Not true. Your incompetent, "progressive" grade-school teachers propagated this nonsense. The founders sought to balance the indiscretions of the populace and preserve the rights of the minority by creating a republic. That's why we have a senate, with a fixed number of representatives per state, against a house of representatives, which is based on population. Read the Federalist papers, especially "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" by Hamilton.
It's not the individual that's stupid; it's the group that can act as a stupid mob. Agent K was right: a person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
In most states in the US, there is a safety inspection once a year when the odometer reading can be taken with absolutely no inconvenience to the owner.
Automobiles all had safety belts, air bags, and safety-oriented cabin designs before these features were mandated by governments. They just weren't in 100% of vehicles. That being said, reasonable regulation might actually be a good use of the "general welfare" clause, as long as those nanny regulations come directly from Congress or from departments created by Congress. Mind you, there are ridiculous misses, like the mandated seat belt ignition interlock that cost consumers and taxpayers millions to remove when the technology was proved unusable.
The article talks about the "real long term damage" it does to them-- which is nothing. And people who say, "if it saves only one little fishie" are even worse that the "think of the children" crowd.
Ignoring the fact that "unregulated capitalism" doesn't exist anywhere-- including Taiwan as in the incident recounted in this article-- Chinese shipping containers are also often lost. I assure you, their capitalism is regulated to the highest degree; however, their priorities differ from yours.
Well, in my area, there are plenty of overcast summer days when the temperature is still over 80F. I don't think it matters much when the sun shines as long as it does, and you have an efficient means of storing the energy.
They often drop the excess charges-- but without prejudice, so if they screw up on the major charge, they can get you on the minor ones without worrying about that pesky "double jeopardy" thing.
It seems like this is a tough argument, considering that the police have already consented to being recorded by cameras in their cars-- and I wonder if at any point a Mass. driver has officially consented to being recorded by those cameras.
There is no checkpoint, and if there was one, it would probably be unconstitutional.
On a limited-access highway? Yup, unconstitutional. You have to be allowed to detour around the checkpoint. I guess maybe if there was an exit before the checkpoint to a secondary highway that led back to the interstate-- but any idiotic cops who set that up would be probably causing a more dangerous situation with the traffic than they were fixing by removing the impaired drivers from the road.
An app that publicizes "secret" checkpoints is the one we need-- because those checkpoints have been confirmed by the courts to be 100% unconstitutional. Technology is one of the few tools we have at the moment to resist the police state.
So what is the point of a sobriety checkpoint, then? Apparently the cops in your area are both telepathic and 100% incorruptible-- thus they do not ever detain anyone who is not drunk. I imagine that if the cops weren't actually telepathic angels, they might have to stop some cars which weren't driven by drunks in order to find the ones that were-- and some non-drunk drivers might need such an app to keep them from being delayed or having their rights infringed.
Return copyright back to the more reasonable terms of the 18th or 19th century. Then many older works will be in the public domain, and thus readily accessible for little cost. The absurdly long copyright terms are the problem; these workarounds are band-aids.
The constitutional amendment that abolished prohibition also put the power to regulate alcohol back into the hands of the states. You can't legally bring alcohol into some states from other states for consumption or sale. Yes, de facto it's not risky to bring a bottle of wine from NJ to grandma's house in PA, but de jure it's illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the individual that's stupid; it's the group that can act as a stupid mob. Agent K was right: a person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
In most states in the US, there is a safety inspection once a year when the odometer reading can be taken with absolutely no inconvenience to the owner.
Automobiles all had safety belts, air bags, and safety-oriented cabin designs before these features were mandated by governments. They just weren't in 100% of vehicles. That being said, reasonable regulation might actually be a good use of the "general welfare" clause, as long as those nanny regulations come directly from Congress or from departments created by Congress. Mind you, there are ridiculous misses, like the mandated seat belt ignition interlock that cost consumers and taxpayers millions to remove when the technology was proved unusable.
The article talks about the "real long term damage" it does to them-- which is nothing. And people who say, "if it saves only one little fishie" are even worse that the "think of the children" crowd.
Ignoring the fact that "unregulated capitalism" doesn't exist anywhere-- including Taiwan as in the incident recounted in this article-- Chinese shipping containers are also often lost. I assure you, their capitalism is regulated to the highest degree; however, their priorities differ from yours.
His personal residence is also very sustainable.
I'm just hoping our troops are out of Libya by June 18th, as demanded by the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Impeachment is messy.
Because the technology was not cost-effective, at about 10% efficiency, and he was supposed to be cutting spending at the time.
Well, in my area, there are plenty of overcast summer days when the temperature is still over 80F. I don't think it matters much when the sun shines as long as it does, and you have an efficient means of storing the energy.
Of course, their argument now will be that somehow police officers aren't public officials.
They often drop the excess charges-- but without prejudice, so if they screw up on the major charge, they can get you on the minor ones without worrying about that pesky "double jeopardy" thing.
He was a bit touchy about it, wasn't he?
Come now, gentlemen. We know the most relevant measure of viability is the number of midichlorians in the bloodstream.
It seems like this is a tough argument, considering that the police have already consented to being recorded by cameras in their cars-- and I wonder if at any point a Mass. driver has officially consented to being recorded by those cameras.
On a limited-access highway? Yup, unconstitutional. You have to be allowed to detour around the checkpoint. I guess maybe if there was an exit before the checkpoint to a secondary highway that led back to the interstate-- but any idiotic cops who set that up would be probably causing a more dangerous situation with the traffic than they were fixing by removing the impaired drivers from the road.
An app that publicizes "secret" checkpoints is the one we need-- because those checkpoints have been confirmed by the courts to be 100% unconstitutional. Technology is one of the few tools we have at the moment to resist the police state.
So what is the point of a sobriety checkpoint, then? Apparently the cops in your area are both telepathic and 100% incorruptible-- thus they do not ever detain anyone who is not drunk. I imagine that if the cops weren't actually telepathic angels, they might have to stop some cars which weren't driven by drunks in order to find the ones that were-- and some non-drunk drivers might need such an app to keep them from being delayed or having their rights infringed.
Vi rules, eh?
Unfortunately, I already created a post that was quite inferior to yours, and therefore cannot mod you up!
Return copyright back to the more reasonable terms of the 18th or 19th century. Then many older works will be in the public domain, and thus readily accessible for little cost. The absurdly long copyright terms are the problem; these workarounds are band-aids.
wii U is huge LOL
You wouldn't lose this one, the security guard special.
The constitutional amendment that abolished prohibition also put the power to regulate alcohol back into the hands of the states. You can't legally bring alcohol into some states from other states for consumption or sale. Yes, de facto it's not risky to bring a bottle of wine from NJ to grandma's house in PA, but de jure it's illegal.
Some socialists may be surprised to find some like-minded people among the communists and fascists. What does that say to you?
Thanks, moderators, for PROVING THE ENTIRE POINT of this article. Proof.