And it should be no more than 1 year, except under extreme circumstances.
If the cops think you are planning something and also think they know about it more than 1 year in advance, they should arrest you in that year. If they can't prove anything after that 1 year, then most likely they never had anything real in the first place - or are so incompetent that having you find out about the subpoena wouldn't matter anyway.
Seriously can anyone think of ANY criminal action that the government finds out about, gets a subpoena, takes more than one year before they publicly move - and the criminal knowing about the subpoena would hurt in any way?
FIFA is a great example the corrupt people knew about the investigation and did nothing.
You are exaggerating just as bad as a Fox News anchor.
There are several competing concepts of law. The three judges in question are a believer in strict literal meaning of the words, rather than the intent.
This is not the WORST that America has ever had, it is a fairly common point of view exposed by conservatives. It is wrong, but not the worst.
The worst are the people that don't care about intent or literal meaning - those that just try to compromise and/or shift the law to what they want it to be.
>Prime examples of this include the horrendous Dred Scott decision that said blacks, free or slave were not citizens of the US and that Congress did not have the power to make them free or citizens. He based this on pretty much nothing.
Scalia has a fairly good point. The problem is that there are official definitions used by congress and when Congress says "State" they are SUPPOSED to mean "state governments, not the federal government". Those definitions apply to this particular law, but not every legal document, so don't apply to the Constitutional amendments.
I am totally in favor of Obamacare and am happy SCOTUS ruled this way, but I do believe this was one of the stronger anti-obamacare arguments.
P
Basically, this is a clear victory for 'the intent of the law', as opposed to the 'strict meaning of the law' legal theory
Look, the Confederate flag means slavery, hatred, bigotry and treason against the USA. It has no business being flown by any US government authority.
But that is not sufficient reason to stop selling it to civilians. This is a country founded on the idea of Free Speech.
We believe that the best way to fight evil is to let evil speak so we can hear who is evil. Much better than outlawing their vile ideas and having to guess who secretly harbors them.
In other words, I want to be able to see what shmucks wear/use the flag so I know whom to avoid.
There are several really good groups. I like the ACLU because they prevent the police from over-reaching. I like Planned Parenthood because the GOP attacks them. Internationally there is Rabbis for Human Rights - a Jewish organization that routinely defends Muslims. If you like animals, there is the Search Dog Foundation that takes shelter dogs, turns them into search dogs, and gives them to fire departments and police departments - where the dogs save human lives.
Just sell powered horn. The majority of consumers don't do microscopic and/or dna tests.
Just set up a shop in the right location, ship in a bunch of shredded antelope horn and label it Rhino horn. Have some guy in a white lab cloak stand by to swear it's the real deal.
1: radio
2: screen
3: Camera/flash
4: battery:
5: computer
6:Case - speakers, connectors, ancillary things.
All of these have different lifespans. The computer is something most of us want to upgrade yearly. The rest is dependent on damage/random time.
I would pay 10% more to get something that let me easily replace any one of these 5 things.
A law can only be 'unlawful' if it violates another, stronger law.
Not being British, I am not familiar with the higher law the court referenced.
Can someone please explain which law guarantees the companies in question immunity from financial harm?
Because there is no such law in the US - if Congress passed a law saying it was legal to rip CD's, they would have to argue that said law violates one of the amendments of the Constitution. They could also claim they were entitled to compensation via certain treaties, but that would not invalidate the original law, just declare that they are owed compensation.
One of the major misunderstandings about math is that it is a science.
It is NOT a science - it is a language. (Note String theory has the same issue.)
As such it can be sued to descr4ibe things - both true things and false things. I can easily write 1+1=3, and I can even describe a universe where that is an axiomatic principle. It is not THIS universe, but it is a theoretical one. Another, easier to understand rule like this is setting the the sum of the angles of a triangle = 190 degrees. This does not work in flat space, but if space is curved by gravity, say near a black hole...
Setting x/0 = 0 is a legitimate choice for some issues, but it may cause major problems in others.
I did not expect to learn wrestling from the web, but people might want to find out more information about the topic and want real wrestling, not sexy sexy fun time.
A lot of the time I am searching for something but there is a top search category that is NOT what I want and keeps showing up. the "-" tag simply doesn't help enough.
If you are a woman that wants to learn how to wrestle from other women, just forget about google. Not going to help.
I would love a search platform that categories searches as functionally identical. Similar to the Web vs Image vs News categories. I would love a search engine that can say, search for a picture of a man dodging a car but have the option of NOT showing any pictures of Dodge (as in Chrysler) cars.
The device is ultimately powered by the sun - a combination of evaporation and wind provide the changes in humidity used for both the spore and the drinking bird.
It basically works like this. The better you are at any field, the more likely you are to use precise words. These words include both the more common and the rare cases.
So you talk about 'enterprises' instead of businesses because enterprises includes charitable organizations.
The problem comes when the expert tries to talk to (note I said talk not communicate even though we are really using an electronic form of communication, not talking) to normal people (an expert might have said non-technically proficient people).
They talk like this for a reason, and it is very hard to get them to stop.
Same things happen in law, medicine, and other extremely precise fields.
I am not against free speech - you can blur the face on videos, and/or show it on local TV.
I am against invasions of privacy.
The internet is particularly bad at this because there is no filter. People can easily lie about what happened before the video begins or about what is going on in a video. There are several cases where actors were paid to do things like make catcalls at women and then someone put the video on the internet pretending no one was paid.
As in, when your friends tag you, even without Facebook "suggesting" it.
We need some digital privacy laws for the internet. Perhaps - the right not to be named in a public photo/video on the internet - or even have your face shown without express, written permission.
This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.
In addition, real financial penalties of $1,000 could apply.
This would among other things, stop things like people posting embarrassing youtube videos of other people.
The basic problem is that the kids' blood is different from the mothers. As such, the mother's body attack's the kid's blood.
The problem re-occures when the mother gives birth to a female child that has blood similar to her own. But in that case the daughter does NOT need the blood.
So actually every kid the golden arm saves will never have to worry about this problem again.
Lots of older people have to sell their cars/stop using them because their vision, reflexes, etc. give out. They get homebound not because they have no money, but instead because they don't trust themselves to drive.
I have a battery tester and when batteries stop working, I sometimes check and easily see they still have some power left, if not enough to run the device.
Even if this device extends battery life only 10% it is probably worth it.
Of course, the real question is why don't they build it into the batteries/devices in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
If the cops think you are planning something and also think they know about it more than 1 year in advance, they should arrest you in that year. If they can't prove anything after that 1 year, then most likely they never had anything real in the first place - or are so incompetent that having you find out about the subpoena wouldn't matter anyway.
Seriously can anyone think of ANY criminal action that the government finds out about, gets a subpoena, takes more than one year before they publicly move - and the criminal knowing about the subpoena would hurt in any way?
FIFA is a great example the corrupt people knew about the investigation and did nothing.
There are several competing concepts of law. The three judges in question are a believer in strict literal meaning of the words, rather than the intent.
This is not the WORST that America has ever had, it is a fairly common point of view exposed by conservatives. It is wrong, but not the worst.
The worst are the people that don't care about intent or literal meaning - those that just try to compromise and/or shift the law to what they want it to be.
>Prime examples of this include the horrendous Dred Scott decision that said blacks, free or slave were not citizens of the US and that Congress did not have the power to make them free or citizens. He based this on pretty much nothing.
I am totally in favor of Obamacare and am happy SCOTUS ruled this way, but I do believe this was one of the stronger anti-obamacare arguments.
P Basically, this is a clear victory for 'the intent of the law', as opposed to the 'strict meaning of the law' legal theory
But that is not sufficient reason to stop selling it to civilians. This is a country founded on the idea of Free Speech.
We believe that the best way to fight evil is to let evil speak so we can hear who is evil. Much better than outlawing their vile ideas and having to guess who secretly harbors them.
In other words, I want to be able to see what shmucks wear/use the flag so I know whom to avoid.
with an army of lawyers and multiple international corporations could remain anonymous.
There are several really good groups. I like the ACLU because they prevent the police from over-reaching. I like Planned Parenthood because the GOP attacks them. Internationally there is Rabbis for Human Rights - a Jewish organization that routinely defends Muslims. If you like animals, there is the Search Dog Foundation that takes shelter dogs, turns them into search dogs, and gives them to fire departments and police departments - where the dogs save human lives.
Just sell powered horn. The majority of consumers don't do microscopic and/or dna tests. Just set up a shop in the right location, ship in a bunch of shredded antelope horn and label it Rhino horn. Have some guy in a white lab cloak stand by to swear it's the real deal.
/ end joke
1: radio 2: screen 3: Camera/flash 4: battery: 5: computer 6:Case - speakers, connectors, ancillary things. All of these have different lifespans. The computer is something most of us want to upgrade yearly. The rest is dependent on damage/random time. I would pay 10% more to get something that let me easily replace any one of these 5 things.
Not being British, I am not familiar with the higher law the court referenced.
Can someone please explain which law guarantees the companies in question immunity from financial harm?
Because there is no such law in the US - if Congress passed a law saying it was legal to rip CD's, they would have to argue that said law violates one of the amendments of the Constitution. They could also claim they were entitled to compensation via certain treaties, but that would not invalidate the original law, just declare that they are owed compensation.
It is NOT a science - it is a language. (Note String theory has the same issue.)
As such it can be sued to descr4ibe things - both true things and false things. I can easily write 1+1=3, and I can even describe a universe where that is an axiomatic principle. It is not THIS universe, but it is a theoretical one. Another, easier to understand rule like this is setting the the sum of the angles of a triangle = 190 degrees. This does not work in flat space, but if space is curved by gravity, say near a black hole...
Setting x/0 = 0 is a legitimate choice for some issues, but it may cause major problems in others.
I would not advise making this kind of change.
I did not expect to learn wrestling from the web, but people might want to find out more information about the topic and want real wrestling, not sexy sexy fun time.
If you are a woman that wants to learn how to wrestle from other women, just forget about google. Not going to help.
I would love a search platform that categories searches as functionally identical. Similar to the Web vs Image vs News categories. I would love a search engine that can say, search for a picture of a man dodging a car but have the option of NOT showing any pictures of Dodge (as in Chrysler) cars.
The device is ultimately powered by the sun - a combination of evaporation and wind provide the changes in humidity used for both the spore and the drinking bird.
So you talk about 'enterprises' instead of businesses because enterprises includes charitable organizations.
The problem comes when the expert tries to talk to (note I said talk not communicate even though we are really using an electronic form of communication, not talking) to normal people (an expert might have said non-technically proficient people).
They talk like this for a reason, and it is very hard to get them to stop.
Same things happen in law, medicine, and other extremely precise fields.
I am not against free speech - you can blur the face on videos, and/or show it on local TV. I am against invasions of privacy. The internet is particularly bad at this because there is no filter. People can easily lie about what happened before the video begins or about what is going on in a video. There are several cases where actors were paid to do things like make catcalls at women and then someone put the video on the internet pretending no one was paid.
We need some digital privacy laws for the internet. Perhaps - the right not to be named in a public photo/video on the internet - or even have your face shown without express, written permission.
This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.
In addition, real financial penalties of $1,000 could apply.
This would among other things, stop things like people posting embarrassing youtube videos of other people.
You then ignore what the actual scientists say, instead relying on the exaggerations.
When the exaggerations don't come to pass, you blame the scientists, instead of the media?
Or did you actually personally hear Al Gore et. al. speak?
No? You didn't? You are just mis-remembering wild ass storiies told to you by the media?
And blaming the scientists as opposed to the media?
Hm. So basically your own bad logic is a clearer explanation of the problem than the article itself.
The basic problem is that the kids' blood is different from the mothers. As such, the mother's body attack's the kid's blood.
The problem re-occures when the mother gives birth to a female child that has blood similar to her own. But in that case the daughter does NOT need the blood.
So actually every kid the golden arm saves will never have to worry about this problem again.
Or it's political corollary: The cover up is always worse than the original crime.
Lots of older people have to sell their cars/stop using them because their vision, reflexes, etc. give out. They get homebound not because they have no money, but instead because they don't trust themselves to drive.
Police in small towns would lose a ton of money - much fewer speeding and traffic tickets.
Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.
Movies ( and a bit of books) will increase - think of all the stuff kids do while you drive them around.
But all of this will take 10-20 years, after the first sale, not immediately
I have a battery tester and when batteries stop working, I sometimes check and easily see they still have some power left, if not enough to run the device.
Even if this device extends battery life only 10% it is probably worth it.
Of course, the real question is why don't they build it into the batteries/devices in the first place?
Kids at heart want to learn the cool stuff. But to get to the cool stuff, you have to learn a whole crapload of boring stuff.
The thing is, the 'boring stuff' can be made fun - with a lot of creative work by a human teacher.
Technology can't do that.
Throw in the fact that wealthy parents encourage their kids, assure them of the opportunities, and give them extra resources that poor parents don't.
So no, technology can't cure the problem.
They are illegally importing.
I am sick and tired of shmucks that rip people off trying to 'upgrade' the crime of not being ripped off into 'theft'.