OK, I'll bite.
1) Most states don't require a "weapons license." There are a few--Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York come to mind--that require some sort of permit (Illinois calls it a Firearms Owners ID, or FOID), but not the majority of states. Here in Oklahoma, nothing.
Purchasing a firearm from a dealer does incur paperwork; you have to fill out a Form 4473, which is called in to the National Instant Check System (NICS) center; they determine whether you're a prohibited person (I'll elaborate on who's prohibited, if you're intereste--just ask), and reply with a "proceed," "deny," or "delay." The first two are self-explanatory, the third is a delay of up to seven (IIRC) days, usually because you have the same name as somebody else with a record. After seven days, the dealer may proceed with the transaction if he hasn't had a "deny" come back.
As to the "black market," in most states, there isn't one. A few states require firearms to be transferred through dealers regardless of whether they're sold at retail, or sold aftermarket (California requires it of handguns; I don't recall what they require on longarms, but the dealer rule may apply to all firearms), but again, most states allow private-party transfers of used guns with no paperwork. I have personally purchased firearms this way (a rifle, in my case, but handguns are also legal to transfer privately in Oklahoma). Incidentally, I bought a handgun from a dealer earlier today (well, technically a handgun: I bought a bare 1911 frame, with the intention of assembling a fully-functional pistol, but the frame is the serialized and regulated part).
2) The big thing you're missing in your comment is that most of the ID requirements you cite are with private entities. There's a big difference between the government asking for ID, and a private entity asking for ID. Government, to put it bluntly, has exactly one power: the legitimate use of force. Businesses can ask for anything they want; only the government has the power to make something compulsory.
Seriously--for all the grumbling and complaining about the power of corporations, there's always the option to say "no." Utilities can be had without an SSN, and almost anything can be bought for cash (with the exception of my old boss, who couldn't even pay cash for fuel at some of the local FBOs, but that's just because he's a slug), so there is an option, even if it's an inconvenient option. Government, on the other hand, is the only entity that has the legal authority to use force to compel behaviour. If you don't like AT&T, tell them to go suck eggs; good luck, though, telling the Feds (State, local gov't, whatever) that they're fired.
Anyhow, the point is that it's different when private businesses ask for ID than it is when government asks, because I can tell businesses "no." I usually don't, because I think that what they offer me is worth the loss of privacy (and, when I don't, I pay cash, and go on my merry way). The difference with government is that it doesn't matter whether I think it's worthwhile--the decision is made for me, and if I don't like it, I have to argue my case with John Moses Browning, and he has a record of winning debates. The freedom lies in the choice, and government relieves me of the choice.
Of course, I could be wrong; if you want to discuss it with me, I'd love to talk. You can reply here, or you can catch me on e-mail at AT . My name is Dave Buckles (I'm only obscuring it for the spambots--if you can't parse the e-mail address, post here, and I'll reply).
Bravo, sir! You clearly understand exactly what the US Constitution says. I would be proud to sponsor your citizenship, if you'll promise me you'll vote along those lines.
Unfortunately, almost nobody in America does, particularly those in power.
It's morally wrong to fail to donate all of your money to charity, except for that small amount you actually need in order to live. But a law that made this compulsory... very few would support it.
Apparently you've not heard of Marxism. Believe me, it's alive and well.
"Can Banks Shift Phishing Losses to Customers?" asks the headline.
Of course. The customers are going to pay for all losses; the correct question is, will banks make the individual who made a foolish decision pay for his mistake, or will they make all of the customers (like me) pay, in the form of reduced interest payouts, higher lender rates, increased fees, etc.?
You don't really think the bank is going to create money to pay for the losses, do you? Make no mistake about it--banks, like every other convenient, abstract legal fiction--don't pay for anything. Individuals pay for things.
but when i get an out of state traffic ticket those bastards will only talk to me in court in their state. Oftentimes cops don't hesitate to slap a ticket on an out of towner, knowing that it's free revenue for their state. So if our own govenrment does it to us, what's to stop a private entity from doing it?
Well, the government is required to try you in their state. To wit:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You might have seen that before; it's the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and the "bastards" in this case would be the Founding Fathers.
As for the civil suits, the question is one of jurisdiction. There are several ways jurisdiction can be decided: where the parties are, where a relevant piece of property is, where the alleged misdeed occurred, etc. In this case, the plaintiff is filing suit in his home district, as that is where A) he is, and B) he is being damaged. It is, of course, possible to challenge that jurisdiction; a competent lawyer will be able to help you.
The DMCA has no provision in the U.S. Constitution.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; [Article I, Section 8]
Sounds like provision to me. You may argue about the usefulness of the DMCA, or fairness, or many other pragmatic concerns, but it's pretty clear that the DMCA is about securing copyrights, and that is absolutely--and explicitly--within the purview of Congress under the Constitution.
By your insanely stupid reasoning, the police shouldn't intervene if there is a bank robbery taking place or if some people have been taken hostage.
"Taking place" means that action has already started. Of course the police can intervene; don't be a git. They can even intervene when they see men in ski masks getting out of a van and heading toward the bank, or when they have reliable information that the would-be robbers are planning a robbery.
If you thought you were in the slightest danger, you'd be screaming for protection. Everone thinks they're self-reliant during periods in which they have no problems. As soon as anything goes wrong, as soon as there's some tiny risk, they start crying from [sic] help and protection.
I'm not the original poster, but I'll answer this charge: you're full of shit.
At my last job, I arranged for my employer to be (successfully) prosecuted. He wasn't terribly happy with that, and even though I no longer worked for him, I still worked on the same airport. One day, I passed him on the street, and he turned around and followed me. I was ~200 yards from the Highway Patrol hangar, and ~300 yards from the US Customs hangar. If my (former) employer had wanted to get stupid--and he did have a history of being involved in violent incidents--what do you think the authorities could have done to protect me?
Oh, yeah, nothing. Even if they'd been watching from their cars at the time, even if they'd stopmed on the gas immediately and headed directly for me, it would have been at least half a minute or so before they got to me. Plenty of time for the dirtbag to do as he pleased. My "help and protection" is avoidance, alertness, awareness of my situation and any possible escape routes, and a 1911 stoked with Speer Gold Dots as a last-ditch method, should all else fail.
If your home was invaded and you were incapacitated, you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up because your neighbour had the sense to call them to PROTECT you, rather than to simply check your corpse for evidence so that they can investigate the crime.
No, I'll be glad when they show up to help me sweep the house for evidence; I'll be hunkered down in the back with a Remington 870, PROTECTING myself. An awful lot can happen in the five, ten, fifteen (or more) minutes it takes for the police to show up; criminals don't usually wait politely for the police to show up.
because they were activly tapping the phone calls of people like Dr Martin Luther King in every hotel that he visited trying to dig up dirt on him.
Or, more recently, our last president using the FBI to monitor political opponents. Or our current president monitoring reporters who reveal embarassing informtion.
Face it: the government can't be trusted with power.
The, "there is no right to privacy in the constitution," argument requires a strict interpretation of the constitution and it's amendments, and that you completely ignore the 9th amendment which specifically addresses the concept of unenumerated rights.
Actually, a truly strict reading of the Constitution would recognize that the Constitution doesn't restrict government powers, it grants them. Just like the Order DENY, ALLOW line in httpd.conf, if a power isn't specifically granted to the Feds, they don't have it. The Amendments were a compromise to placate the (well-founded) fears that the government would expand its own scope, though some were (correctly) worried that they would be interpreted as a checklist for the government to say "anything but these freedoms is fair game" (ALLOW, DENY). As you say, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been completely eviscerated.
Most college towns have a third-party bookstore, that in general, buys higher and sells lower. That's usually where to go.
I used to think the same, but in my college town (Norman, Oklahoma, home to the University of Oklahoma), it's not entirely true. I was trying to sell some of my books back to one of the independent stores, and noticed that they were offering me the exact same pittance as the campus bookstore (a Follett store, though they don't advertise that). The girl behind the counter was unusually candid with me about the situation: the bookstores don't set the prices. Rather, all of the bookstores go through the distributor, and take their prices from same. And we only have the one distributor. The distributor sets quantities to be bought back (typically a tiny percentage of the expected use, sets prices (buyback around here is generally half of the used sale price, unless they've already bought back as many as they intend to, in which case it's approximately the recycling value of the paper), the works.
If I didn't know better, I'd say it smells of price fixing.
Governments--particularly small governments--love enforcing stuff like this. Why? It's simple.
Revenue.
Small governments (city/county) usually make a large portion of their revenue from fines. Consequently, they love trivial little laws that everybody breaks, and they really love busybody informants. This is just another way for the government to make money, and it has the added benefits of A) not being a tax increase, and B) duping the ignorant into thinking the government is Looking Out For Them.
Assuming the material is durable enough it would be great on the flying surfaces too preventing icing which adds considerable weight and changes the aerodynamics of the plane. This would probably be far lighter then current solutions for this.
Actually, this was my first thought too, but after reading the article, I'm not sure how much use it would be in aviation. As you correctly point out, the big problem with ice in aircraft isn't the windshield, but airframe icing (wings and tail); ice (or even frost) changes the shape of the airfoil, destroying the lifting capabilities of the surfaces.
With a small panel, like a windshield, the power problem is manageable, but the leading edge of an airliner's wing is several hundred square feet (even a relatively small 737 has a wingspan of over a hundred feet for the later models, and you need to go at least a foot or two back on both top and bottom). Even assuming we only work on the leading edge, that's a hell of a lot of surface, and thus a lot of power. In reality, jet aircraft use hot wings, heated by bleed air from the turbines, and they heat the water on the leading edges enough that it stays liquid all the way to the trailing edge--these systems are more correctly called "anti-icing" than "de-icing."
Smaller aircraft do use de-icing systems, in the form of pneumatic boots. With such systems, ice is allowed to accumulate until it reaches sufficient thickness to be thoroughly broken by inflating the boots, causing it to crack and fall off (deploying the boots early can result in the ice simply forming around the shape of the inflated boots, rather than their deflated shape, rendering the boots ineffective). I'd be interested to see whether this system suffers from a similar problem, or if it is effective against even trace buildups.
The problem with it in light aircraft, though, is that such aircraft tend to have very low power budgets--there's not much surplus energy around. If there were, they'd use anti-icing systems, but intermittently shedding accumulated ice is very energy-efficient, especially when compared to energetic ice prevention (some aircraft carry alcohol anti-icing solution, which is excreted through "weeping wings" to forestall ice formation, but such systems are limited in the protection they can offer, both in severity and duration of icing conditions). Thermal anti-icing is cost-prohibitive, and electrical systems in light aircraft tend to be adequate, but with little overhead--while this system is more efficient than (presumably electrical) heating, it still may not be efficient enough. I'd also be interested to see what kind of electrical and magnetic noise this system might generate, though I'm sure that's been considered.
All in all, this sounds like a neat idea, but I'm not sure it's going to find its market in aviation.
>> It also just occured to me that with disclaimers such as:
>> "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>> they are addressed.
I always read those as though they said,
"We're total losers who couldn't proofread an e-mail address if our business depended on it, which our lawyers advise us is actually the case. Instead of setting up an easy-to-use address book to handle and verify addresses, we are going to put some totally meaningless and legally-irrelevant boilerplate on every message we send so that there will be no doubt as to our total luser-itis.
"If you received this e-mail by mistake, we're screwed, because we can't bind you to a contract just because you read something you shouldn't have. Not only that, but by the time you read these instructions about how you weren't supposed to read it, you would have already read through the stuff you weren't supposed to read... and boy doesn't that make us look like complete morons... if there was any doubt earlier.
"All that is assuming we included some information that would let you determine that you are not, in fact, the intended recipient of this e-mail. Which we probably didn't, because we've heard that 'redundant' means 'unnecessary', because that's what they called the guy who used to sulk in the basement and make the computers go before they fired his ass."
Not that I'm suggesting anyone around here would consider them worth the electrons they're printed with....
(Shamelessly stolen from somebody whose name escapes me at the moment....)
"Property Management" firms... don't make or do anything but leech off anyone successful
On this, I'd have to disagree. I'll admit that they don't produce the product for the end user, but in reality, the inventor almost never does. What "Property Management" firms do is create a market for ideas, particularly for smaller inventors. If I, as an individual or small R&D firm, come up with an idea, I have to find somebody to buy the rights to it in order to profit from it, or manufacture it myself. If the latter is impractical--as it frequently is, given the complexity of many modern inventions--then I'm left with only the former. To do that, I have to know who to contact at all of the companies that might be interested, convince them of the value of my product, and convince them to manufacture it--while at the same time not giving away so much information that they're able to create the thing themselves. Even if I have the contacts--a big if--making the sales pitches is a huge time investment, and I'd probably rather be doing more research.
Enter the IP firm. Essentially, they're a marketing organization and a venture capital firm rolled into one. I can sell them my ideas, my patent rights, and walk away, my job complete. I get compensated, and I don't have to deal with the mess. Furthermore, if somebody does misappropriate the idea, I don't have to worry about it: A) I've already made my money, and B) the patent is held by somebody who's likely to have far greater legal resources than I do. While you may not like that, it at least evens up the odds when dealing with the big corporation that is likely the one who is abusing the patent.
So yes, as a consumer, it's easy to think that IP holding firms are harmful, but in reality, they do provide a useful service. As a general rule, if they didn't, they wouln't exist.
*shrug* States that don't want it are free to not take federal money. I get sick of whiney conservatives who want money from the government but don't want any regulation. The government is not an ATM.
True--now, just show me how to be free not to give the Feds the money in the first place. Otherwise, it's "we're going to take this money from you, and if you dance to our tune, we might give some of it back." I'm pretty sure there's a word for that: extortion.
You also missed the part where, even if a class meets more than once or twice a week, it probably doesn't meet seven times a week. Weekends are a great time to catch up on homework and studying, and most people either don't work weekends, or they have their part-time jobs onweekends, so that time doesn't count against them during the week.
Either way, people who really want to succeed, will.
But weren't they convicted as a monopolist? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they were.
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.
There's a difference between the criminal and civil systems. The criminal justice system has convictions; the civil system finds liability. The standards of proof are different: criminal requires "beyond a reasonable doubt," civil requires "preponderance of the evidence," or 51% likely. Rules of evidence, procedure, potential penalties, all different.
Further, being a "monopolist" isn't an offense, civilly or criminally. Abusing monopoly power is an offense.
Microsoft wasn't convicted of anything; it was found civilly liable of abusing its monopoly power. World of difference, buddy.
I, of course, am not a lawyer, but at least I can fucking read.
Nice to see how much confidence we inspire in our closest allies.
It wasn't too long ago that we reviewed our nuclear posture against other countries. One little fact that escaped as amusing is that we have a nuclear battle plan with Canada.
Do you really think we're going to exchange nukes with Canada?
When you prepare for war, you plan for all possible outcomes. That includes the possibility of being at odds with even your staunchest allies. To do otherwise is foolish.
Jury nullification was explicitly killed in California in 2001. I can't find a relevant news article, only "slanted" articles decrying the decision (with which I happen to agree). Judges are free to remove any juror who may be considering nullification, and they can instruct the jury not to nullify. blech.
California's attempt to kill jury nullification may or may not be workable; it will depend upon higher courts, and whether they were trying to kill it for their own system (state courts), or all cases, including Federal stuff. If they're trying to kill it in the Federal system as well, they might have problems. From http://www.caught.net/juror.htm:
But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?
It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
...
As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))
So, in Federal court at least, there is strong precedent to support the existence of jury nullification. Whether that precedent is binding upon other court systems (state, local) is an interesting question--does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate it to the states? Well, that depends on whether nullification is a right. I don't know the answer, and I don't think the courts have addressed the question fully. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.
Nonetheless, I do think that jury nullification is a very important check on governmental power. One need only look at the most famous case of jury nullification--the libel trial of John Peter Zenger--to see that.
His crime is breaking the attorney client privilege. Attorney client privledge is one of the foundations of our legal system. If the court could require an attorney to devulge everything his client had told him, then clients wouldn't talk to attornys.
To the best of my knowledge, attorney-client privilege isn't a criminal statute; it's a law saying that the court can't compel the attorney to reveal anything a client has told him. If an attorney violates said privilege, he can be sanctioned by the competent bar, and can undoubtedly be sued for malpractice, but I don't think he can be charged criminally. Please correct me if I'm wrong--I may well be, and it may vary by jurisdiction.
Further, the article states that Heller was under contract as a typist; he wasn't an attorney. As such, he would have a contract with the law firm, but whether he'd be bound by attorney-client privilege is an interesting question. He could easily be sued by the law firm, and it would probably be an open-and-shut case. Criminal charges, though, are another question.
Any California lawyers--preferably with criminal defense experience--want to weigh in?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'll bite. 1) Most states don't require a "weapons license." There are a few--Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York come to mind--that require some sort of permit (Illinois calls it a Firearms Owners ID, or FOID), but not the majority of states. Here in Oklahoma, nothing. Purchasing a firearm from a dealer does incur paperwork; you have to fill out a Form 4473, which is called in to the National Instant Check System (NICS) center; they determine whether you're a prohibited person (I'll elaborate on who's prohibited, if you're intereste--just ask), and reply with a "proceed," "deny," or "delay." The first two are self-explanatory, the third is a delay of up to seven (IIRC) days, usually because you have the same name as somebody else with a record. After seven days, the dealer may proceed with the transaction if he hasn't had a "deny" come back. As to the "black market," in most states, there isn't one. A few states require firearms to be transferred through dealers regardless of whether they're sold at retail, or sold aftermarket (California requires it of handguns; I don't recall what they require on longarms, but the dealer rule may apply to all firearms), but again, most states allow private-party transfers of used guns with no paperwork. I have personally purchased firearms this way (a rifle, in my case, but handguns are also legal to transfer privately in Oklahoma). Incidentally, I bought a handgun from a dealer earlier today (well, technically a handgun: I bought a bare 1911 frame, with the intention of assembling a fully-functional pistol, but the frame is the serialized and regulated part). 2) The big thing you're missing in your comment is that most of the ID requirements you cite are with private entities. There's a big difference between the government asking for ID, and a private entity asking for ID. Government, to put it bluntly, has exactly one power: the legitimate use of force. Businesses can ask for anything they want; only the government has the power to make something compulsory. Seriously--for all the grumbling and complaining about the power of corporations, there's always the option to say "no." Utilities can be had without an SSN, and almost anything can be bought for cash (with the exception of my old boss, who couldn't even pay cash for fuel at some of the local FBOs, but that's just because he's a slug), so there is an option, even if it's an inconvenient option. Government, on the other hand, is the only entity that has the legal authority to use force to compel behaviour. If you don't like AT&T, tell them to go suck eggs; good luck, though, telling the Feds (State, local gov't, whatever) that they're fired. Anyhow, the point is that it's different when private businesses ask for ID than it is when government asks, because I can tell businesses "no." I usually don't, because I think that what they offer me is worth the loss of privacy (and, when I don't, I pay cash, and go on my merry way). The difference with government is that it doesn't matter whether I think it's worthwhile--the decision is made for me, and if I don't like it, I have to argue my case with John Moses Browning, and he has a record of winning debates. The freedom lies in the choice, and government relieves me of the choice. Of course, I could be wrong; if you want to discuss it with me, I'd love to talk. You can reply here, or you can catch me on e-mail at AT . My name is Dave Buckles (I'm only obscuring it for the spambots--if you can't parse the e-mail address, post here, and I'll reply).
Bravo, sir! You clearly understand exactly what the US Constitution says. I would be proud to sponsor your citizenship, if you'll promise me you'll vote along those lines. Unfortunately, almost nobody in America does, particularly those in power.
It's morally wrong to fail to donate all of your money to charity, except for that small amount you actually need in order to live. But a law that made this compulsory ... very few would support it.
Apparently you've not heard of Marxism. Believe me, it's alive and well.
Electric heating? as in run off the alternator? Wouldn't it be better to divert some of the exhaust through a heat exchanger?
Not when you're trying to preheat the fuel so the engine will start....
"Can Banks Shift Phishing Losses to Customers?" asks the headline.
Of course. The customers are going to pay for all losses; the correct question is, will banks make the individual who made a foolish decision pay for his mistake, or will they make all of the customers (like me) pay, in the form of reduced interest payouts, higher lender rates, increased fees, etc.?
You don't really think the bank is going to create money to pay for the losses, do you? Make no mistake about it--banks, like every other convenient, abstract legal fiction--don't pay for anything. Individuals pay for things.
but when i get an out of state traffic ticket those bastards will only talk to me in court in their state. Oftentimes cops don't hesitate to slap a ticket on an out of towner, knowing that it's free revenue for their state. So if our own govenrment does it to us, what's to stop a private entity from doing it?
Well, the government is required to try you in their state. To wit:
You might have seen that before; it's the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and the "bastards" in this case would be the Founding Fathers.
As for the civil suits, the question is one of jurisdiction. There are several ways jurisdiction can be decided: where the parties are, where a relevant piece of property is, where the alleged misdeed occurred, etc. In this case, the plaintiff is filing suit in his home district, as that is where A) he is, and B) he is being damaged. It is, of course, possible to challenge that jurisdiction; a competent lawyer will be able to help you.
With all the fleshy pink things gone, there will be no more Net Neutrality problems.
With all of the fleshy pink things gone, there will be no more need for, or traffic on, the internet.
The DMCA has no provision in the U.S. Constitution.
Sounds like provision to me. You may argue about the usefulness of the DMCA, or fairness, or many other pragmatic concerns, but it's pretty clear that the DMCA is about securing copyrights, and that is absolutely--and explicitly--within the purview of Congress under the Constitution.
By your insanely stupid reasoning, the police shouldn't intervene if there is a bank robbery taking place or if some people have been taken hostage.
"Taking place" means that action has already started. Of course the police can intervene; don't be a git. They can even intervene when they see men in ski masks getting out of a van and heading toward the bank, or when they have reliable information that the would-be robbers are planning a robbery.
If you thought you were in the slightest danger, you'd be screaming for protection. Everone thinks they're self-reliant during periods in which they have no problems. As soon as anything goes wrong, as soon as there's some tiny risk, they start crying from [sic] help and protection.
I'm not the original poster, but I'll answer this charge: you're full of shit.
At my last job, I arranged for my employer to be (successfully) prosecuted. He wasn't terribly happy with that, and even though I no longer worked for him, I still worked on the same airport. One day, I passed him on the street, and he turned around and followed me. I was ~200 yards from the Highway Patrol hangar, and ~300 yards from the US Customs hangar. If my (former) employer had wanted to get stupid--and he did have a history of being involved in violent incidents--what do you think the authorities could have done to protect me?
Oh, yeah, nothing. Even if they'd been watching from their cars at the time, even if they'd stopmed on the gas immediately and headed directly for me, it would have been at least half a minute or so before they got to me. Plenty of time for the dirtbag to do as he pleased. My "help and protection" is avoidance, alertness, awareness of my situation and any possible escape routes, and a 1911 stoked with Speer Gold Dots as a last-ditch method, should all else fail.
If your home was invaded and you were incapacitated, you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up because your neighbour had the sense to call them to PROTECT you, rather than to simply check your corpse for evidence so that they can investigate the crime.
No, I'll be glad when they show up to help me sweep the house for evidence; I'll be hunkered down in the back with a Remington 870, PROTECTING myself. An awful lot can happen in the five, ten, fifteen (or more) minutes it takes for the police to show up; criminals don't usually wait politely for the police to show up.
because they were activly tapping the phone calls of people like Dr Martin Luther King in every hotel that he visited trying to dig up dirt on him.
Or, more recently, our last president using the FBI to monitor political opponents. Or our current president monitoring reporters who reveal embarassing informtion.
Face it: the government can't be trusted with power.
The, "there is no right to privacy in the constitution," argument requires a strict interpretation of the constitution and it's amendments, and that you completely ignore the 9th amendment which specifically addresses the concept of unenumerated rights.
Actually, a truly strict reading of the Constitution would recognize that the Constitution doesn't restrict government powers, it grants them. Just like the Order DENY, ALLOW line in httpd.conf, if a power isn't specifically granted to the Feds, they don't have it. The Amendments were a compromise to placate the (well-founded) fears that the government would expand its own scope, though some were (correctly) worried that they would be interpreted as a checklist for the government to say "anything but these freedoms is fair game" (ALLOW, DENY). As you say, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been completely eviscerated.
Most college towns have a third-party bookstore, that in general, buys higher and sells lower. That's usually where to go.
I used to think the same, but in my college town (Norman, Oklahoma, home to the University of Oklahoma), it's not entirely true. I was trying to sell some of my books back to one of the independent stores, and noticed that they were offering me the exact same pittance as the campus bookstore (a Follett store, though they don't advertise that). The girl behind the counter was unusually candid with me about the situation: the bookstores don't set the prices. Rather, all of the bookstores go through the distributor, and take their prices from same. And we only have the one distributor. The distributor sets quantities to be bought back (typically a tiny percentage of the expected use, sets prices (buyback around here is generally half of the used sale price, unless they've already bought back as many as they intend to, in which case it's approximately the recycling value of the paper), the works.
If I didn't know better, I'd say it smells of price fixing.
Governments--particularly small governments--love enforcing stuff like this. Why? It's simple.
Revenue.
Small governments (city/county) usually make a large portion of their revenue from fines. Consequently, they love trivial little laws that everybody breaks, and they really love busybody informants. This is just another way for the government to make money, and it has the added benefits of A) not being a tax increase, and B) duping the ignorant into thinking the government is Looking Out For Them.
So why pass a law in the first place?? Just start a public information campaign.
Because the government can't collect revenue from people ignoring a "public information campaign."
Assuming the material is durable enough it would be great on the flying surfaces too preventing icing which adds considerable weight and changes the aerodynamics of the plane. This would probably be far lighter then current solutions for this.
Actually, this was my first thought too, but after reading the article, I'm not sure how much use it would be in aviation. As you correctly point out, the big problem with ice in aircraft isn't the windshield, but airframe icing (wings and tail); ice (or even frost) changes the shape of the airfoil, destroying the lifting capabilities of the surfaces.
With a small panel, like a windshield, the power problem is manageable, but the leading edge of an airliner's wing is several hundred square feet (even a relatively small 737 has a wingspan of over a hundred feet for the later models, and you need to go at least a foot or two back on both top and bottom). Even assuming we only work on the leading edge, that's a hell of a lot of surface, and thus a lot of power. In reality, jet aircraft use hot wings, heated by bleed air from the turbines, and they heat the water on the leading edges enough that it stays liquid all the way to the trailing edge--these systems are more correctly called "anti-icing" than "de-icing."
Smaller aircraft do use de-icing systems, in the form of pneumatic boots. With such systems, ice is allowed to accumulate until it reaches sufficient thickness to be thoroughly broken by inflating the boots, causing it to crack and fall off (deploying the boots early can result in the ice simply forming around the shape of the inflated boots, rather than their deflated shape, rendering the boots ineffective). I'd be interested to see whether this system suffers from a similar problem, or if it is effective against even trace buildups.
The problem with it in light aircraft, though, is that such aircraft tend to have very low power budgets--there's not much surplus energy around. If there were, they'd use anti-icing systems, but intermittently shedding accumulated ice is very energy-efficient, especially when compared to energetic ice prevention (some aircraft carry alcohol anti-icing solution, which is excreted through "weeping wings" to forestall ice formation, but such systems are limited in the protection they can offer, both in severity and duration of icing conditions). Thermal anti-icing is cost-prohibitive, and electrical systems in light aircraft tend to be adequate, but with little overhead--while this system is more efficient than (presumably electrical) heating, it still may not be efficient enough. I'd also be interested to see what kind of electrical and magnetic noise this system might generate, though I'm sure that's been considered.
All in all, this sounds like a neat idea, but I'm not sure it's going to find its market in aviation.
>> It also just occured to me that with disclaimers such as:
>> "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>> they are addressed.
I always read those as though they said,
"We're total losers who couldn't proofread an e-mail address if our business depended on it, which our lawyers advise us is actually the case. Instead of setting up an easy-to-use address book to handle and verify addresses, we are going to put some totally meaningless and legally-irrelevant boilerplate on every message we send so that there will be no doubt as to our total luser-itis.
"If you received this e-mail by mistake, we're screwed, because we can't bind you to a contract just because you read something you shouldn't have. Not only that, but by the time you read these instructions about how you weren't supposed to read it, you would have already read through the stuff you weren't supposed to read... and boy doesn't that make us look like complete morons... if there was any doubt earlier.
"All that is assuming we included some information that would let you determine that you are not, in fact, the intended recipient of this e-mail. Which we probably didn't, because we've heard that 'redundant' means 'unnecessary', because that's what they called the guy who used to sulk in the basement and make the computers go before they fired his ass."
Not that I'm suggesting anyone around here would consider them worth the electrons they're printed with....
(Shamelessly stolen from somebody whose name escapes me at the moment....)
"Property Management" firms ... don't make or do anything but leech off anyone successful
On this, I'd have to disagree. I'll admit that they don't produce the product for the end user, but in reality, the inventor almost never does. What "Property Management" firms do is create a market for ideas, particularly for smaller inventors. If I, as an individual or small R&D firm, come up with an idea, I have to find somebody to buy the rights to it in order to profit from it, or manufacture it myself. If the latter is impractical--as it frequently is, given the complexity of many modern inventions--then I'm left with only the former. To do that, I have to know who to contact at all of the companies that might be interested, convince them of the value of my product, and convince them to manufacture it--while at the same time not giving away so much information that they're able to create the thing themselves. Even if I have the contacts--a big if--making the sales pitches is a huge time investment, and I'd probably rather be doing more research.
Enter the IP firm. Essentially, they're a marketing organization and a venture capital firm rolled into one. I can sell them my ideas, my patent rights, and walk away, my job complete. I get compensated, and I don't have to deal with the mess. Furthermore, if somebody does misappropriate the idea, I don't have to worry about it: A) I've already made my money, and B) the patent is held by somebody who's likely to have far greater legal resources than I do. While you may not like that, it at least evens up the odds when dealing with the big corporation that is likely the one who is abusing the patent.
So yes, as a consumer, it's easy to think that IP holding firms are harmful, but in reality, they do provide a useful service. As a general rule, if they didn't, they wouln't exist.
How would you tax a 3 digit /. ID?
Tax? I think you'd give the holder a disability cheque!
*shrug* States that don't want it are free to not take federal money. I get sick of whiney conservatives who want money from the government but don't want any regulation. The government is not an ATM.
True--now, just show me how to be free not to give the Feds the money in the first place. Otherwise, it's "we're going to take this money from you, and if you dance to our tune, we might give some of it back." I'm pretty sure there's a word for that: extortion.You also missed the part where, even if a class meets more than once or twice a week, it probably doesn't meet seven times a week. Weekends are a great time to catch up on homework and studying, and most people either don't work weekends, or they have their part-time jobs onweekends, so that time doesn't count against them during the week.
Either way, people who really want to succeed, will.
But weren't they convicted as a monopolist? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they were.
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.
There's a difference between the criminal and civil systems. The criminal justice system has convictions; the civil system finds liability. The standards of proof are different: criminal requires "beyond a reasonable doubt," civil requires "preponderance of the evidence," or 51% likely. Rules of evidence, procedure, potential penalties, all different.
Further, being a "monopolist" isn't an offense, civilly or criminally. Abusing monopoly power is an offense.
Microsoft wasn't convicted of anything; it was found civilly liable of abusing its monopoly power. World of difference, buddy.
I, of course, am not a lawyer, but at least I can fucking read.
THe way I see it there are two options.
YOu walk up to somebody and say "get off my campus nigger and take your watermelon eatin sticky nappyhead crackwhore with you".
At that point he can either hit you or take you to court.
I would prefer he take you to court.
I'd prefer your unstated third option: he can write me off as a prick who isn't worth the time or effort it takes to listen.
I prefer freedom and good sense to law or vigilantism.
Nice to see how much confidence we inspire in our closest allies.
It wasn't too long ago that we reviewed our nuclear posture against other countries. One little fact that escaped as amusing is that we have a nuclear battle plan with Canada.
Do you really think we're going to exchange nukes with Canada?
When you prepare for war, you plan for all possible outcomes. That includes the possibility of being at odds with even your staunchest allies. To do otherwise is foolish.
Jury nullification was explicitly killed in California in 2001. I can't find a relevant news article, only "slanted" articles decrying the decision (with which I happen to agree). Judges are free to remove any juror who may be considering nullification, and they can instruct the jury not to nullify. blech.
California's attempt to kill jury nullification may or may not be workable; it will depend upon higher courts, and whether they were trying to kill it for their own system (state courts), or all cases, including Federal stuff. If they're trying to kill it in the Federal system as well, they might have problems. From http://www.caught.net/juror.htm:
So, in Federal court at least, there is strong precedent to support the existence of jury nullification. Whether that precedent is binding upon other court systems (state, local) is an interesting question--does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate it to the states? Well, that depends on whether nullification is a right. I don't know the answer, and I don't think the courts have addressed the question fully. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.Nonetheless, I do think that jury nullification is a very important check on governmental power. One need only look at the most famous case of jury nullification--the libel trial of John Peter Zenger--to see that.
His crime is breaking the attorney client privilege. Attorney client privledge is one of the foundations of our legal system. If the court could require an attorney to devulge everything his client had told him, then clients wouldn't talk to attornys.
To the best of my knowledge, attorney-client privilege isn't a criminal statute; it's a law saying that the court can't compel the attorney to reveal anything a client has told him. If an attorney violates said privilege, he can be sanctioned by the competent bar, and can undoubtedly be sued for malpractice, but I don't think he can be charged criminally. Please correct me if I'm wrong--I may well be, and it may vary by jurisdiction.
Further, the article states that Heller was under contract as a typist; he wasn't an attorney. As such, he would have a contract with the law firm, but whether he'd be bound by attorney-client privilege is an interesting question. He could easily be sued by the law firm, and it would probably be an open-and-shut case. Criminal charges, though, are another question.
Any California lawyers--preferably with criminal defense experience--want to weigh in?