Not really. The article is wrong. There was a picture of the statement on CNN - they debited his account, it showed he was overdrawn by that amount. Not as good a story, I suppose.
You can presumably afford a printer, or even pay for web hosting. Lots of people do.
I'll back off on my statement that the NY Times, as a corporation, has any rights. Just because people form together in a contractual relationship for common speech, doesn't mean that the state has to support that relationship with special perqs, like the tax advantaged status or limitations on liability offered by incorporation. There is no right to form a corporation, and there being no such right, the state has the power to specify to what ends a corporation may be used. That in no way infringes on any rights. People may still speak collectively.
"Is the New York Times protected by the freedom of the press?"
Yes, because they are the press. But a corporation which pays for the press to run advertisements is not the press. How many cigarette ads do you see on TV? Have you argued that RJR's free speech rights have been violated? Does a corporation also get the right to vote? I have an LLC with no income, can it apply for food stamps under the "equal protection" clause?
"Citizens United held (correctly) that people don't lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they've exercised their right to peacefully assemble."
No, it found that corporations have free speech rights. It most definitely did NOT say that you lose rights because you own part of a corporation. You can have assemblies outside of an artificial corporate (or union or other legal) construct. Owning part of a corporation in no way precludes a person's individual right to speech or their collective right to assembly.
The flaw in your logic (and Kelo) is that you don't have to form a corporate entity in order to exercise common speech. Corporations are artificial legal constructs, which are given special treatment - liability, taxes, etc. Since they are legal constructs, they should be subject to legal constraints, including constraints on speech. There is nothing in that which restricts the free speech of individuals, or groups of individuals.
Clearly, the DOJ does think a warrant is needed - which is why they got one from a secret court. Without that, they would have had to rely upon the voluntary cooperation of the carriers to provide the information. Where a warrant is needed, the 4th applies, specifically the requirement for probable cause.
So, what they're really arguing is that the Constitutional requirement of probable cause doesn't apply - something with no case history to support it, AFAICT.
The Supremes are full of such disingenuous logic. The Supreme Court is also the biggest failure of our Constitution. As a federation of States, it should have consisted of something akin to a rotating collection of State justices. The Feds deciding what the Feds can do provides no real check on Federal power. When the Supremes say that "red is green," that's what it is, no matter how obvious that error is to the people. And there's no Constitutional provision to recall or remove them for decisions which clearly offend common sense and logic.
They've ruled that blacks aren't citizens (Dred Scott), that corporations are (Citizens United), that growing a garden is Interstate Commerce (Wickard v. Filburn), and that taking private property and giving it to another private party is "public use" (Kelo).
Their position is most likely based on Smith v. Maryland (5-3), which allowed the warrantless use of pen registers.
However, pen registers only record the time, length and number called by the person being monitored. Cell phone records greatly expand the types of data gathered, adding location, incoming numbers (CID/ANI), types of "calls" (voice/SMS/data).
In Smith v Maryland, they ruled out applying the 4th for a few reasons:
(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347. Pp. 442 U. S. 739-741.
With regard to privacy expectations, they found:
(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does, in fact, record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone, rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435. Pp. 442 U. S. 741-746.
One significant difference these days is that most cell phone carriers have explicit, contractual privacy policies, which do provide a reasonable expectation of privacy (the ruling does address assumptions of privacy, but not explicit promises). And, different from that ruling, the caller does not voluntarily expose location information to the phone company. If one chooses not to have CID (or has no choice), they are not voluntarily exposing calling party information.
It's news for an ordinary audience, not pilots. "Spin" is an entirely appropriate term for laymen in this case - it implies exactly what is meant. If you say the plane groundlooped, they're going to think something more like a cartwheel.
The GP was talking about the subject of this whole thread - an Ikea designed shelter which was designed specifically to hold up to the environment better than the tents currently being used.
Slashdot Mirror
He simply said "servers." Most of them could be VMs running on a much smaller number of hosts.
Not really. The article is wrong. There was a picture of the statement on CNN - they debited his account, it showed he was overdrawn by that amount. Not as good a story, I suppose.
"I simply don't have access to the press?"
You can presumably afford a printer, or even pay for web hosting. Lots of people do.
I'll back off on my statement that the NY Times, as a corporation, has any rights. Just because people form together in a contractual relationship for common speech, doesn't mean that the state has to support that relationship with special perqs, like the tax advantaged status or limitations on liability offered by incorporation. There is no right to form a corporation, and there being no such right, the state has the power to specify to what ends a corporation may be used. That in no way infringes on any rights. People may still speak collectively.
"Is the New York Times protected by the freedom of the press?"
Yes, because they are the press. But a corporation which pays for the press to run advertisements is not the press. How many cigarette ads do you see on TV? Have you argued that RJR's free speech rights have been violated? Does a corporation also get the right to vote? I have an LLC with no income, can it apply for food stamps under the "equal protection" clause?
"Citizens United held (correctly) that people don't lose their 1st amendment rights simply because they've exercised their right to peacefully assemble."
No, it found that corporations have free speech rights. It most definitely did NOT say that you lose rights because you own part of a corporation. You can have assemblies outside of an artificial corporate (or union or other legal) construct. Owning part of a corporation in no way precludes a person's individual right to speech or their collective right to assembly.
Why doesn't a corporation get to vote?
There's no need to form a corporation in order to pool money to pay for ads.
The flaw in your logic (and Kelo) is that you don't have to form a corporate entity in order to exercise common speech. Corporations are artificial legal constructs, which are given special treatment - liability, taxes, etc. Since they are legal constructs, they should be subject to legal constraints, including constraints on speech. There is nothing in that which restricts the free speech of individuals, or groups of individuals.
I'll add to my comment.
Clearly, the DOJ does think a warrant is needed - which is why they got one from a secret court. Without that, they would have had to rely upon the voluntary cooperation of the carriers to provide the information. Where a warrant is needed, the 4th applies, specifically the requirement for probable cause.
So, what they're really arguing is that the Constitutional requirement of probable cause doesn't apply - something with no case history to support it, AFAICT.
The Supremes are full of such disingenuous logic. The Supreme Court is also the biggest failure of our Constitution. As a federation of States, it should have consisted of something akin to a rotating collection of State justices. The Feds deciding what the Feds can do provides no real check on Federal power. When the Supremes say that "red is green," that's what it is, no matter how obvious that error is to the people. And there's no Constitutional provision to recall or remove them for decisions which clearly offend common sense and logic.
They've ruled that blacks aren't citizens (Dred Scott), that corporations are (Citizens United), that growing a garden is Interstate Commerce (Wickard v. Filburn), and that taking private property and giving it to another private party is "public use" (Kelo).
"What the actual fuck are these people still doing alive?"
Blackmun, Burger, White, Rehnquist, Stevens, Stewart, Marshall (Powell recused). All dead except Stevens, and he dissented.
However, pen registers only record the time, length and number called by the person being monitored. Cell phone records greatly expand the types of data gathered, adding location, incoming numbers (CID/ANI), types of "calls" (voice/SMS/data).
In Smith v Maryland, they ruled out applying the 4th for a few reasons:
With regard to privacy expectations, they found:
One significant difference these days is that most cell phone carriers have explicit, contractual privacy policies, which do provide a reasonable expectation of privacy (the ruling does address assumptions of privacy, but not explicit promises). And, different from that ruling, the caller does not voluntarily expose location information to the phone company. If one chooses not to have CID (or has no choice), they are not voluntarily exposing calling party information.
Phrenology, revised edition.
But the landing sites are really a sound stage at Area 51 in Nevada.
"an autonomous system that is operated over an Iridium satellite connection."
Is it autonomous, or is it remotely operated?
MS is the new IBM.
Apple is the new MS.
Google is the new Apple.
IBM is the new Google.
What goes around, comes around. Except for Dell and HP(/Compaq/DEC). They're just dead. (Agilent is the new HP)
I was gonna say "pics, or it didn't happen." Video works, thanks.
You're incorrect.
It's news for an ordinary audience, not pilots. "Spin" is an entirely appropriate term for laymen in this case - it implies exactly what is meant. If you say the plane groundlooped, they're going to think something more like a cartwheel.
Except the uncommanded engine rollback problem was traced to an issue with Rolls-Royce Trent 895 engines.
This plane had Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engines.
He said "cartwheel" when he meant "spin." I suspect he meant "rudder" when he said "tail," and "elevator" when he said "wing."
It removes any legitimacy that the US might be able to claim under international law or aviation convention.
For instance, the Convention on International Civil Aviation only allows forcing a plane to land when it enters state's territory.
That would be a direct act of war - intercepting a foreign flag airliner in international airspace.
Sounds more like a major political party convention.
"You are pretty wrong."
Whoosh.
The GP was talking about the subject of this whole thread - an Ikea designed shelter which was designed specifically to hold up to the environment better than the tents currently being used.
That's hardly comparable. Try putting one of those in a 2x1x.5 meter box which can be carried by two people, like the Ikea shelter.