As far as mass production goes, you won't get much more mass then GM, Toyota, or Honda producing them. There are things other then mass production holding their costs up. According to the article, so far, the only demand for them seem to be from well to do idiots wanting a status symbol, not as a practical means of transportation. Anyways, GM and Honda are in a position to inform us on the differences in costs verses limited production in their mass production facilities verses mass production in the same factories.
I think what needs to be done is some sort of energy storage breakthrough. It's ridiculous in how much effort and energy/costs goes into the batteries. If the government really wanted to make an impact on this and bring EV's to the public, they would stop subsidizing the sales of the EVs and invest that money into scientific battery research in hopes of developing something more practical compared to today's standards (hopefully transferable to solar and wind production too), then lease this tech at next to nothing to any car maker wanting to make EV for sale in the US or for that matter, any US industry wanting to take advantage of the new tech.
I think Hydrogen per oxide might be a more practical battery. It would be easy to refill, could be generated by electricity from the grid, it's own solar or wind, or by other means more commercially efficient. Then instead of running batteries that only go 40 miles as a primary, use valves to release some of the HO2 through an on board steam powered electrical generator that can run the vehicle and use the batteries as a backup or reserve to get the car to safety if a resupply isn't available.
I agree that the proper channels are the first thing to try, but beware that there is a massive barrier against speaking out. On the other hand, abuse of power is relatively easy, so you need a huge amount of opposite mass to get anything changed through the normal channels. Examples of this are people who try to report police misconduct through the proper channels, and are met with hostility and indifference at every level.
The difference is that the resistance caused the exposure, not the other way around. If you are reporting through the proper channels and start getting resistance, then a whistle blower lawsuit ends up giving all the exposure in a legal way without giving useful information to the enemy or potential enemies.
Whistleblowing, on the other hand, if done right, is a surefire way to get immediate attention to certain items. Sure, the chopper pilots have been cleared beforehand, but their behaviour certainly borders on the "gross neglect" or "carelessness" side. That this comes to light is not necessarily a bad thing and helps to reassert the nastiness of war to all world citizens. Sure, it sows hate, but it also sows validation. Afghans who for ages claimed these sort of attacks were happening now are validated and may feel that at least some justice is present.
Whistle blowing is little more then telling on your boss and/or your bosses boss. It's not going directly to the public specifically, it could be going to regulatory authorities first.
And no, I do not think their behavior borders on the "gross neglect" or "carelessness" side, that is an opinion you made when you clearly have never been in a situation where you life was in so much danger that extreme actions needed to be taken. And by that, I'm saying you have never been shot at and had to return fire while watching you buddy die because you are pinned down and can't get help to him. When you survive something like that and have to go back in, you get not only cocky, but slightly trigger happy because the only different between you walking away and dieing could be who shot first or who shot the most accurate. You take threats, like someone crouching by a corner and aiming a device that from a distance looks similar to a RPG launcher who is also surrounded by armed men in a war zone that active fighting is taking place in, as serious threats, not a wait and see what happens threat because when the situation is like that, too often, if you wait, you will be dead.
Now the copter was supporting other forces and supposed to be detecting threats. Even if they were immune from the RPG, they had a duty to protect other forces. They were cocky, and that might have had something to do with it. But given the same situation, I would have acted the same. And after I found out there was kids present, I probably would have blamed the perps too so I wouldn't feel guilt that would end up getting my brothers in arms killed by delayed actions next time. You have the pleasure of reviewing the tapes and blowing them up with people drawing lines and pointing things out. The copter crew didn't as it was happening in real time for them and the threat was very real even though it was non-existent.
It's not like they adopted the Vietnam style saying where they shoot into a rice paddy and say the one who run are VC the one who stand still are well trained VC. They saw something, misidentified it as it appeared to be aiming at them or something in their direction, the fired, when another vehicle approached and people got out running towards the weapons, they fired again.
his sort of thing would not be necessary if there was a true free press (as Assange notes). If these attacks were regularly shown on television, wikileaks would not get the impact they do now. Free press is necessary for a properly functioning democracy, and the fact that wikileaks can make such an impact is sign that this is not the case.
It depends. Most of the start stop driving is on rural routes in which they do not attempt to gain much speed. There is a lot of difference between accelerating to 10mph over 200ft and going to 35 or 45 mph then stopping. At the slower speeds, I'm not sure the regenerative breaking would add to the mileage enough compared to something that just got better fuel economy. However, when you are carying around the mail for a good portion of the county, you are also going to waste economy to cargo space and the ability to access the mail to be delivered.
One of the biggest reasons people reject green tech is not because it's what they need, it's because other people are attempting to tell them what they need. If you tell me I only need X horse power and Y pickup, I'm getting more because I don't like being told what I need. Instead, I will get what I want.
When will you people learn that if someone is going to spend a large sum of money, they are going to get what they want as long as they can afford it, not what they need. And right now, I want what a gas power car can deliver. Most people want what a gas powered car can deliver. It's not because it's what we need (actually it's what I need), it's because it's what we want.
Hell, I don't need a car that will go over 75mph seeing how that's the faster legal speed limit in the US that I know of. However, I have a car that will do over 120mph because it was what I wanted.
While you are trying to figure out how to wipe your but, I will give you a heads up on why your post is sort of irrelevant.
You see, he isn't looking for an intro to programing, he already knows how to program. He is looking for ways to use his knowledge of the past to make learning a new language easier today. Now 10 years ago, there might have been all sorts of resources on how to transfer your knowledge of assembly or cobal into something more relevant today. In fact, 10 years ago with the Y2K BS, there was probably a sleuth of resources on transferring your present day knowledge to yesterday's coding languages.
However, this point of reference has diminished to the point that he needs to ask present day coders, perhaps people who went through the transition years ago, what they found, what worked, and what was a waste of time. This will let him compile a book list and seek out the probably out of print books and other resources (even if using the way back machine which doesn't have a search like Google) that you recommend without mentioning the name or title of.
This isn't a typicle example of how do I do something everyone else is doing, it's an example of how do I do something that hasn't needed to be done in 15-20 years. And yes, if you look at something that hasn't been done for 20 years, you will find that the resources available simple arne't- at least not like they were 20 years ago or are for today's challenges.
Because if the behavior didn't stop, then whoever ratted it out would go through more channels and eventually file a lawsuit when he thinks they were retaliating against him. And yes, eventually, someone will not want to have the responsibility of the cover up on their shoulders. Specifically if the information was given to a member of the armed services comity that already has the classifications to view such information.
Hell, leaking the documents and giving our enemies or potential enemies information doesn't absolve anything you are worried about. In the chopper video, the airmen were already cleared of wrong doing and no one has released any information of charges or anything to be filed against them. The only difference is that the people who Hate the US now have the video to rail about. So by going through the proper channels, the only thing different between that and releasing the info so our enemies and potential enemies can get it is whether he violated laws or not and how much damage is done to the US in the process. In this case, he can be shot for the violations in which I find not only appropriate, but endorse.
Nope, they don't. They have the public transportation that costs money and goes only where the designers decided it would go. Moreover, they are in the process of raising the rates on the poor areas too. At least in the UK they are.
Let me make my point one more time and maybe it will be clear now. Poor people who can afford automobiles and the ability to travel have the ability to not be poor much longer if they choose to do something drastic like move into a wealthier neighborhood and get a job there. When you price the ability to drive somewhere out of the range of the poor, they are stuck relying on the government for their transportation needs which can and will as the article pointed out, end up failing them when it's convenient for them. This in turn ends up creating a need for the government which can be manipulated politically. And no, it doesn't matter what country it is in, the potential is there and it most likely has been acted on to some degree even if not blatantly obvious.
I know people in my home town in the states that are the same. One girl I know has never been outside of the county we live in that she could remember before I took her to Vegas with me. She was amazed and disgusted all at the same time.
Anyways, staying somewhere by choice wouldn't make someone poor. Removing the ability of the poor to travel cheaply could keep them in a specific area though. That's what I consider the attack on the current transportation infrastructure to be doing. If the government prices the costs of travel out of the reach of the poor, they are in effect keeping them put. IT may be by deisgn, or an unintended consequence but I had to bring it up.
They don't hate the poor, they just want to keep them in their place- where they belong, without the ability to travel that well into other areas where they do not belong.
Also, if you keep a poor person poor while promising to better them, you can control them to some degree for political benefit. This happens in the US where when someone who gets a job and gets away form welfare, actually makes less then if they didn't have the job and was still dependent on the government.
No, not really. The subsidies are there to get oil companies to act in certain ways. It helps recover maintenance costs on no profitable wells that the government insists on keeping open and so on. Without the subsidies, those extra activities would simply disperse and only a fraction of the costs would be passed on to the consumers.
The subsidies are not a hand out saying here, take this money to keep oil cheap. They all havce conditions attached making it a partial cost recovery for doing certain things. It's more like, if you do X, we will reimburse you Y with this subsidy. Some companies do X, some don't.
I don't know about the FIOS services but with DSL, if your modem/router goes bad, you have to purchase a new one. And they don't particularly care if you get it through them or not. Not only does that sound like a purchase, it's probably legally one too because of how they treat busted modems/routers.
Doesn't the terms of service agreement allow Verizon access to the router? By using the service and connecting the router to the service, they already had permission.
You are when you state that a law can't invalidate a permit.
I'm not saying that a law can't invalidate a permit at all. Fuck are you not even reading the fucking posts you are replying to? I'm saying that a law cannot change the requirements for the permit to be valid after the permit has been issued then use that as an excuse to invalidate it. That's a post facto application of the law which is unconstitutional plain and simple.
A law passed that invalidates a permit does not make anything that happened in the past a crime. Nothing you can say will change that fact. There is no violation of ex post facto. Oh, and when some chump tries to correct me and doesn't even know it's three words and not two, I can't take him seriously. It's like a three year old who "knows" he's right even when he's wrong. Yap yap yap.
IT has the same detrimental effect. It stops behavior that was guaranteed to be legal for a period of time from being legal before the time is up. The permit allows operation between X amount of years and revoking that because of a new law is a post facto application of the law. And no, it doesn't have to be a crime to be post facto, it simple has to restrict behavior or have some detrimental effect. Now as I said before, use your damn google finger and find out what post fact means and how it's relevent to constitutional law in America. Because right now, you are more then proving your complete ignorance of the subject.
If the law can not revoke a permit, then the permit is above the law. Period. You seem to object to that characterization, but not the substance. When you drop your egotistical demands for controlling not only the subject of the conversation, but the colorizations thereof, then we can discuss more than the "it's not above the law, it's just at the Constitution, which is above the law" illogical whinings. You are assuming associative properties in that argument, and so you are asserting that yes, it is above the law, but that it's not above the law because you don't like that wording.
Your right, an unconstitutional law can revoke a permit, but then the law will be nullified in that application because it's unconstitutional so Im guess a permit is above the law.
Fuck, what is so hard for you to understand. The law has to be constitutional, if it's not, it can't be applied or when it is, will be struck down in court. That is why things are grandfathered in- to make the laws constitutional. IF a law is passed saying that the cops can stop you and detain you for a year without pressing charges and sell off all your assets to pay for your detainment and if they don't ever press charges, you still get nothing in return, would that be constitutional? No it wouldn't be. Does that mean you would be above the fucking law? No, it means that the law is unconstitutional and not enforceable. It doesn't mean that you are above the law because you can't be detained for a year without charges and have all your belonging sold off with the proceeds going to the state with no hope of ever recovering any of it. It simply means that the constitution stops the law from being created in the first place that allows that to happen.
guess all one has to do to make you look like a raving lunatic is to use words you don't like in a manner you 100% agree with. You are the one claiming that a permit is more powerful than force of law, and no law may ever modify anything in any permit anywhere.Yea, right. You are purposely trolling and playing stupid here. I'm not sure if you are really that stupid or if you are faking it and attempting to make people believe you are. Anyways, you need to pay the fuck attention to not only what is being said to you, but what you are attempting to talk about yourself. For instance, I never said that a permit is above the law, I always said that the constitution is what stops the law from being
Umm.. Actually citizenship is entirely relevant. A good portion of the constitution and the laws of the land that mimic protections in the constitution do not apply if you are no a US citizen and did not commit the offense in US jurisdiction.
The didn't withhold his right to have a lawyer present. They just continued to ask questions and then let him go once the realized he wasn't going to say anything.
In no way did they take his ability to be legally represented away.
Wow.. Way to spice your post up with all those emotional adjectives and stuff. I mean I'm sure your point would have simply dissolved without the sensationalism.
It's not a crime against humanity, that's little more then your distorted opinion. It's not "a War of Terrorism against Afghan people", it's a war on terrorism that caused a war in Afghanistan to happen when they decided to protect the people behind the 9/11 attacks against America. And yes, some of them are Afghan people, some of them aren't, but it doesn't matter anyways because the war is just even if you do not like what happens in a war.
It's not like reporting these breaches to different authorities wouldn't have had better results then giving it to the world. I mean if you have evidence of a crime happening, then it's a misprision of a felony if you don't report it. Why why is it more proper to give information to our enemies then simply doing what the law requires in the first place? And why should this excessive act be somehow protected when the proper channels would have been enough to fix the concerns?
The supreme court has stated over and over again that things entering or leaving the country is a matter of sovereignty which creates allowances in which the constitution doesn't strictly cover. This is backed up by the country's very first congress creating warrantless searches at the borders and ports in their very first year in operation. The first ruling by the supreme court concerning this comes over this very law in which a ship was boarded and searched and two stowaways were found and captured along with some illegal cargo.
The right to do more then what regular LEOs can do when at the border has been ingrained almost as long as this country has been around. The major difference now it the coverage and frequency of it happening.
No judge would agree with you. So, thankfully, no one else on the planet puts a permit above the force of law. So take your incorrect opinion and wave it around like it's a fact. The rest of us recognize your insanity. Thanks for playing, and please seek professional help.
Jesus christ man. Are you being intentionally stupid or what. I started this thread off with telling you to learn something about post facto, and expost facto and you are still fucking clueless. Did you bother checking anything out that you were told or are you closing your eyes to all the evidence and hoping that what you think remains true? Fuck, There is no reason whatsoever at all why you are still arguing this the way you are unless you are intentionally attempting to remain willfully ignorant or trolling. Now do a simple google search on what the hell post facto is in American constitutional law and shut the hell up until you know.
No one is putting a permit above the force of law, they are putting the constitution above the law. It's the god damn constitution that says no post facto laws can be passed and it's the damn constitution that gives the government the ability to create the force of law. This means that the law has to be made within the guidelines of the constitution or it's invalid. This is why when they change a law, they have to grandfather existing situations in under the old or applicable rules set when they were approved/built it. This is so the law, not the permit, is constitutional. The effect is that the permit gets grandfathered in because the new law cannot have an adverse effect on the older allowances without treading into the post facto clauses that explicitly forbid the creation of those types of laws in the constitution.
Fuck, you seem to be so focused on the end that you are refusing to look at the beginning or the middle where the real action is. It's not the damn permit being above the law, it's the constitution being above the law which the constitution does specifically state it is. You simply cannot make a new law and apply it to old circumstances and when a permit for operation allows the old circumstances, passage of the new law is not enough to revoke the permit because it would be the post facto application of a new law. You can close your eyes and say that not right or refere to judges without any links rulings on the shit (which is you checked, you would find that laws are negated in specific application all the time because of post facto application). I mean if you attempted to look just the slightest, you would have shut the hell up about it by now. You would know that you are wrong.
Or you could just read the article and the article's summery.
The 100% was when the testers knew the answers. The 20 out of 30 was when they were going blind and attempting to find information out not already known. The beginning of the part you quoted should have been the indicating piece of knowledge as it starts out with "Without any prior knowledge of the planned crime in our mock terrorism scenarios", where the article summery states " when researchers knew in advance specifics of the planned attacks by the make-believe 'terrorists,' they were able to correlate P300 brain waves to guilty knowledge with 100 percent accuracy in the lab".
and if we put that altogether, it would seem that without knowing anything about the crime or planned crime, researchers were not as accurate as when they knew the details of the crime or planned crime in which case they were 100% accurate. So both is correct, 100% and 83%. this is because the numbers correlate to two separate issues.
You asserted that canceling a permit is charging someone for a crime they committed at a time the act was legal. That's not true under any conceivable reading of the law. No matter how you try to word it, canceling a permit doesn't make what they did yesterday illegal. All claims of ex post facto are false. There is *nothing* that makes a past act illegal. It is just the effective revocation of a permit by a future change of law such that acting under a current permit would then be illegal.
No matter how you try to word it, the result is the same, making a law after the fact then attempting to apply it before the fact is unconstitutional whether it's revoking a permit to operate or charging someone for a crime. You can weasel around all you want and focus on everything but that, except it doesn't change that point one bit at all.
The revocation of a permit by a future law has the exact same effect of applying the future law to the previous conditions. You are in essence attempting to use words other then law and revocation to hide this but it doesn't work. If you revoke a permit because a law changed and the facility no longer meets the law's requirements, then you are applying the after the fact law to the facility no matter how you try to dress it up. It's simply post facto.
And I think it's you being deliberately stupid on purpose. There is nothing in the permits that states "no change of law can ever affect this permit, and you are immune to all future acts of the government, including Constitutional Amendments and revolutions." It's not in there. I've seen permits revoked all the time when the person issued the permit didn't break any conditions of it. That you claim otherwise either means that these permits have specific clauses in them indicating that they are above the law, or you are an idiot.
The permit doesn't need to say anything like that. The damn constitution makes it illegal to change the laws after the fact. The permit simply says this has been certified to X standards and is allowed to operate for Y time. IF you change any laws and use those changes as a basis to move X or Y, you have violated the constitution's ex post fact clause. When the states or federal government changes a law, the only way they can apply it to something already in existence constitutionally is if they grandfather it in and require the changes to be made up to code when a certain amount of regulated renovation happens or someone attempts to change it's use.
And as for your anecdotal evidence, well, I guess that settles everything because you know all the conditions of the permits, you know all the actions of the permits, you know the law surrounding them, and you know everything right. Well, wrong! Permits expire, there are conditions in some that don't have anything to do with the actions of the holder, and some of these conditions are set in law. But by all means, please link to a few examples of these no fault revocations of permits you know about that didn't have conditions already in law or the permits.
I've seen it fly, many times. So you can think I'm wrong, but I know for a fact you are wrong.
There is nothing you can do to convince me you are right, short of presenting a copy of one of these permits that indicates they are above the law. Otherwise, I'll lean on my personal knowledge of changing regulations including grandfathering out of politeness (not wanting to piss off constituents or donors), because if, as you say, grandfathering was required because permits trump law, then there'd be no need for grandfather clauses because they'd be covered with the permits. But that's not how it works. They are always explicit in laws because to not explicitly state it would have the effect you claim is impossible. And it isn't done because of some ignorant fear of ex post facto complaints.
Listen, I'm not sure what you have seen because it
Lol.. It's not going to be like you flip a switch and all the sudden people are employed or unemployed. Also the accounting of the unemployed was changed in 93 so unless you are adjusting or normalizing the figures, they arne't directly comparable before that to after.
Anyways, Taxes and unemployment are closely linked but it also depends on growth. Take right after WWII for instance, we had huge amounts of growth because we still have an intact infrastructure where most of Europe's was devastated. Our growth cause lower unemployment rates and part of this is because Rosie the Riveter went home and didn't come back looking for jobs but mostly because of the demand to products in Europe.
This demand overwhelmed the effects of high taxes and made them negligible until well into the 60's when Europe was back on it's feet and the demand started dropping. This is also why one of the few things that Kennedy did in office was to lower taxes which somewhat maintained our prosperity until Cart was in office. But by then Rosie the Riveter was starting to come back out looking for jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as mass production goes, you won't get much more mass then GM, Toyota, or Honda producing them. There are things other then mass production holding their costs up. According to the article, so far, the only demand for them seem to be from well to do idiots wanting a status symbol, not as a practical means of transportation. Anyways, GM and Honda are in a position to inform us on the differences in costs verses limited production in their mass production facilities verses mass production in the same factories.
I think what needs to be done is some sort of energy storage breakthrough. It's ridiculous in how much effort and energy/costs goes into the batteries. If the government really wanted to make an impact on this and bring EV's to the public, they would stop subsidizing the sales of the EVs and invest that money into scientific battery research in hopes of developing something more practical compared to today's standards (hopefully transferable to solar and wind production too), then lease this tech at next to nothing to any car maker wanting to make EV for sale in the US or for that matter, any US industry wanting to take advantage of the new tech.
I think Hydrogen per oxide might be a more practical battery. It would be easy to refill, could be generated by electricity from the grid, it's own solar or wind, or by other means more commercially efficient. Then instead of running batteries that only go 40 miles as a primary, use valves to release some of the HO2 through an on board steam powered electrical generator that can run the vehicle and use the batteries as a backup or reserve to get the car to safety if a resupply isn't available.
The difference is that the resistance caused the exposure, not the other way around. If you are reporting through the proper channels and start getting resistance, then a whistle blower lawsuit ends up giving all the exposure in a legal way without giving useful information to the enemy or potential enemies.
Whistle blowing is little more then telling on your boss and/or your bosses boss. It's not going directly to the public specifically, it could be going to regulatory authorities first.
And no, I do not think their behavior borders on the "gross neglect" or "carelessness" side, that is an opinion you made when you clearly have never been in a situation where you life was in so much danger that extreme actions needed to be taken. And by that, I'm saying you have never been shot at and had to return fire while watching you buddy die because you are pinned down and can't get help to him. When you survive something like that and have to go back in, you get not only cocky, but slightly trigger happy because the only different between you walking away and dieing could be who shot first or who shot the most accurate. You take threats, like someone crouching by a corner and aiming a device that from a distance looks similar to a RPG launcher who is also surrounded by armed men in a war zone that active fighting is taking place in, as serious threats, not a wait and see what happens threat because when the situation is like that, too often, if you wait, you will be dead.
Now the copter was supporting other forces and supposed to be detecting threats. Even if they were immune from the RPG, they had a duty to protect other forces. They were cocky, and that might have had something to do with it. But given the same situation, I would have acted the same. And after I found out there was kids present, I probably would have blamed the perps too so I wouldn't feel guilt that would end up getting my brothers in arms killed by delayed actions next time. You have the pleasure of reviewing the tapes and blowing them up with people drawing lines and pointing things out. The copter crew didn't as it was happening in real time for them and the threat was very real even though it was non-existent.
It's not like they adopted the Vietnam style saying where they shoot into a rice paddy and say the one who run are VC the one who stand still are well trained VC. They saw something, misidentified it as it appeared to be aiming at them or something in their direction, the fired, when another vehicle approached and people got out running towards the weapons, they fired again.
It depends. Most of the start stop driving is on rural routes in which they do not attempt to gain much speed. There is a lot of difference between accelerating to 10mph over 200ft and going to 35 or 45 mph then stopping. At the slower speeds, I'm not sure the regenerative breaking would add to the mileage enough compared to something that just got better fuel economy. However, when you are carying around the mail for a good portion of the county, you are also going to waste economy to cargo space and the ability to access the mail to be delivered.
One of the biggest reasons people reject green tech is not because it's what they need, it's because other people are attempting to tell them what they need. If you tell me I only need X horse power and Y pickup, I'm getting more because I don't like being told what I need. Instead, I will get what I want.
When will you people learn that if someone is going to spend a large sum of money, they are going to get what they want as long as they can afford it, not what they need. And right now, I want what a gas power car can deliver. Most people want what a gas powered car can deliver. It's not because it's what we need (actually it's what I need), it's because it's what we want.
Hell, I don't need a car that will go over 75mph seeing how that's the faster legal speed limit in the US that I know of. However, I have a car that will do over 120mph because it was what I wanted.
While you are trying to figure out how to wipe your but, I will give you a heads up on why your post is sort of irrelevant.
You see, he isn't looking for an intro to programing, he already knows how to program. He is looking for ways to use his knowledge of the past to make learning a new language easier today. Now 10 years ago, there might have been all sorts of resources on how to transfer your knowledge of assembly or cobal into something more relevant today. In fact, 10 years ago with the Y2K BS, there was probably a sleuth of resources on transferring your present day knowledge to yesterday's coding languages.
However, this point of reference has diminished to the point that he needs to ask present day coders, perhaps people who went through the transition years ago, what they found, what worked, and what was a waste of time. This will let him compile a book list and seek out the probably out of print books and other resources (even if using the way back machine which doesn't have a search like Google) that you recommend without mentioning the name or title of.
This isn't a typicle example of how do I do something everyone else is doing, it's an example of how do I do something that hasn't needed to be done in 15-20 years. And yes, if you look at something that hasn't been done for 20 years, you will find that the resources available simple arne't- at least not like they were 20 years ago or are for today's challenges.
Because if the behavior didn't stop, then whoever ratted it out would go through more channels and eventually file a lawsuit when he thinks they were retaliating against him. And yes, eventually, someone will not want to have the responsibility of the cover up on their shoulders. Specifically if the information was given to a member of the armed services comity that already has the classifications to view such information.
Hell, leaking the documents and giving our enemies or potential enemies information doesn't absolve anything you are worried about. In the chopper video, the airmen were already cleared of wrong doing and no one has released any information of charges or anything to be filed against them. The only difference is that the people who Hate the US now have the video to rail about. So by going through the proper channels, the only thing different between that and releasing the info so our enemies and potential enemies can get it is whether he violated laws or not and how much damage is done to the US in the process. In this case, he can be shot for the violations in which I find not only appropriate, but endorse.
Nope, they don't. They have the public transportation that costs money and goes only where the designers decided it would go. Moreover, they are in the process of raising the rates on the poor areas too. At least in the UK they are.
Let me make my point one more time and maybe it will be clear now. Poor people who can afford automobiles and the ability to travel have the ability to not be poor much longer if they choose to do something drastic like move into a wealthier neighborhood and get a job there. When you price the ability to drive somewhere out of the range of the poor, they are stuck relying on the government for their transportation needs which can and will as the article pointed out, end up failing them when it's convenient for them. This in turn ends up creating a need for the government which can be manipulated politically. And no, it doesn't matter what country it is in, the potential is there and it most likely has been acted on to some degree even if not blatantly obvious.
I know people in my home town in the states that are the same. One girl I know has never been outside of the county we live in that she could remember before I took her to Vegas with me. She was amazed and disgusted all at the same time.
Anyways, staying somewhere by choice wouldn't make someone poor. Removing the ability of the poor to travel cheaply could keep them in a specific area though. That's what I consider the attack on the current transportation infrastructure to be doing. If the government prices the costs of travel out of the reach of the poor, they are in effect keeping them put. IT may be by deisgn, or an unintended consequence but I had to bring it up.
They don't hate the poor, they just want to keep them in their place- where they belong, without the ability to travel that well into other areas where they do not belong.
Also, if you keep a poor person poor while promising to better them, you can control them to some degree for political benefit. This happens in the US where when someone who gets a job and gets away form welfare, actually makes less then if they didn't have the job and was still dependent on the government.
No, not really. The subsidies are there to get oil companies to act in certain ways. It helps recover maintenance costs on no profitable wells that the government insists on keeping open and so on. Without the subsidies, those extra activities would simply disperse and only a fraction of the costs would be passed on to the consumers.
The subsidies are not a hand out saying here, take this money to keep oil cheap. They all havce conditions attached making it a partial cost recovery for doing certain things. It's more like, if you do X, we will reimburse you Y with this subsidy. Some companies do X, some don't.
I don't know about the FIOS services but with DSL, if your modem/router goes bad, you have to purchase a new one. And they don't particularly care if you get it through them or not. Not only does that sound like a purchase, it's probably legally one too because of how they treat busted modems/routers.
Doesn't the terms of service agreement allow Verizon access to the router? By using the service and connecting the router to the service, they already had permission.
I'm not saying that a law can't invalidate a permit at all. Fuck are you not even reading the fucking posts you are replying to? I'm saying that a law cannot change the requirements for the permit to be valid after the permit has been issued then use that as an excuse to invalidate it. That's a post facto application of the law which is unconstitutional plain and simple.
IT has the same detrimental effect. It stops behavior that was guaranteed to be legal for a period of time from being legal before the time is up. The permit allows operation between X amount of years and revoking that because of a new law is a post facto application of the law. And no, it doesn't have to be a crime to be post facto, it simple has to restrict behavior or have some detrimental effect. Now as I said before, use your damn google finger and find out what post fact means and how it's relevent to constitutional law in America. Because right now, you are more then proving your complete ignorance of the subject.
Your right, an unconstitutional law can revoke a permit, but then the law will be nullified in that application because it's unconstitutional so Im guess a permit is above the law.
Fuck, what is so hard for you to understand. The law has to be constitutional, if it's not, it can't be applied or when it is, will be struck down in court. That is why things are grandfathered in- to make the laws constitutional. IF a law is passed saying that the cops can stop you and detain you for a year without pressing charges and sell off all your assets to pay for your detainment and if they don't ever press charges, you still get nothing in return, would that be constitutional? No it wouldn't be. Does that mean you would be above the fucking law? No, it means that the law is unconstitutional and not enforceable. It doesn't mean that you are above the law because you can't be detained for a year without charges and have all your belonging sold off with the proceeds going to the state with no hope of ever recovering any of it. It simply means that the constitution stops the law from being created in the first place that allows that to happen.
Umm.. Actually citizenship is entirely relevant. A good portion of the constitution and the laws of the land that mimic protections in the constitution do not apply if you are no a US citizen and did not commit the offense in US jurisdiction.
The didn't withhold his right to have a lawyer present. They just continued to ask questions and then let him go once the realized he wasn't going to say anything.
In no way did they take his ability to be legally represented away.
Wow.. Way to spice your post up with all those emotional adjectives and stuff. I mean I'm sure your point would have simply dissolved without the sensationalism.
It's not a crime against humanity, that's little more then your distorted opinion. It's not "a War of Terrorism against Afghan people", it's a war on terrorism that caused a war in Afghanistan to happen when they decided to protect the people behind the 9/11 attacks against America. And yes, some of them are Afghan people, some of them aren't, but it doesn't matter anyways because the war is just even if you do not like what happens in a war.
What about them?
It's not like reporting these breaches to different authorities wouldn't have had better results then giving it to the world. I mean if you have evidence of a crime happening, then it's a misprision of a felony if you don't report it. Why why is it more proper to give information to our enemies then simply doing what the law requires in the first place? And why should this excessive act be somehow protected when the proper channels would have been enough to fix the concerns?
Um.. You mean since the mid 1990's right? The Taliban didn't exist in 1970's.
Or is Taliban and Taleban two different groups and I don't know about the second?
Hint: None that we know of.
There, fixed that for you.
The supreme court has stated over and over again that things entering or leaving the country is a matter of sovereignty which creates allowances in which the constitution doesn't strictly cover. This is backed up by the country's very first congress creating warrantless searches at the borders and ports in their very first year in operation. The first ruling by the supreme court concerning this comes over this very law in which a ship was boarded and searched and two stowaways were found and captured along with some illegal cargo.
The right to do more then what regular LEOs can do when at the border has been ingrained almost as long as this country has been around. The major difference now it the coverage and frequency of it happening.
Jesus christ man. Are you being intentionally stupid or what. I started this thread off with telling you to learn something about post facto, and expost facto and you are still fucking clueless. Did you bother checking anything out that you were told or are you closing your eyes to all the evidence and hoping that what you think remains true? Fuck, There is no reason whatsoever at all why you are still arguing this the way you are unless you are intentionally attempting to remain willfully ignorant or trolling. Now do a simple google search on what the hell post facto is in American constitutional law and shut the hell up until you know.
No one is putting a permit above the force of law, they are putting the constitution above the law. It's the god damn constitution that says no post facto laws can be passed and it's the damn constitution that gives the government the ability to create the force of law. This means that the law has to be made within the guidelines of the constitution or it's invalid. This is why when they change a law, they have to grandfather existing situations in under the old or applicable rules set when they were approved/built it. This is so the law, not the permit, is constitutional. The effect is that the permit gets grandfathered in because the new law cannot have an adverse effect on the older allowances without treading into the post facto clauses that explicitly forbid the creation of those types of laws in the constitution.
Fuck, you seem to be so focused on the end that you are refusing to look at the beginning or the middle where the real action is. It's not the damn permit being above the law, it's the constitution being above the law which the constitution does specifically state it is. You simply cannot make a new law and apply it to old circumstances and when a permit for operation allows the old circumstances, passage of the new law is not enough to revoke the permit because it would be the post facto application of a new law. You can close your eyes and say that not right or refere to judges without any links rulings on the shit (which is you checked, you would find that laws are negated in specific application all the time because of post facto application). I mean if you attempted to look just the slightest, you would have shut the hell up about it by now. You would know that you are wrong.
Or you could just read the article and the article's summery.
The 100% was when the testers knew the answers. The 20 out of 30 was when they were going blind and attempting to find information out not already known. The beginning of the part you quoted should have been the indicating piece of knowledge as it starts out with "Without any prior knowledge of the planned crime in our mock terrorism scenarios", where the article summery states " when researchers knew in advance specifics of the planned attacks by the make-believe 'terrorists,' they were able to correlate P300 brain waves to guilty knowledge with 100 percent accuracy in the lab".
and if we put that altogether, it would seem that without knowing anything about the crime or planned crime, researchers were not as accurate as when they knew the details of the crime or planned crime in which case they were 100% accurate. So both is correct, 100% and 83%. this is because the numbers correlate to two separate issues.
that's because all the new editing standards at Slashdot designed to have less duplicate stories.
If those new standards weren't in place, this would be the second or third posting of the article.
No matter how you try to word it, the result is the same, making a law after the fact then attempting to apply it before the fact is unconstitutional whether it's revoking a permit to operate or charging someone for a crime. You can weasel around all you want and focus on everything but that, except it doesn't change that point one bit at all.
The revocation of a permit by a future law has the exact same effect of applying the future law to the previous conditions. You are in essence attempting to use words other then law and revocation to hide this but it doesn't work. If you revoke a permit because a law changed and the facility no longer meets the law's requirements, then you are applying the after the fact law to the facility no matter how you try to dress it up. It's simply post facto.
The permit doesn't need to say anything like that. The damn constitution makes it illegal to change the laws after the fact. The permit simply says this has been certified to X standards and is allowed to operate for Y time. IF you change any laws and use those changes as a basis to move X or Y, you have violated the constitution's ex post fact clause. When the states or federal government changes a law, the only way they can apply it to something already in existence constitutionally is if they grandfather it in and require the changes to be made up to code when a certain amount of regulated renovation happens or someone attempts to change it's use.
And as for your anecdotal evidence, well, I guess that settles everything because you know all the conditions of the permits, you know all the actions of the permits, you know the law surrounding them, and you know everything right. Well, wrong! Permits expire, there are conditions in some that don't have anything to do with the actions of the holder, and some of these conditions are set in law. But by all means, please link to a few examples of these no fault revocations of permits you know about that didn't have conditions already in law or the permits.
Listen, I'm not sure what you have seen because it
Lol.. It's not going to be like you flip a switch and all the sudden people are employed or unemployed. Also the accounting of the unemployed was changed in 93 so unless you are adjusting or normalizing the figures, they arne't directly comparable before that to after.
Anyways, Taxes and unemployment are closely linked but it also depends on growth. Take right after WWII for instance, we had huge amounts of growth because we still have an intact infrastructure where most of Europe's was devastated. Our growth cause lower unemployment rates and part of this is because Rosie the Riveter went home and didn't come back looking for jobs but mostly because of the demand to products in Europe.
This demand overwhelmed the effects of high taxes and made them negligible until well into the 60's when Europe was back on it's feet and the demand started dropping. This is also why one of the few things that Kennedy did in office was to lower taxes which somewhat maintained our prosperity until Cart was in office. But by then Rosie the Riveter was starting to come back out looking for jobs.