Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.
I hear this a lot, but I don't buy it. My right to be secure in my person against unreasonable searches by government agents shall not be violated. Full stop. I don't see anything in the fourth amendment saying "except when I choose to fly on an airplane". As for whether the search is reasonable or not, that's for the airlines to decide. If they don't want their planes blown up, they'll hire private security to do strip searches -- perfectly constitutional, and then I'd buy your argument. When the government strip searches me without probable cause, it's a violation of my rights, end of story.
Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.
I don't like having a stranger's eyes on my genitals, much less their hands. No thanks, I still don't buy the argument.
Putting distracted people in control of a 2-ton machine hurtling down the concrete at 120mph relative speed to other 2-ton machines controlled by distracted people... what could go wrong?
Seriously, ANYTHING that distracts people from driving is dangerous. Booze, conversations, cell phones, fiddling with the radio. ANYTHING. I didn't know that having common sense was newsworthy...
Why is it ok for some people to have high paid jobs in IT, or sales or law, and enjoy listening to music thats free, whereas the people who actually make the music are forbidden from earning the money generated by their work?
Being an artist has ALWAYS been a great way to live your life and a crap way to earn a living. This is not an accident. Art has very little practical value: it doesn't catch fish, or keep you out of the rain, or keep you warm, or protect your family. Art makes you happy, and (man-made) happiness is always bought with disposable income.
Who think the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive and complete control over interstate commerce, read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause. Or if that's too dense, go to the Wikipedia article, although that's more confusing.
Well, I am a patent lawyer. Don't go to slashdot for legal advice.
When you have a serious problem, you hire a professional in that field. People don't go to lawyers when they want code, why should they go to coders when they want legal help?
It's time to drop the idea of the government being somehow separate from the people and grant all citizens access to all governmental information.
Although it's cliche, unlike all the drummed-up BS that the Bush administration and the media like to feed you, opening up all government information really would benefit terrorists and others who wish us harm. Names and assignments of undercover agents and their contacts, methods for gathering intelligence, crypto we've broken, crypto we haven't, nuclear weapons locations and quantities, military equipment budgets, troop movement plans... these are not things you want just anyone to know. If they do, people die. Sorry, but some information really, really doesn't want to be free.
Of course, United States citizens talking on the phone (usually) doesn't come anywhere close to posing these kinds of dangers. If there really is a threat, well, that's the whole point of having a FISA court with the power to grant warrants (even after the fact). But this mass wiretapping program is domestic spying, pure and simple. Bush and his supporters should be punished severely for running this program.
Factual newspaper articles on science are boring as hell. That doesn't draw readers, so journalists dig up (or invent) intrigue. I'm shocked no one has mentioned this yet.
Next time, please read before posting. Oh wait, I must be new here.
In some embodiments, the cosmic ray detector detects the debris tract of a cosmic ray. In some embodiments, the cosmic ray detector includes large, distributed P-N junctions to gather charge. In some embodiments, the cosmic ray detector includes optical cosmic ray detectors embedded into some optically clear supporting insulator such as diamond thermal spreaders. For example, one million electron-hole pairs may create a large number of recombination photons. In some embodiments, a scintillator panel (which gives off small flashes of light (photons) when a charge particle passes through it), a light guide to direct light from the scintillator, and photon detectors may be used.
In some embodiments, the cosmic ray detectors include an array of micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). MEMS cosmic ray detectors may be an integration of mechanical elements, sensors, actuators, and electronics on a very small scale. The cosmic ray detectors may include tips or other strain detectors to detect the shockwave from the nuclear collision by means of acoustic waves propagating through the substrate.
If the founding fathers made it a right to own firearms, would they have done the same for the right to own and drive a car?
No, of course not. Back then, coming off a war with England where enemy soldiers could enter your land and burn down your house, a firearm was your first, best, and probably last line of defense. It was critical that each person have a firearm to defend themselves and their property. Cars have nothing to do with self defense. If there were cars in the 18th century, they wouldn't have been included in the Bill of Rights.
On that note, since the government is so fond of saying ZOMG TERRORISTS ARE COMING, shouldn't there be a big push for more personal firearms so that we can protect ourselves? No? Why not?
No, it's not. Explanations are not facts. The time I woke up this morning is a fact. What I had for breakfast is a fact. My height and weight are facts. Two flies reproduced and the offspring had a different genetic make-up -- fact. These objectively observable phenomena do not require explanations to exist. Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain facts. Therefore, it is not a fact.
For example dinosaurs used to exist and they don't now
We don't know for sure. The actual fact here is, some dusty archaeologist dug up some bones. Concluding that these bones belong to animals that used to be living is a fair bet, but it's not a fact. "God made fossils" would lead to the same archaeologist digging up the same bones. My point is, all we know for sure, the only real fact here, is that we've got some bones. Like I said, facts have an existence separate from any purported explanation of them, no matter how psychologically appealing that explanation might be.
Really, the dividing line is one of information and knowledge versus an actual real world device.
Which is why the Supreme Court said you can't patent an algorithm in the abstract, but you can patent a computer that runs the algorithm if it produces a "useful result". Linky to Diamond v. Diehr.
Ah, but if you start down that path, then you'll end up arresting people who write books on, say, how to rob a bank. Or how to build a nuclear bomb. Or how to [insert whatever activity you don't like]. And you're well on your way to book burnings and fascism. Thank God for the First Amendment.
Are you familiar with the fact that patent litigation takes YEARS, and millions of dollars? Sometimes a legitimate company may only be able to afford a single lawsuit at one time. The patent office can already reject your application on the ground of prosecution laches, and the court can rule an issued patent unenforceable due to laches for unreasonable delay. Actively suing someone else isn't unreasonable delay, so it can take many years before a patent holder gets around to suing you. I don't have a cite for that exact proposition, but I recall reading it while doing legitimate legal research. Also, read Symbol II and Symbol IV.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for posting AC, you heartless bastard, now I don't know who to send my dry cleaning bill to.
Actually, the Court overturned a portion of the Military Commissions Act, which was passed less than two years ago.
I'd go. Seriously. Sign me up.
Seriously, ANYTHING that distracts people from driving is dangerous. Booze, conversations, cell phones, fiddling with the radio. ANYTHING. I didn't know that having common sense was newsworthy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma. Learn to spot one.
Not every distro comes with 20 groups preinstalled. Or hadn't you tried more than 3 or 4?
Who think the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive and complete control over interstate commerce, read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause. Or if that's too dense, go to the Wikipedia article, although that's more confusing.
Next time, name your distro, mmk? There's only a few hundred of them to choose from.
Forget wikipedia, link to the actual text.
When you have a serious problem, you hire a professional in that field. People don't go to lawyers when they want code, why should they go to coders when they want legal help?
Of course, United States citizens talking on the phone (usually) doesn't come anywhere close to posing these kinds of dangers. If there really is a threat, well, that's the whole point of having a FISA court with the power to grant warrants (even after the fact). But this mass wiretapping program is domestic spying, pure and simple. Bush and his supporters should be punished severely for running this program.
Factual newspaper articles on science are boring as hell. That doesn't draw readers, so journalists dig up (or invent) intrigue. I'm shocked no one has mentioned this yet.
I'd be much more interested if Wikileaks was boycotting someone who didn't just shut down one of their domains.
On that note, since the government is so fond of saying ZOMG TERRORISTS ARE COMING, shouldn't there be a big push for more personal firearms so that we can protect ourselves? No? Why not?
Which is it?
Step 1: about:config
Step 2: general.useragent.extra.firefox=Netscape/6.2
Step 3: reload
Step 4: profit!
Ah, but if you start down that path, then you'll end up arresting people who write books on, say, how to rob a bank. Or how to build a nuclear bomb. Or how to [insert whatever activity you don't like]. And you're well on your way to book burnings and fascism. Thank God for the First Amendment.
Are you familiar with the fact that patent litigation takes YEARS, and millions of dollars? Sometimes a legitimate company may only be able to afford a single lawsuit at one time. The patent office can already reject your application on the ground of prosecution laches, and the court can rule an issued patent unenforceable due to laches for unreasonable delay. Actively suing someone else isn't unreasonable delay, so it can take many years before a patent holder gets around to suing you. I don't have a cite for that exact proposition, but I recall reading it while doing legitimate legal research. Also, read Symbol II and Symbol IV.