One of the problems I have seen is a little bit more confusing then a car backing into another car.
Suppose you were driving down the freeway and you were maintaining a good assured clear distance from the vehicle in front of you. Your in the right hand lane doing the speed limit, or perhaps the middle lane and faster traffic is moving around you in the left lanes like they are supposed to even though they are statutorily speeding. Now someone else in a big hurry who was texting their friend about being late for cocktails, changes lanes in front of you and erases that assured clear distance. So being a good driver, you decrease your speed to provide the proper distance again, then all the sudden, the driver in front of you looks away from their phone and notices they need to take the exist you are about to pass and slams on the brakes causing you to hit them. Now suppose all this happened within about 3 seconds or so time so there was no safe way for you to react any differently that could have avoided the accident.
I bring this up because the rear driver isn't always at fault by their own actions per se. I've seen that happen many times before on different highways all across the country. A lot of times, it happens to big rigs which also generally ends in major injuries and a highway that's locked up for hours.
I otherwise agree with you. But there are times when the acts of others remove the ability for responsible driving to exist for a short period of time. It's those times in which blaming the person behind you is really attacking the wrong person.
One of the problems with all or nothing attitudes like yours is that you don't seem to want to look beyond the apparent immediate.
What I mean is, suppose your right and a single rock being thrown can't seriously harm someone in full riot gear. I bow hunt and have found myself chasing a wounded deer through the woods in order to put it down because it didn't bleed out our I somehow missed my mark and didn't place a critical shot. Now how this connects is that the wounded deer is not capable of running (it's main defense) like it normally would which gives me an advantage in seeking it out and performing the final blow. So you take a wounded police officer or whatever and now nonthreatening things become seriously threatening things.
But moreover, when you allow a group of people to throw things, you don't know that it's just rocks and not plague infested puss bags or makeshift bombs, grenades, or whatever else that could be more serious even in your eyes, until after the fact which is not any way to protect your law enforcement or yourself.
Now I'm not here to defend the national guard in their shooting or the Israeli defense forces, I'm here to say that throwing rocks is more serious then you portrayed and whether you want to believe it or not, you can kill someone by doing it. I can see from a tactical perspective where allowing rocks to be thrown can deteriorate into a dead soldier or LEO pretty quick when something seriously more dangerous enters the arena.
You also have to remember that when Kent State happened, it was still legal to shoot a suspect that was only fleeing. It wasn't until the mid 1970's that the supreme court changed that causing the situations we know today. So when looking at the instance, you have to sort of view it from the perspective of the time or you won't get an accurate view of it.
I think the diamondoid reference was a Futurama joke. But seriously, either 3m or corning created a super strong glass they called gorilla glass back in the 50's or so. This would probably do more then what is needed here.
Yes, they call it Reasonable Suspicion, but suspicious behavior is unrelated to suspicion, right? A police officer can't satisfy Reasonable Suspicion by saying "he was suspicious" with nothing else. However, when the officer breaks down the suspicion to a number of discrete suspicions, it is allowable. "He acted suspiciously by asking for directions to a well known street, speaking with an accent, acting nervously, etc." is acceptable for Reasonable Suspicion. Additionally, you are referring specifically to a warrantless search. Requesting ID as directed by state law is not a warrantless search, so even if you were correct in the spirit of what was said, it is still 100% not applicable to this situation. But I guess making up things that aren't applicable is the best you can do.
Hogwash. You are making crap up here. In order for the police to use the specific events of someone acting suspiciously or to make that suspicious behavior cause for a search, the police officer has to connect the suspicious behavior to a crime he is lawfully pursuing. In other words, saying he acted suspiciously has to connect to a crime within the cop's jurisdiction in which makes the suspicious behavior notable more so then an ordinary person. Someone being taking off running when the cop rounds the corner is not enough for a search. But if they were investigating a mugging in which the runner match at least in part, the description of the mugger, then it's enough to focus on that individual. Try to learn about a Terry stop, and perhaps learn a little about the law outside of watching an episode of cops on your Friday night.
hose were the first three, picked because they are obviously popular, and they agree 100% with my statements. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you are wrong about me not reading about it and being an ass about it by accusing me of things I obviously am not guilty of. Perhaps you should read what's being written before claiming it would all agree with you.
Everyone knows that I have had several heated discussions in the past with the parent poster so it's not likely I'm coming to his defense out of love. But you have to at least read his damn post before going off. He said you need to "at least READ the law before you opine". I mean you even quoted that but you failed to link to anywhere in the law at all. So I have to ask, are you being willfully ignorant in order to maintain your incorrect opinion or is there something physically wrong with you that handicaps your judgment and we should make minor allowances for? Here are two separate links to the actual bill that was signed into law.
Nowhere in those bills (the law) does it say what you are attempting to make out. Furthermore, anyone with a valid ID is automatically presumed to be legal regardless of any other indication given by the person.
I picked those as the first three, not because they are better or worse than any others, but because they were the top three. Anyone else doing the same search would read those and get the impression I have.
What was the search terms you used? I mean if you searched for something like AZ law allows racial profiling, then sure, the first results are going to be by people who think the same. If you searched for Arizona immigration law, it would be different.
I'd like you to point out where in the Arizona Constitution where the power to make a signing statement is enumerated. Do so for the US Constitution as well, just for a comparison. I don't know the AZ Constitution as well, but I know that signing statements aren't in the US Constitution,
Well, I know anecdotal evidence means practically everything and Slate's research department is so thorough and concise that it's useless to argue against it, even after the writers expand on it and take things into their own context to prove a point that supports your view of Israel and Palestinian rock throwers.
Anyways, I was hit in the head with a rock once when I was 14. It was at camp and someone was throwing rocks over the side of a hill totally clueless that someone else may have been down hill. Well, as it turns out, the first rock he threw struck me in the back of the head slightly down from the top from a distance of about 75 feet and probably 45 foot in elevation. It took 16 stitches to to close up the wound/laceration, I was knocked off my feet and ended up falling another 10 or 15 feet downhill before another person grabbed me, and I suffered a Class II Hemorrhage which required a short stay in the hospital. We were taking a shortcut back from then horse stables and in an area that was posted as off limits because of how steep and dangerous it was.
If someone was attempting to do that on purpose, I would feel justified in attempting to shoot them as if I wasn't with people i was with and at a place where I could get reasonable medical attention in a short period of time, I could have bleed out and died on the spot. In my case, after about the third rock came over, everyone started yelling and then the kids throwing them paused and looked over the edge of the hill to see what was going on. They then ran and got the camp counselors who notified the camp nurse who was also a trauma rated paramedic. I also don't care about your personal instance of not getting injured when hit with a rock in the past as it says nothing about the seriousness of getting hit with a rock, just the seriousness of when you got hit with a rock.
Actually, those were 1970s solar water heating panels and weren't providing any power at all.
They were also removed to fix the roof and the costs were high to reinstalled them. Too costly was the excuse given by the administration. But of course that is after oil started flowing again and using other source to heat you water wasn't that expensive.
The Presidency has a Bully Pulpit which means symbolic acts can carry weight in calling attention to the issue, show that even the top executive officer of the land supports the idea of renewable energy and puts those ideas into action. The example is powerful and a signal that it is alright to do it, acceptible practice and supported practice in this administration.
This can backfire too. If the costs of the panels turn out to be more then any savings (in which anything done in government often can be), then all that will be remembered is how expensive they are and how much cheaper/cost effective other sources are. In short, Obama will be seen as someone willing to waste tax payer money for ideological reasons. At least when Carter put the solar in place, it was because alternative costs were more then the panels itself. Bush had solar installed in 2003 and no special endorsement or lack of was seen and there doesn't seem to be any fanfare for it.
I think it is instructive politically to note that President Reagan went to all the trouble and expense to remove what President Carter had started. Essentially getting the tax payer to pay for removing the collectors and obviously remove the acceptiblity from the standpoint of his administration.
Actually, the panels were removed outside of Reagan's control in order to do repairs to the white house roof and Reagan cited costs as to why they weren't reinstalled. What made them attractive during Carter was gone and we were recovering from massive problems during the Carter administration and starting a deficit spending spree under Reagan. Also, the panels were only for heating water, not for creating electricity. It's sort of foolish to attempt to compare the two situations or place any significance to them in the same light.
Carter had his cabinet travel "economy class" on airlines. Reagan brought back traveling "First Class" and use of government planes. You can see the shift in view from frugal responsible government to government by the Aristocracy.
Carter was an utter failure as a president. No one who was alive to experience his administration disagrees with that as even the democrats in congress fought him tooth and nail. I'm not sure your assumptions hold any water.
That was one of Reagan's goals, to bring back "Elegance" to the presidency. A common conservative view, "not on my house, not my daughter, not my son, not my money" idea which has held back any progress on so many fronts. We are all in this together, just not them. They are all in it together but only with their friends behind the gated community walls.
Where do you get this crap from? It's about cost effectiveness. If it's cheaper, it logical to us if. If it solves a real problem, it's logical to use it. If it's just a feel good thing, then it's ok for you to do it, just don't force anyone who doesn't want to. How in the hell do you get what you wrote?
Perhaps I misread something there. It's difficult reading your post without any paragraphs and so on. Please expand if I have.
Actually, your Government does that already. Unfortunately, it's not very good at it, and the outcome is usually the opposite.
Not in the way the parent was suggesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it strongly appears that he thinks that when we are about to go to war with some country, we stop and give them money instead. That's IMHO just retarded.
Of course, it's an absurdity to say that you pay a 'country'. A country is an intellectual construct, people who treat it as a thing are usually poor thinkers. No, you pay people, not countries, and those people may be the current government, if they are willing to do your country's bidding, or the soon-to-be-government-but-currently-terrorists-and-murderers in which case its more a case of supplying arms and intel.
I don't really disagree except that time and time again, paying someone for peace has proved to have peace that lasted until they wanted more. This was true when the french paid of the vikings, and when they attempted to become Hitlers buddies so it isn't some new concept either.
There you go again, confusing an intellectual construct with actual people.
As you stated previously, the government is a construct composed of people who run the thing. When you give something to the government, you are essentially giving it to the people running the government. I'm sorry that confuses you and you think it means others are poor thinkers, but it's only a logical extension and obvious statement.
The USG has given money to many people in Afghanistan. First, they gave money to the Taliban so they could win the cold war for you
First you accuse me of being a poor thinker then you make a stupid statement like this? I mean seriously, any simple google search would have shown you that the Taliban was not around when the US was funding the mujaheddin when Russia was at war with them and the mujaheddin is absolutely not the taliban. Perhaps you should stop and think about this yourself, maybe even learn about what in the hell you are talking about.
then they didn't like the Taliban any more so they gave money to the Northern Alliance, then they realized that there was no practical way to form a government without the support of the Pashtun majority, so they resumed aid to the Taliban, but not the bad Taliban, only the good Taliban, who are no longer called the Taliban because the Taliban are now bad/terrorists/Al Qaeda/something.
The taliban was not even a word in any vocabulary until 1995 and the US stopped funding what became the northern alliance after the soviets pulled out because we were afraid of Russian turning on us. What you just said there is either a complete fabrication, or the idiotic ranting of someone who can't follow a time line.
Strange how the people who bomb civilians are the good guys, and the ones fighting them are the terrorists. It's a mad mad world. But I digress.
You should digress. Your statement means nothing in reality without your fallacy supporting it.
Not to society, but there is for the individual.
Nope, not then either. Someone is paying for it as we do not live in some communist utopia where money or compensation for your efforts are unnecessary.
That depends on your definition of 'winning'. But if you were to nuke Iraq and Afghanistan until there was not one person left alive, I guess you could call that a 'win'. Might make it hard to get the oil from Iraq though.
Iraq probably should have been turned into a glass parking lot a long time ago. But you seem to be suffering from a major flaw here. You are assuming that the wars are about oil when only those apposed to the wars have made that claim. Perh
Read what I said, then read your own fucking link. Read especially the part that lists D.O.D funding at 721.3 billion and says it includes "Overseas Contingency Operations". Then look in the mirror and say fucktard again but really loud this time.
As I said, the wars are traditionally financed off budget in emergency spending. The only reason the military budget is as high as it is is directly because the war spending has been moved into the budget so the funding can be spent elsewhere after the wars are over. Fuck, why don't you read the entire page you linked to, it actually says exactly what I said.
Losing government jobs wouldn't be all that bad of a thing as long as the government services were being provided. In fact, losing most of the federal government services would likely be a good thing anyways.
Most all of the government services not specifically outlines in the constitution would be better served on a state and local level. The government is more responsive to the needs of the people there and it generally serves the people better all the way around. Think about it, people who want to get something changed on a federal level need to convince enough of the 300 or so million people in 49 other states to go along with their idea. People who want to change things on a state level only need to convince a couple million in 80 or so counties within their own state. further more, what is good for a densely populated state like California or New Jersey might not be good for a moderately populated state like Wyoming or Ohio.
This is also already taking into consideration that most federal programs that service the public directly is already administrated by the states and require a certain amount of state funding in order to receive the federal funding in the first place. In short, all it would be doing is cutting out some middle men and making it more effective to the public it serves.
Heck, just give 1% of the money saved as "incentives" to other countries so that they like you more, instead of bombing them.
Wow.. What complete and utter rubbish your post is. Are you seriously suggesting that we pay countries not to piss us off so we start a war with them? That's like giving the playground bully money before he threatens you. I mean seriously, when has bribing countries ever worked longer then it took for them to want more money? I mean look at what it did for France- they have a complex history of this NEVER WORKING.
But hell, why look at some country full of frogs when you can look at Afghanistan itself. Yes, we were giving Afghanistan money before we invaded it. So why didn't your plan work there?
Maybe if you stop from getting into expensive un-winnable foreign wars, propping up puppet states and general meddling in the Middle East and Afghanistan, you could save trillions of dollars easily, make less enemies, get "free" healthcare, better schools, lower taxes, more investment in science and RnD, send man to Mars etc. and as a bonus, save lives (your own and others)
Yea, there is no such thing as free health care, no such thing as un-winnable wars, and no such thing as saving money while spending it on science and RnD, send man to Mars etc or free health care. You essentially took the rant of the day, a bunch of wishes from different parts of the public interests groups, conflated them without any thought to the relationships with each other and the point you attempted to make, and them spouted them as if it was something practically achievable or actually possible. You remind me of the Monday morning quarterbacks at the office that say their coaching strategy would have won the game and when you inquire what that was, they reply with make touchdowns as if they are clueless of the mechanics of the game. Perhaps you are, perhaps you are confused. Perhaps English isn't your first language and you didn't say anything remotely close to what you thought you were saying. But what you said was an epic failure in the least.
OK.. FOr a minute there, I though you were trying to say something happened in the US that invalidated the constitutional double jeopardy clause. It's not that I don't doubt it would have happened, it's that I though I would have heard something about it before now.
In some (many?) places, failing to comply with a subpoena *is* contempt of court.
I guess it would depend on what the subpoena wanted. I can see someone not turning over something as being contempt of court. However in the long run, you are most likely facing charges of something like interfering with the courts or something. If you aren't in a court, it's probably interfering with a criminal investigation (if it's a criminal matter).
Some guy got 14 years or so because he didn't comply with a court order to put $2,000,000 in escrow. He claimed the money was lost in an investment and couldn't comply. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09192/983301-454.stm
Well, he didn't get 14 years, he was imprisoned for 14 years. The slight difference is where he was never sentenced but jailed. This case is interesting in that I wasn't aware civil matter judges had the power to place someone in an actual prison. Generally, they can only go to the county detention facility (or a federal detention facility if it's federal court but divorce shouldn't be in a federal court) until an official charge has been adjudicated against him.
On the surface, and without knowing all the facts, it sounds like he suffered from poor representation by his legal team (or perhaps attempted to defend himself) and an overly aggressive judge that abused his power beyond the scope it was ever intended to have. The contempt of court charge is only supposed to push someone into compliance with the order. It's not really a punishment else the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments require an indictment, impartiality, open and public trial (by your peers) and reasonable punishment without excessive fines. It seems as if the judge in this case either ignored that, or forgot that he sent the guy to jail in the first place.
You are most likely going to be better off to just write a program or script that makes a few files called "lookatme" along with a few registry entries and have them remove that.
Most virus' that you will find will tip the AV software. Almost all easy virus' will be automatically removed by it too. If you are not running some AV software, then your in a little trouble to begin with as you shouldn't be teaching people to run windows boxen without AV software.. Sure, you could probably set the AV software to ignore the file itself, but it likely wouldn't ignore the execution if it wasn't a strait up program that just wrote files (memory injection and process hiding techniques will most likely cause issues as most AV clients nowadays rely more on heuristics then actual signatures).
If I was you, I would write a script that makes a text file in the windows directory, the system directory, temp directory and maybe adds a few registry entries in the run portions of the registry. Perhaps one of the text files could read something like- "you have been pawned by the elite text virus" or something and have it open on start up. Perhaps put it on every other computer and have them search for how to remove it on the one next to them while working in pairs. Make a simple instruction on how to remove it by looking in the appropriate start up areas, looking in the common file target areas, and then finally by downloading a reverse script and running it that removes all traces of it.
Oh yea, surf for porn/ something as shady on each computer before you load the fake virus so part of the removal.disinfection process can be getting freely available tools like Adaware or malwarebytes and so on and it will find something to remove. If they aren't connected to the internet, then make sure the free tools are something that doesn't need an internet connection to download. You might also want to remove the AV software and have them simulate installing it afterward to ensure/instill that there should be some level of protection at all times.
You'd have to convince the cops that there is reasonable suspicion that the contents of the drives is illegal (which will involve telling them how you know). That's the necessary element that people are disregarding.
Actually, you could do that in the same way criminals use the proverbial "mules".
Just find someone in a third world country that has internet access and a daughter or son that's young. Have them send the cops in the other country a USB stick by mail with the encryption key on it and a letter claiming that on the USB stick is pictures of their kid that this guy requested over the internet claiming that this isn't the first time it's happened, just the first time you noticed it and want him prosecuted. Fake some emails that you print and send with the USB stick telling the kid how to find the encryption and what key to use.
Now the cops search his apartment, finds some USB sticks that are encrypted. He gets busted for not turning the key over, then the cops break the encryption and find pictures of some underage African boy that the cops can't find to contact because he moved into another village when he became rich with your $60 bribe.
Interestingly, all the key logging software needed is a simple microphone that records the sounds of the key strokes on the keyboard. Years ago, they were able to tell what keys are being typed and when by the sound of the keyboard.
It won't be indefinitely. Failing to comply with a subpoena or interfering with it's execution has a set time for jail terms and will be prosecuted accordingly.
Probably what you are thinking of is contempt of court in which a judge can throw someone into jail. There are limits to that too- but they are a bit more relaxed and you sometimes need a higher court to pretty much tell the lower court to stop doing it.
And your point is what? Defining pornographic images do not need to fit the legal definition of rape or anything else. The definition of child porn in the US and most allied countries who have signed treaties is under the age of 18.
Well, you have to acknowledge that Reagan was never in court (it was a senate comity) and he was diagnosed with Alzheimer disease that can explain the acting stupid, senile, or retarded part. I've even seen one so called doctor claim that the disease was apparent as early as his last 2 years in office.
If I were to win as Motorola, I would not only ask for lawyers fees (which could get big) as well as punitive damages. I would try to prove that MS knew they didn't have a case especially if it were to argue against itself early on that they did it for FUD. Judges generally do not like it when their courts are being used for things other than the pursuit of justice.
I agree. But I also think that some sort of outside suit could be taken against MS is this turns out to be true. It would seem to me that they could look for lost sales and other damages that might have occurred because of this as well as some potential causes of action from google or other organizations that offers phone software.
Yea, it's pocket change considering what it's doing. And no, the military does not have a 1 trillion dollar budget, it actually has a much lower budget which was more apparent before Obama took the war spending from off budget expenditures and put it in the budget. He did that so when the war spending ramped down, they could increase other spending claiming it won't cost more because it's coming from the military.
For the spending, the scope of the military is just fine. Well, that is unless your understanding of the military and what it is doing is limited to soundbites from political groups I guess.
While I agree with your overall point, I don't think it would necessarily apply here as they aren't really watering down the blood and guts part, just the names to protect the innocent of sorts parts. You are still going to get the blood and guts, your just not going to be labeled team Taliban or whatever now.
PS.. The names to protect the innocent isn't a statement that one side is innocent, it was just a play off the movies and TV shows that says "the events in this are real, just the name have been changed to protect the innocent" BS you get whenever their program is to close to the real thing.
Think smart bomb guided missile with no ordinary or known counter measures. You wouldn't necessarily need an Iphone app to do it, but simply rigging the autopilot of another aircraft that can match the speed or better then the aircraft being targeted and it's pretty much on an interception course. If it's easily done on an Iphone, it's probably easily done on a lot of other things -with or without the Iphone.
Then I pondered on exactly how knowing which plane is which is at all helpful. Any ideas anyone?
Ok, Suppose you know that some important person (senator, governor, CEO of company, whatever) is going to be flying someone and needs to be there at a certain time. Some will have a private jet, some will fly first class but it's publicity that makes terrorism work (if no one knows you blew up ten children, then all you did was kill ten kids instead of making your case known and frightening people into listening to your beefs). So lets say the CEO of Exxon is flying to Washington and where he will have a meeting with several congress critters who will then fly to the gulf to view the cleanup efforts. If you know they are supposed to be in Florida at a certain time, then you can simply guess which flights will take them there based on their availability. So now you have a CEO and five or ten high level government officials on a plane headed to a known destination. Put someone at the airport to watch them getting on the place, now you know which flight they are one. Have someone mid stream to ensure the flight is still on schedule and the normal path by using this app and marking when it flies over a mid point. They then phone the third party who gears up a stolen jet that had it's autopilot tweaked to receive this data and map an interception course. That jet starts flying towards the one carrying the big whigs, get their signal and runs right into it over a large and busy city killing all about and about 500 on the ground.
The perceivable benefit of using this type of data is that you wouldn't need someone looking for the target and you wouldn't need to take all the trouble of getting a SAM close to an airport. and coming at opposite directions, it makes the window for reaction a lot smaller. Some commercial aircraft actually have counter measures on board that might defeat a radar or heat guided SAM, some may even be able to defeat a laser guided on. But I guess the question might be, can they defeat a make shift missile that is guided by their own signal they are transmitted. And the window of time to find out is small when you consider that both plane will be cruising at about 500-600 MPH at each other so it's more like 1000-1200 mph to a central point and with rules generally not alarming pilots until aircraft are within 3-5 miles of each other, it can be only a few moments before impact. 1000 mph is about 1466 feet per second which gives up a little over 10 seconds to close that 3 mile gap.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems I have seen is a little bit more confusing then a car backing into another car.
Suppose you were driving down the freeway and you were maintaining a good assured clear distance from the vehicle in front of you. Your in the right hand lane doing the speed limit, or perhaps the middle lane and faster traffic is moving around you in the left lanes like they are supposed to even though they are statutorily speeding. Now someone else in a big hurry who was texting their friend about being late for cocktails, changes lanes in front of you and erases that assured clear distance. So being a good driver, you decrease your speed to provide the proper distance again, then all the sudden, the driver in front of you looks away from their phone and notices they need to take the exist you are about to pass and slams on the brakes causing you to hit them. Now suppose all this happened within about 3 seconds or so time so there was no safe way for you to react any differently that could have avoided the accident.
I bring this up because the rear driver isn't always at fault by their own actions per se. I've seen that happen many times before on different highways all across the country. A lot of times, it happens to big rigs which also generally ends in major injuries and a highway that's locked up for hours.
I otherwise agree with you. But there are times when the acts of others remove the ability for responsible driving to exist for a short period of time. It's those times in which blaming the person behind you is really attacking the wrong person.
One of the problems with all or nothing attitudes like yours is that you don't seem to want to look beyond the apparent immediate.
What I mean is, suppose your right and a single rock being thrown can't seriously harm someone in full riot gear. I bow hunt and have found myself chasing a wounded deer through the woods in order to put it down because it didn't bleed out our I somehow missed my mark and didn't place a critical shot. Now how this connects is that the wounded deer is not capable of running (it's main defense) like it normally would which gives me an advantage in seeking it out and performing the final blow. So you take a wounded police officer or whatever and now nonthreatening things become seriously threatening things.
But moreover, when you allow a group of people to throw things, you don't know that it's just rocks and not plague infested puss bags or makeshift bombs, grenades, or whatever else that could be more serious even in your eyes, until after the fact which is not any way to protect your law enforcement or yourself.
Now I'm not here to defend the national guard in their shooting or the Israeli defense forces, I'm here to say that throwing rocks is more serious then you portrayed and whether you want to believe it or not, you can kill someone by doing it. I can see from a tactical perspective where allowing rocks to be thrown can deteriorate into a dead soldier or LEO pretty quick when something seriously more dangerous enters the arena.
You also have to remember that when Kent State happened, it was still legal to shoot a suspect that was only fleeing. It wasn't until the mid 1970's that the supreme court changed that causing the situations we know today. So when looking at the instance, you have to sort of view it from the perspective of the time or you won't get an accurate view of it.
I think the diamondoid reference was a Futurama joke. But seriously, either 3m or corning created a super strong glass they called gorilla glass back in the 50's or so. This would probably do more then what is needed here.
Hogwash. You are making crap up here. In order for the police to use the specific events of someone acting suspiciously or to make that suspicious behavior cause for a search, the police officer has to connect the suspicious behavior to a crime he is lawfully pursuing. In other words, saying he acted suspiciously has to connect to a crime within the cop's jurisdiction in which makes the suspicious behavior notable more so then an ordinary person. Someone being taking off running when the cop rounds the corner is not enough for a search. But if they were investigating a mugging in which the runner match at least in part, the description of the mugger, then it's enough to focus on that individual. Try to learn about a Terry stop, and perhaps learn a little about the law outside of watching an episode of cops on your Friday night.
Everyone knows that I have had several heated discussions in the past with the parent poster so it's not likely I'm coming to his defense out of love. But you have to at least read his damn post before going off. He said you need to "at least READ the law before you opine". I mean you even quoted that but you failed to link to anywhere in the law at all. So I have to ask, are you being willfully ignorant in order to maintain your incorrect opinion or is there something physically wrong with you that handicaps your judgment and we should make minor allowances for? Here are two separate links to the actual bill that was signed into law.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
Nowhere in those bills (the law) does it say what you are attempting to make out. Furthermore, anyone with a valid ID is automatically presumed to be legal regardless of any other indication given by the person.
What was the search terms you used? I mean if you searched for something like AZ law allows racial profiling, then sure, the first results are going to be by people who think the same. If you searched for Arizona immigration law, it would be different.
Well, I know anecdotal evidence means practically everything and Slate's research department is so thorough and concise that it's useless to argue against it, even after the writers expand on it and take things into their own context to prove a point that supports your view of Israel and Palestinian rock throwers.
Anyways, I was hit in the head with a rock once when I was 14. It was at camp and someone was throwing rocks over the side of a hill totally clueless that someone else may have been down hill. Well, as it turns out, the first rock he threw struck me in the back of the head slightly down from the top from a distance of about 75 feet and probably 45 foot in elevation. It took 16 stitches to to close up the wound/laceration, I was knocked off my feet and ended up falling another 10 or 15 feet downhill before another person grabbed me, and I suffered a Class II Hemorrhage which required a short stay in the hospital. We were taking a shortcut back from then horse stables and in an area that was posted as off limits because of how steep and dangerous it was.
If someone was attempting to do that on purpose, I would feel justified in attempting to shoot them as if I wasn't with people i was with and at a place where I could get reasonable medical attention in a short period of time, I could have bleed out and died on the spot. In my case, after about the third rock came over, everyone started yelling and then the kids throwing them paused and looked over the edge of the hill to see what was going on. They then ran and got the camp counselors who notified the camp nurse who was also a trauma rated paramedic. I also don't care about your personal instance of not getting injured when hit with a rock in the past as it says nothing about the seriousness of getting hit with a rock, just the seriousness of when you got hit with a rock.
Actually, those were 1970s solar water heating panels and weren't providing any power at all.
They were also removed to fix the roof and the costs were high to reinstalled them. Too costly was the excuse given by the administration. But of course that is after oil started flowing again and using other source to heat you water wasn't that expensive.
This can backfire too. If the costs of the panels turn out to be more then any savings (in which anything done in government often can be), then all that will be remembered is how expensive they are and how much cheaper/cost effective other sources are. In short, Obama will be seen as someone willing to waste tax payer money for ideological reasons. At least when Carter put the solar in place, it was because alternative costs were more then the panels itself. Bush had solar installed in 2003 and no special endorsement or lack of was seen and there doesn't seem to be any fanfare for it.
Actually, the panels were removed outside of Reagan's control in order to do repairs to the white house roof and Reagan cited costs as to why they weren't reinstalled. What made them attractive during Carter was gone and we were recovering from massive problems during the Carter administration and starting a deficit spending spree under Reagan. Also, the panels were only for heating water, not for creating electricity. It's sort of foolish to attempt to compare the two situations or place any significance to them in the same light.
Carter was an utter failure as a president. No one who was alive to experience his administration disagrees with that as even the democrats in congress fought him tooth and nail. I'm not sure your assumptions hold any water.
Where do you get this crap from? It's about cost effectiveness. If it's cheaper, it logical to us if. If it solves a real problem, it's logical to use it. If it's just a feel good thing, then it's ok for you to do it, just don't force anyone who doesn't want to. How in the hell do you get what you wrote?
Perhaps I misread something there. It's difficult reading your post without any paragraphs and so on. Please expand if I have.
Not in the way the parent was suggesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it strongly appears that he thinks that when we are about to go to war with some country, we stop and give them money instead. That's IMHO just retarded.
I don't really disagree except that time and time again, paying someone for peace has proved to have peace that lasted until they wanted more. This was true when the french paid of the vikings, and when they attempted to become Hitlers buddies so it isn't some new concept either.
As you stated previously, the government is a construct composed of people who run the thing. When you give something to the government, you are essentially giving it to the people running the government. I'm sorry that confuses you and you think it means others are poor thinkers, but it's only a logical extension and obvious statement.
First you accuse me of being a poor thinker then you make a stupid statement like this? I mean seriously, any simple google search would have shown you that the Taliban was not around when the US was funding the mujaheddin when Russia was at war with them and the mujaheddin is absolutely not the taliban. Perhaps you should stop and think about this yourself, maybe even learn about what in the hell you are talking about.
The taliban was not even a word in any vocabulary until 1995 and the US stopped funding what became the northern alliance after the soviets pulled out because we were afraid of Russian turning on us. What you just said there is either a complete fabrication, or the idiotic ranting of someone who can't follow a time line.
You should digress. Your statement means nothing in reality without your fallacy supporting it.
Nope, not then either. Someone is paying for it as we do not live in some communist utopia where money or compensation for your efforts are unnecessary.
Iraq probably should have been turned into a glass parking lot a long time ago. But you seem to be suffering from a major flaw here. You are assuming that the wars are about oil when only those apposed to the wars have made that claim. Perh
Read what I said, then read your own fucking link. Read especially the part that lists D.O.D funding at 721.3 billion and says it includes "Overseas Contingency Operations". Then look in the mirror and say fucktard again but really loud this time.
As I said, the wars are traditionally financed off budget in emergency spending. The only reason the military budget is as high as it is is directly because the war spending has been moved into the budget so the funding can be spent elsewhere after the wars are over. Fuck, why don't you read the entire page you linked to, it actually says exactly what I said.
Losing government jobs wouldn't be all that bad of a thing as long as the government services were being provided. In fact, losing most of the federal government services would likely be a good thing anyways.
Most all of the government services not specifically outlines in the constitution would be better served on a state and local level. The government is more responsive to the needs of the people there and it generally serves the people better all the way around. Think about it, people who want to get something changed on a federal level need to convince enough of the 300 or so million people in 49 other states to go along with their idea. People who want to change things on a state level only need to convince a couple million in 80 or so counties within their own state. further more, what is good for a densely populated state like California or New Jersey might not be good for a moderately populated state like Wyoming or Ohio.
This is also already taking into consideration that most federal programs that service the public directly is already administrated by the states and require a certain amount of state funding in order to receive the federal funding in the first place. In short, all it would be doing is cutting out some middle men and making it more effective to the public it serves.
Wow.. What complete and utter rubbish your post is. Are you seriously suggesting that we pay countries not to piss us off so we start a war with them? That's like giving the playground bully money before he threatens you. I mean seriously, when has bribing countries ever worked longer then it took for them to want more money? I mean look at what it did for France- they have a complex history of this NEVER WORKING.
But hell, why look at some country full of frogs when you can look at Afghanistan itself. Yes, we were giving Afghanistan money before we invaded it. So why didn't your plan work there?
Yea, there is no such thing as free health care, no such thing as un-winnable wars, and no such thing as saving money while spending it on science and RnD, send man to Mars etc or free health care. You essentially took the rant of the day, a bunch of wishes from different parts of the public interests groups, conflated them without any thought to the relationships with each other and the point you attempted to make, and them spouted them as if it was something practically achievable or actually possible. You remind me of the Monday morning quarterbacks at the office that say their coaching strategy would have won the game and when you inquire what that was, they reply with make touchdowns as if they are clueless of the mechanics of the game. Perhaps you are, perhaps you are confused. Perhaps English isn't your first language and you didn't say anything remotely close to what you thought you were saying. But what you said was an epic failure in the least.
OK.. FOr a minute there, I though you were trying to say something happened in the US that invalidated the constitutional double jeopardy clause. It's not that I don't doubt it would have happened, it's that I though I would have heard something about it before now.
Thanks for clarifying that bit.
I guess it would depend on what the subpoena wanted. I can see someone not turning over something as being contempt of court. However in the long run, you are most likely facing charges of something like interfering with the courts or something. If you aren't in a court, it's probably interfering with a criminal investigation (if it's a criminal matter).
Well, he didn't get 14 years, he was imprisoned for 14 years. The slight difference is where he was never sentenced but jailed. This case is interesting in that I wasn't aware civil matter judges had the power to place someone in an actual prison. Generally, they can only go to the county detention facility (or a federal detention facility if it's federal court but divorce shouldn't be in a federal court) until an official charge has been adjudicated against him.
On the surface, and without knowing all the facts, it sounds like he suffered from poor representation by his legal team (or perhaps attempted to defend himself) and an overly aggressive judge that abused his power beyond the scope it was ever intended to have. The contempt of court charge is only supposed to push someone into compliance with the order. It's not really a punishment else the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments require an indictment, impartiality, open and public trial (by your peers) and reasonable punishment without excessive fines. It seems as if the judge in this case either ignored that, or forgot that he sent the guy to jail in the first place.
You are most likely going to be better off to just write a program or script that makes a few files called "lookatme" along with a few registry entries and have them remove that.
Most virus' that you will find will tip the AV software. Almost all easy virus' will be automatically removed by it too. If you are not running some AV software, then your in a little trouble to begin with as you shouldn't be teaching people to run windows boxen without AV software.. Sure, you could probably set the AV software to ignore the file itself, but it likely wouldn't ignore the execution if it wasn't a strait up program that just wrote files (memory injection and process hiding techniques will most likely cause issues as most AV clients nowadays rely more on heuristics then actual signatures).
If I was you, I would write a script that makes a text file in the windows directory, the system directory, temp directory and maybe adds a few registry entries in the run portions of the registry. Perhaps one of the text files could read something like- "you have been pawned by the elite text virus" or something and have it open on start up. Perhaps put it on every other computer and have them search for how to remove it on the one next to them while working in pairs. Make a simple instruction on how to remove it by looking in the appropriate start up areas, looking in the common file target areas, and then finally by downloading a reverse script and running it that removes all traces of it.
Oh yea, surf for porn/ something as shady on each computer before you load the fake virus so part of the removal.disinfection process can be getting freely available tools like Adaware or malwarebytes and so on and it will find something to remove. If they aren't connected to the internet, then make sure the free tools are something that doesn't need an internet connection to download. You might also want to remove the AV software and have them simulate installing it afterward to ensure/instill that there should be some level of protection at all times.
Actually, you could do that in the same way criminals use the proverbial "mules".
Just find someone in a third world country that has internet access and a daughter or son that's young. Have them send the cops in the other country a USB stick by mail with the encryption key on it and a letter claiming that on the USB stick is pictures of their kid that this guy requested over the internet claiming that this isn't the first time it's happened, just the first time you noticed it and want him prosecuted. Fake some emails that you print and send with the USB stick telling the kid how to find the encryption and what key to use.
Now the cops search his apartment, finds some USB sticks that are encrypted. He gets busted for not turning the key over, then the cops break the encryption and find pictures of some underage African boy that the cops can't find to contact because he moved into another village when he became rich with your $60 bribe.
Interestingly, all the key logging software needed is a simple microphone that records the sounds of the key strokes on the keyboard. Years ago, they were able to tell what keys are being typed and when by the sound of the keyboard.
It won't be indefinitely. Failing to comply with a subpoena or interfering with it's execution has a set time for jail terms and will be prosecuted accordingly.
Probably what you are thinking of is contempt of court in which a judge can throw someone into jail. There are limits to that too- but they are a bit more relaxed and you sometimes need a higher court to pretty much tell the lower court to stop doing it.
And your point is what? Defining pornographic images do not need to fit the legal definition of rape or anything else. The definition of child porn in the US and most allied countries who have signed treaties is under the age of 18.
Do what? What previous government?
You lost me somewhere- double Jeopardy in US of UK? please expand some.
Some people just get too excited.. Don't be too harsh on them.
Well, you have to acknowledge that Reagan was never in court (it was a senate comity) and he was diagnosed with Alzheimer disease that can explain the acting stupid, senile, or retarded part. I've even seen one so called doctor claim that the disease was apparent as early as his last 2 years in office.
I agree. But I also think that some sort of outside suit could be taken against MS is this turns out to be true. It would seem to me that they could look for lost sales and other damages that might have occurred because of this as well as some potential causes of action from google or other organizations that offers phone software.
Yea, it's pocket change considering what it's doing. And no, the military does not have a 1 trillion dollar budget, it actually has a much lower budget which was more apparent before Obama took the war spending from off budget expenditures and put it in the budget. He did that so when the war spending ramped down, they could increase other spending claiming it won't cost more because it's coming from the military.
For the spending, the scope of the military is just fine. Well, that is unless your understanding of the military and what it is doing is limited to soundbites from political groups I guess.
While I agree with your overall point, I don't think it would necessarily apply here as they aren't really watering down the blood and guts part, just the names to protect the innocent of sorts parts. You are still going to get the blood and guts, your just not going to be labeled team Taliban or whatever now.
PS.. The names to protect the innocent isn't a statement that one side is innocent, it was just a play off the movies and TV shows that says "the events in this are real, just the name have been changed to protect the innocent" BS you get whenever their program is to close to the real thing.
Think smart bomb guided missile with no ordinary or known counter measures. You wouldn't necessarily need an Iphone app to do it, but simply rigging the autopilot of another aircraft that can match the speed or better then the aircraft being targeted and it's pretty much on an interception course. If it's easily done on an Iphone, it's probably easily done on a lot of other things -with or without the Iphone.
Ok, Suppose you know that some important person (senator, governor, CEO of company, whatever) is going to be flying someone and needs to be there at a certain time. Some will have a private jet, some will fly first class but it's publicity that makes terrorism work (if no one knows you blew up ten children, then all you did was kill ten kids instead of making your case known and frightening people into listening to your beefs). So lets say the CEO of Exxon is flying to Washington and where he will have a meeting with several congress critters who will then fly to the gulf to view the cleanup efforts. If you know they are supposed to be in Florida at a certain time, then you can simply guess which flights will take them there based on their availability. So now you have a CEO and five or ten high level government officials on a plane headed to a known destination. Put someone at the airport to watch them getting on the place, now you know which flight they are one. Have someone mid stream to ensure the flight is still on schedule and the normal path by using this app and marking when it flies over a mid point. They then phone the third party who gears up a stolen jet that had it's autopilot tweaked to receive this data and map an interception course. That jet starts flying towards the one carrying the big whigs, get their signal and runs right into it over a large and busy city killing all about and about 500 on the ground.
The perceivable benefit of using this type of data is that you wouldn't need someone looking for the target and you wouldn't need to take all the trouble of getting a SAM close to an airport. and coming at opposite directions, it makes the window for reaction a lot smaller. Some commercial aircraft actually have counter measures on board that might defeat a radar or heat guided SAM, some may even be able to defeat a laser guided on. But I guess the question might be, can they defeat a make shift missile that is guided by their own signal they are transmitted. And the window of time to find out is small when you consider that both plane will be cruising at about 500-600 MPH at each other so it's more like 1000-1200 mph to a central point and with rules generally not alarming pilots until aircraft are within 3-5 miles of each other, it can be only a few moments before impact. 1000 mph is about 1466 feet per second which gives up a little over 10 seconds to close that 3 mile gap.