Nope. No problems come from it. The issue is that there is no environmental pressure. When the zombie apocalypse comes, those of "inferior" genes will be among the first culled.
In the US, it is not legal to ask someone if they can pay before providing emergency medical treatment.
But in the US, I had my wallet taken from me without my permission or knowledge, and rummaged through. They held my insurance card and credit card for payment, and notified me as I was leaving. I have no idea what the response would have been if I had no wallet, but I know they did search for proof of payment before treating me. The cop who came to speak to me about the accident knew about it and didn't do anything, so I'd presume it to be legal. He got my ID from the hospital who was holding my wallet.
If it isn't an emergency, WTF are you doing in the Emergency Room?
If you have no preventative cover, you wait for it to be an emergency, or claim minor things are an emergency. You can't afford anything else, so might as well try for care, even if they'll refuse you emergency care.
They "proved" a crime to the satisfaction of a judge, and multiple appeals judges.
They had proof he hid money. He had no proof he lost the money he hid. So, to the court's satisfaction, he had committed fraud, and the contempt charge was to compel a confession.
If he thinks you're lying, he can lock you up for contempt to "jog your memory". IIRC there is no limit to how long this can go on. It's a shitty thing to happen if you legitimately don't remember your safe combo. But it's nothing anywhere CLOSE to new.
Like the lawyer who admitted "hiding" $2.5M from his wife, but when the divorce came to court, claimed he could no longer get it back. The judge didn't believe that someone would "lose" $2.5M with no records, but he claimed that the place he sent it overseas "lost" it and was shady enough of an operation that they refused to cooperate to validate or invalidate his story.
The judge ruled that fanciful, so he was held for 14 years in contempt. He was released when it was determined that further holding held no coercive function.
If he had just said "Of course I destroyed that $2.5M. I burned it so the bitch couldn't get it" he might have been more believable and not served time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... for one reference. The rest is remembered by me from news of the time. I was mid 20s when he was first held in contempt.
More like the actual Miranda rights should be read off as "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, you may not claim it later."
He talked, then was compelled for something related after. The courts claim that the 5th doesn't protect him because he already waived it. He can't claim it back.
More like subpoenaing the papers that prove your fraud. When you don't provide them, they throw you in jail for contempt. It's been done before. You can be compelled to provide incriminating evidence. That's how the current rules work.
They should just subpoena the files they believe exists on it, and throw him in jail forever if he doesn't provide them. That's how it works for paper, and there's no reason we should do it differently for digital.
The idea that you would join a society dedicated to separating you from "regular people" based on your supposed superior intelligence is a pretty strange notion. Most of the people who I know are Mensa members are the type that couldn't get accepted to any other club.
The Mensa groups I attended (in more than one area) were more like bridge clubs. They sat around and played games, while gossiping. They didn't interest me.
I've seen a number of elevated monorails. Aside from the ones that are actual train size non-monorail monorail systems (I've seen them mainly at amusement parks), the "real" ones have a small shadow. They don't lead to the urban blight you wrongly accuse them of.
More like the teabaggers. Rather than just accepting it as an inconsequential error, the Bible thumpers insist the literal word, some evern going so far as to say pi=3, like the teabaggers who printed "official" materials with "teabagger" on them insisting that the name came only from people insulting them, and they never used it.
Nah, if you want to do it without getting caught, you break into other people's cars and plant the transmitter. Let them run the jammer around. No chance of getting caught by the FCC, just the police for criminal mischief.
East Dallas north of 30 was "lower Greenville" up until it was "Deep Ellum". South of 30 was "Fair Park".
Quando vivia en dallas, hable espanol. My Mexican friends lived by Love Field. II never had any problems with race in Dallas. South Dallas was all black. But I haven't lived in Dallas in 10+ years.
I know plenty of people that would call Puff n Stuff "Oak Lawn" because Fitzhugh starts in Oak Lawn proper, even if the other end isn't anywhere near Oak Lawn. But my circle would have called it Lower Greenville. Though looking, there are references to it being called Old East Dallas, but I've never heard anyone call it that. But I didn't live near there. I'm from North Dallas (Prestonwood, to be more specific). So my lexicon may not have matched someone who lived closer to that area.
I went to high school at L.G. Pinkston. Walked to a friend's house from there (through the projects), people came out of their house to look at the white guy. I was probably the only non-government employee white guy some of them had seen. But I never felt unsafe. I stayed away from South Oak Cliff.
https://www.aclu.org/national-... I guess being US military personnel associates one with being a lunatic extremest. 4 of those on the list were veterans.
CHMSL. You undermine your own argument when it's so poorly thought out that you couldn't even use the right terminology or do a simple search to find the actual years you are referring to.
Most people who have studied it believe the reason was that the third brake light was something strikingly different from what people were used to, and caused them to pay more attention to the lights - but then people got used to it and the benefits of the third brake light went away.
This effect was known before the CHMSL was mandated. The research showed that having body-colored lamp covers (still shine red, but not noticably lights when off) would remove this effect. But the American makers argued that dead Americans don't matter to them, and the aesthetics of their cars are more important than a few dead customers.
They argued this in front of Congress.
You seemed to talk like you were around at the time to witness this, but forgot the details. Given that you remember none of the actual details, I can only presume you are younger than you are trying to appear.
The same thing is apparent with texting-while-driving laws. Accidents go down a little when the law is first enacted, then go back up afterward.
They don't work because people don't follow the law. They move from "safe texting" (holding it up at the wheel-level to see both the phone and the road at the same time), to lap-texting, holding the phone so it isn't visible from outside the car, but reducing the ability to see both the road and the phone at the same time.
Anti texting laws don't seem to have much effect on texting, only the visibility of it.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea of vigilantes.
Why do people keep calling him a vigilante? He disrupted the radios of first responders, and the calls of people on hands-free. Neither of those groups is breaking the law, so a vigilante, defined as, "a member of a self-appointed group that undertakes law enforcement without legal authority." doesn't apply. He wasn't enforcing the law. He was breaking it to harm those who weren't breaking it. Road Nazi maybe, but he didn't even get to vigilante status.
So you have a problem with dope turning your neighborhood into a hell pit. All of a sudden you start finding users and sellers hanging from street lamps. The problem goes away! The cops can't do that.
What this guy did was more akin to hanging anyone he saw from a street lamp. Drug selling may go down in the neighborhood because even the dopers don't like the smell, but that doesn't make random serial killing with a goal of crime reduction "vigilantism". It's just law breaking without any actual legal enforcement, even if it leads to a "greater good".
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. No problems come from it. The issue is that there is no environmental pressure. When the zombie apocalypse comes, those of "inferior" genes will be among the first culled.
It always has been. Name a government that doesn't restrict who you can marry.
In the US, it is not legal to ask someone if they can pay before providing emergency medical treatment.
But in the US, I had my wallet taken from me without my permission or knowledge, and rummaged through. They held my insurance card and credit card for payment, and notified me as I was leaving. I have no idea what the response would have been if I had no wallet, but I know they did search for proof of payment before treating me.
The cop who came to speak to me about the accident knew about it and didn't do anything, so I'd presume it to be legal. He got my ID from the hospital who was holding my wallet.
If it isn't an emergency, WTF are you doing in the Emergency Room?
If you have no preventative cover, you wait for it to be an emergency, or claim minor things are an emergency. You can't afford anything else, so might as well try for care, even if they'll refuse you emergency care.
They "proved" a crime to the satisfaction of a judge, and multiple appeals judges.
They had proof he hid money. He had no proof he lost the money he hid. So, to the court's satisfaction, he had committed fraud, and the contempt charge was to compel a confession.
Plenty of people have received subpoenas for things that incriminate themselves. They provide it, or go to jail for contempt.
It would be interesting if a similar case could be constructed with an un-cuttable physical lock, but of course such things do not exist...
They do, if you have a sufficiently booby-trapped safe. If broken open, it destroys the contents.
If he thinks you're lying, he can lock you up for contempt to "jog your memory". IIRC there is no limit to how long this can go on. It's a shitty thing to happen if you legitimately don't remember your safe combo. But it's nothing anywhere CLOSE to new.
Like the lawyer who admitted "hiding" $2.5M from his wife, but when the divorce came to court, claimed he could no longer get it back. The judge didn't believe that someone would "lose" $2.5M with no records, but he claimed that the place he sent it overseas "lost" it and was shady enough of an operation that they refused to cooperate to validate or invalidate his story.
The judge ruled that fanciful, so he was held for 14 years in contempt. He was released when it was determined that further holding held no coercive function.
If he had just said "Of course I destroyed that $2.5M. I burned it so the bitch couldn't get it" he might have been more believable and not served time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... for one reference. The rest is remembered by me from news of the time. I was mid 20s when he was first held in contempt.
If the government serves you with a search warranty for your paper files you do not go and collect them into a box and hand them over.
Subpoena then. For a subpoena, you do collect them in a box and hand them over.
More like the actual Miranda rights should be read off as "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, you may not claim it later."
He talked, then was compelled for something related after. The courts claim that the 5th doesn't protect him because he already waived it. He can't claim it back.
More like subpoenaing the papers that prove your fraud. When you don't provide them, they throw you in jail for contempt. It's been done before. You can be compelled to provide incriminating evidence. That's how the current rules work.
They should just subpoena the files they believe exists on it, and throw him in jail forever if he doesn't provide them. That's how it works for paper, and there's no reason we should do it differently for digital.
They ask for the contents of the safe (or volume). By valid subpoena. When you don't provide them, they can throw you in jail forever.
That's how it works with physical items. Why do you want special treatment for digital files above paper ones?
Can they compel you to unlock a safe?
Yes. They just have to ask differently.
A safe Deposit box?
Yes, they just have to ask differently.
While authorities can get into these without your help, what if they couldn't?
Then they'd put you in jail for contempt. It's happened before.
Electronic information is directly analogous to paper. Information is information regardless of how its stored.
Nobody has said otherwise. Well, except for the people deliberately trying to confuse the issue.
Certainly not while you are there.
The idea that you would join a society dedicated to separating you from "regular people" based on your supposed superior intelligence is a pretty strange notion. Most of the people who I know are Mensa members are the type that couldn't get accepted to any other club.
The Mensa groups I attended (in more than one area) were more like bridge clubs. They sat around and played games, while gossiping. They didn't interest me.
I've seen a number of elevated monorails. Aside from the ones that are actual train size non-monorail monorail systems (I've seen them mainly at amusement parks), the "real" ones have a small shadow. They don't lead to the urban blight you wrongly accuse them of.
More like the teabaggers. Rather than just accepting it as an inconsequential error, the Bible thumpers insist the literal word, some evern going so far as to say pi=3, like the teabaggers who printed "official" materials with "teabagger" on them insisting that the name came only from people insulting them, and they never used it.
Reality trumps ideology.
So TV is prostitution? Legal if you do it yourself, but illegal to pay someone else to do for you?
The curiosity there is that the Constitution doesn't give them this power
Common Law gives them this power, and the US uses common law, not civil law, as do most places founded by the English.
Yup, like ruling that pi = 3, but only in Indiana.
Nah, if you want to do it without getting caught, you break into other people's cars and plant the transmitter. Let them run the jammer around. No chance of getting caught by the FCC, just the police for criminal mischief.
East Dallas north of 30 was "lower Greenville" up until it was "Deep Ellum". South of 30 was "Fair Park".
Quando vivia en dallas, hable espanol. My Mexican friends lived by Love Field. II never had any problems with race in Dallas. South Dallas was all black. But I haven't lived in Dallas in 10+ years.
I know plenty of people that would call Puff n Stuff "Oak Lawn" because Fitzhugh starts in Oak Lawn proper, even if the other end isn't anywhere near Oak Lawn. But my circle would have called it Lower Greenville. Though looking, there are references to it being called Old East Dallas, but I've never heard anyone call it that. But I didn't live near there. I'm from North Dallas (Prestonwood, to be more specific). So my lexicon may not have matched someone who lived closer to that area.
I went to high school at L.G. Pinkston. Walked to a friend's house from there (through the projects), people came out of their house to look at the white guy. I was probably the only non-government employee white guy some of them had seen. But I never felt unsafe. I stayed away from South Oak Cliff.
https://www.aclu.org/national-... I guess being US military personnel associates one with being a lunatic extremest. 4 of those on the list were veterans.
CHMSL. You undermine your own argument when it's so poorly thought out that you couldn't even use the right terminology or do a simple search to find the actual years you are referring to.
Most people who have studied it believe the reason was that the third brake light was something strikingly different from what people were used to, and caused them to pay more attention to the lights - but then people got used to it and the benefits of the third brake light went away.
This effect was known before the CHMSL was mandated. The research showed that having body-colored lamp covers (still shine red, but not noticably lights when off) would remove this effect. But the American makers argued that dead Americans don't matter to them, and the aesthetics of their cars are more important than a few dead customers.
They argued this in front of Congress.
You seemed to talk like you were around at the time to witness this, but forgot the details. Given that you remember none of the actual details, I can only presume you are younger than you are trying to appear.
The same thing is apparent with texting-while-driving laws. Accidents go down a little when the law is first enacted, then go back up afterward.
They don't work because people don't follow the law. They move from "safe texting" (holding it up at the wheel-level to see both the phone and the road at the same time), to lap-texting, holding the phone so it isn't visible from outside the car, but reducing the ability to see both the road and the phone at the same time.
Anti texting laws don't seem to have much effect on texting, only the visibility of it.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea of vigilantes.
Why do people keep calling him a vigilante? He disrupted the radios of first responders, and the calls of people on hands-free. Neither of those groups is breaking the law, so a vigilante, defined as, "a member of a self-appointed group that undertakes law enforcement without legal authority." doesn't apply. He wasn't enforcing the law. He was breaking it to harm those who weren't breaking it. Road Nazi maybe, but he didn't even get to vigilante status.
So you have a problem with dope turning your neighborhood into a hell pit. All of a sudden you start finding users and sellers hanging from street lamps. The problem goes away! The cops can't do that.
What this guy did was more akin to hanging anyone he saw from a street lamp. Drug selling may go down in the neighborhood because even the dopers don't like the smell, but that doesn't make random serial killing with a goal of crime reduction "vigilantism". It's just law breaking without any actual legal enforcement, even if it leads to a "greater good".