distinguish THEIR spies from the ones used by other countries against them.
Hmm, running some numbers for North America, and using the 6% lost due to leaks mentioned in TFA, I get ~20 megatons of methane leaked annually, compared to ~7500 megatons of CO2 emitted annually.
With the 20x factor for methane as a greenhouse gas, those leaks would account for ~6% of greenhouse gas emissions.
While we'd be better off going nuclear, I can't see that extra 6% as being such a mind-boggling issue as y'all are making it sound like.
The clause you mention applies to equipment installed in the vehicle. SO, yes, under the letter of the law, a cell-phone in the hands of a passenger in the front seat would be a criminal offense.
Umm, no.
The Constitution cannot be amended by act of Congress. It can only be amended by the votes of 3/4 of the individual States.
Congess may PROPOSE Amendments, but the act of proposing such does not guarantee that they'll be enacted.
In addition, a Constitutional Convention may be called by the States to propose Constitutional Amendments. If those Amendments are then ratified by 3/4 of the States, then Congress and the rest of the Federal Government just has to suck it up....
I use Truecrypt for the entire harddrive on my laptop. And when it hibernates, I have to feed it my Truecrypt password to get it back awake.
Presumably, the difference is that I use whole disk encryption, rather than just a part of the disk....
The two things that he was referring to were "eating chocolate" and "being skinny". Which, pretty much are mutually exclusive to men and women alike....