Decriminalizing drugs -> less cost -> less theft required to sustain habit.
(OT: It also cuts down on all ancillary crime: gangs fighting over control of drug distribution networks, etc. Moreover, it allows the government to simultaneously decrease costs (because they no longer have to hunt down and arrest people for possessing or selling drugs, nor do we have to build and maintain prisons to hold them) and increase revenue (we can tax the drugs just like we do for cigarettes and alcohol).)
You're probably better off using <blockquote> instead. I've never had any trouble with it, and it's more semantically correct since it's a block-level element (<quote> is for short quotes and is supposed to be rendered inline).
If you make a derivative work, such as adding a C-SPAN logo, or translating the file into a new format, you own the copyright on it.
I call BS. Adding a logo isn't transformative enough to make the result a derivative work. I could see C-SPAN going after you for trademark infringement, but not copyright infringement.
First of all, I don't think he'll come close anyway. Second, after Lincoln and FDR shot states' rights all to Hell, there's nothing left to break.
It's the Second Amendment we have to worry about with Obama. (Well, and the Interstate Commerce Clause wrt health care and bailouts, but that's already shot to Hell too anyway.)
I don't think most people here (aside from idiots like Kohath) think FISA is constitutional; I think they just consider it to be less unconstitutional than wiretapping without ever bothering to get a warrant at all.
You could attempt to rationalize it by saying that if the search turned out to be unjustified, and a warrant were not issued, that any information found from that search could not be used as evidence. This line of reasoning is flawed for several reasons (e.g. authorities could try to use information found during an unwarranted search as probable cause for a second search; the information could be damaging even without being counted as evidence, such as in the "court of public opinion;" etc.).
This argument relies on pretending to know that warrants are always available for any situation where the conversation may be useful to save lives. Agents fighting terrorism will tell you they are not always available for those situations. People have died because no warrant was available in time.
That is a LIE.
Why? Because FISA already allowed warrants to be issued RETROACTIVELY. Or in other words, AFTER THE FACT. Or in other words, LATER. (Did I repeat myself enough?)
But that wasn't good enough for Bush, because he SPECIFICALLY wanted to be able to wiretap people that he KNEW he did not have probable cause to surveil, and for which the warrant would be DENIED!
It's not possible to be more blatantly unconstitutional than that!
Also, there's no need for an "anything goes with no consequences, ever" policy. No one has proposed such a policy. A policy requiring independent, after-the-fact oversight and examination of the choices of the agents involved would be adequate. Also, any evidence gathered would be excluded from court proceedings.
WTF?!! You're completely ignorant of the situation, because that's EXACTLY what this whole fucking thing is about!
What you describe is the way FISA worked before Bush's "warrantless wiretapping!" What Bush is trying to demand is a system that has no oversight at all.
If agents were found to be malicious, they could face charges. If they were found to be careless, they could face discipline. If they made an honest mistake, they could be told to be more careful next time.
What part of "amnesty" do you not understand? The EFF is trying to do exactly what you propose: call for discipline and charges for careless and malicious agents. And Bush is trying to prevent that from happening!!!!!
Of course terrorists don't have the same constitutional rights as US citizens (provided they are indeed foreign and on foreign soil and all that)
O RLY?
Please cite the clause in the Bill of Rights where it says that it applies to "citizens" or "people in U.S. territory." Here's a hint: you won't find it, because the Bill of Rights affirms rights of all people, everywhere!
The NRA works to defend the 2nd Amendment; the ACLU works to defend the other nine (in the Bill of Rights). I see nothing wrong with this, except that the ACLU ought to care about #2 too.
I think Lincoln raped our constitution pretty hard with regard to interpretation the voluntary nature of statehood, state sovereignty, 9th & 10th amendments, and eminent domain to just name a few.
I agree -- he and FDR were the worst presidents with regards to federalism/states' rights.
One man, perhaps, might see killing people to save money as reasonable pragmatism. But not a lot more. And thankfully we have laws and cops to keep people like you from acting on your notions.
There's a difference between normal people and people who have been convicted of capital crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
And on top of all that, it does you absolutely no good (up to this point) if you use a carrier other than T-Mobile.
Pay-as-you-go tends to have higher per-minute costs than monthly plans.
I'm well aware of that, which is why I specifically said "air-cooled" and did not say "New Beetle."
In fact, my girlfriend owns a New Beetle TDI, and it is indeed complex and finicky about poor maintenance.
Why? DRM on the PC may be bad, but consoles are completely locked!
I want console gaming to die!
And they wouldn't be -- it'd be the pharmacist's job to provide the guns, not yours. See, it all works out! : )
Hmm... water plus a lithium battery -- I don't think that's going to turn out quite the way you hoped!
Your Insight is water-cooled. Therefore, you should sell it [to me] and buy an air-cooled VW Beetle.
: )
Why? Did he not have enough insurance or did they weasel out of the claim?
You forgot about tobacco and caffeine.
Decriminalizing drugs -> less cost -> less theft required to sustain habit.
(OT: It also cuts down on all ancillary crime: gangs fighting over control of drug distribution networks, etc. Moreover, it allows the government to simultaneously decrease costs (because they no longer have to hunt down and arrest people for possessing or selling drugs, nor do we have to build and maintain prisons to hold them) and increase revenue (we can tax the drugs just like we do for cigarettes and alcohol).)
What makes PEX better than copper?
And even despite that, pennies now cost more than a cent to make!
You're probably better off using <blockquote> instead. I've never had any trouble with it, and it's more semantically correct since it's a block-level element (<quote> is for short quotes and is supposed to be rendered inline).
I call BS. Adding a logo isn't transformative enough to make the result a derivative work. I could see C-SPAN going after you for trademark infringement, but not copyright infringement.
HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah right! Oh man, that's funny.
Now, back in reality, university research gets commercialized by the university, and the public be damned!
First of all, I don't think he'll come close anyway. Second, after Lincoln and FDR shot states' rights all to Hell, there's nothing left to break.
It's the Second Amendment we have to worry about with Obama. (Well, and the Interstate Commerce Clause wrt health care and bailouts, but that's already shot to Hell too anyway.)
I don't think most people here (aside from idiots like Kohath) think FISA is constitutional; I think they just consider it to be less unconstitutional than wiretapping without ever bothering to get a warrant at all.
You could attempt to rationalize it by saying that if the search turned out to be unjustified, and a warrant were not issued, that any information found from that search could not be used as evidence. This line of reasoning is flawed for several reasons (e.g. authorities could try to use information found during an unwarranted search as probable cause for a second search; the information could be damaging even without being counted as evidence, such as in the "court of public opinion;" etc.).
That is a LIE.
Why? Because FISA already allowed warrants to be issued RETROACTIVELY. Or in other words, AFTER THE FACT. Or in other words, LATER. (Did I repeat myself enough?)
But that wasn't good enough for Bush, because he SPECIFICALLY wanted to be able to wiretap people that he KNEW he did not have probable cause to surveil, and for which the warrant would be DENIED!
It's not possible to be more blatantly unconstitutional than that!
WTF?!! You're completely ignorant of the situation, because that's EXACTLY what this whole fucking thing is about!
What you describe is the way FISA worked before Bush's "warrantless wiretapping!" What Bush is trying to demand is a system that has no oversight at all.
What part of "amnesty" do you not understand? The EFF is trying to do exactly what you propose: call for discipline and charges for careless and malicious agents. And Bush is trying to prevent that from happening!!!!!
Then you can get a fucking warrant to do the surveillance legally!
O RLY?
Please cite the clause in the Bill of Rights where it says that it applies to "citizens" or "people in U.S. territory." Here's a hint: you won't find it, because the Bill of Rights affirms rights of all people, everywhere!
The NRA works to defend the 2nd Amendment; the ACLU works to defend the other nine (in the Bill of Rights). I see nothing wrong with this, except that the ACLU ought to care about #2 too.
I agree -- he and FDR were the worst presidents with regards to federalism/states' rights.
Hey, don't count Bush out yet -- he's still got a good two months to make it happen!
So, now they're going to get started on Opposing Force, right? ; )
There's a difference between normal people and people who have been convicted of capital crimes.