um, jr. I spent a lot of time with Crossfire, Adventures in Math, Gato, and Kings Quest II. I learned to type playing Kings Quest II. My wife doesn't want our son to play video games, but I've already told her he's going to learn to type on Kings Quest games.
Maybe. National security issues often times result in bad decisions (Korematsu - sorry George Takei) and scary rationale. For example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, returned to the US, then denied habeas rights. O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer all said if Hamdi took up arms he can be detained for the duration of hostilities under the AUMF. Souter and Ginsburg concurred but said he should be tried via criminal law. Stevens and Scalia said screw you. Either suspend habeas (which you can't) or criminally charge him. And then Thomas said Hamdi is a combatant and the judiciary is not allowed to question the executive power (ed. Yikes!).
Scalia's dissent, joined by Stevens, should have been a 9-0 ruling. Like I said, national security issues befuddle the Court. In Korematsu the Court effectively abdicated its power and simply said we don't know war matters so the military can do what it wants. That's double plus ungood.
Of course, we have knew members on the Court, but even the remaining ones are hard to tell where'd they'd fall.
Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.
Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.
Robot #2: "Uh oh, he froze up again." Robot #3: "Try control, alt, delete!" Robot #4: "Jiggle the cord!" Robot #5: "Turn him off and on!" Robot #6: "Clean the gunk out of the mouse!" Fry: "Call technical support!" Robot #2: "Ok, ok, he's back online."
Two cases like that actually. First is Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. and the second is Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982). Artic was selling Defender like ROMs with extremely similar code (we're talking pixels here) on them so others could make bootleg copies. Their argument was that the code or presentation was not copyrightable. The visible element or attract screen, Artic said, was not "fixed." The court, in both cases, held that it was fixed because the code was in the chips from which it can be perceived using the other game components.
Those cases, at least Williams, is still taught in law school today.
Gary Johnson is likely to be the Libertarian candidate this year. I can't say if he meets your criteria or not so here's the address: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
I'm not sure he gets what net neutrality really is, but he's old. So, you know how that is.
The guy who invented it is an ex-Astronaut and VASIMR (or its tech underpinnings) was his PhD thesis at MIT for Applied Plasma Physics. I guess what I'm saying is he isn't a crank.
Then I would've had to carry it around with me everywhere. Anything other than your A-3 bags (life support stuff in case you were shot down or went to a different environment) you had to carry with you. There was a chance you wouldn't be coming back to that location so we had to carry all our stuff with us every time we flew. Bringing a microwave sounds like a good idea (as does bringing an inflatable mattress) until you have to drag it around.
Why would the pilots be wearing flight gloves all the time? I don't remember seeing any of them wear their gloves much at all. The buttons and dials are so small a glove wouldn't be wise to use. I know I took mine off when I did the flight deck pre-flight.
It wasn't a Toughbook. It was some super expensive one-of-a-kind piece-of-shit whiz bang crappy touch screen. It only had one job, fill in Form F, and was super slow and annoying. Almost as annoying as the thermal printer. Hopefully this iPad stuff works out and they replace that monster with an iPad for the load station.
The C-17 has plenty of standard outlets on-board. There are two at the Load station and outlets every couple of feet above the sidewall seats. Plenty of outlets to be had.
I know, because I was a C-17 Load.
You know what it didn't have? A fucking microwave. Had a convection oven but no microwave.
How can a single rocket, a tube filled with pork, cost $10 billion? Please explain.
FTFY. Now the answer is obvious.
Dr. Spengler: I'm worried, Arlet. It's getting crowded in there and all my data points point to something big on the horizon.
Winston: What do you mean, big?
Dr. Spengler: Well, let's say this hot dog represents the normal amount of pork for NASA. Based on this morning's test, it would be a hot dog. . . thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
I don't know how law works in Australia, so take this as an answer to your question that is applicable in the US but maybe not AUS. First, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" well anywhere except TV and armchair attorneys. It's "burden of going forward" and "burden of persuasion." But it's irrelevant here anyway. There is no "guilty" in civil court. It's liable not liable. Second, an injunction is not relief. An injunction is merely to maintain the status quo to prevent any irreparable harm while the court sorts out the case. Here, if Samsung could sell the tablet then what's the point of the case? If it gets released then even if an infringement ruling came down the damage is already done. You can't take back the Tabs. So the judge granted the injunction (which is not indicative of future rulings) to keep the status quo which was no Galaxy Tab in AUS.
It doesn't apply to "cases which aren't frivolous?" Awesome, who decides what's frivolous and what's not? I thought I knew frivolous cases from reading newspapers. Then I went to law school and actually read the cases. Give me an example of what you consider a frivolous case.
And court fees are always the domain of the court. I do 8th amendment/1983 actions which allow fee shifting but doesn't require it. What you really want is universal fee shifting. And that's OK, my Advanced Civil Procedure Professor wanted it as well. I just disagreed with the results of such a measure. The UK does have it if you want to see it in practice.
The court can always charge a side with legal fees if the lawsuit is without merit. What you actually want is universal fee shifting. Sounds great until you consider every company will pay their attorneys 1,000 dollars an hour. No suits will be brought.
As an attorney I think you're on to something and should push this as hard as possible. However, be aware that your idea give companies even greater power. Right now it's everyone pays their own fees with fee shifting in certain statutory situations and meritless cases. But if you had your way I could work 100 hours a year and make 100,000 dollars since companies would just use my fee as a intimidation tactic. Fine with me, but bad for you.
The ruling would constitute persuasive authority in other circuits not precedent. I'm in the 10th circuit, so if I had a case like this I would say something along the lines of "Although this issue is one of first impression in the 10th Circuit, the 1st Circuit recently examined this very issue. In CASE X it was held that . ..." It just tells the court that this circuit hasn't seen the issue, yet, and the other circuit[s] that have held a certain way. It doesn't mean they have to follow it.
The problem is that an inalienable is not non waiverable. You can waive your 4th Amendment right but you still have the option to revoke that waiver. The issue with disallowing a waiver of 4th Amendment rights is that you'd need an attorney and the court system for everything. It's also a personal freedom issue. Shouldn't a rationale American citizen be allowed to waiver their rights if they want to? I don't know. It's a balance of virtues issue. On one hand the restriction such a rule would place on government authority would be huge, but then the additional legal requirements could backfire on the gains.
You can't consent to an unreasonable search now. That's where I think a lot of people go wrong. They really just want TSA searches to be unreasonable and therefore illegal. Except, unreasonable is a legal term of art that uses an objective standard. To claim it's an unreasonable search you'd have to differentiate it from DUI checkpoints. A checkpoint must not be roving, and cannot be for general law enforcement. TSA checkpoints don't move and they are searching for impermissible items not for general law enforcement. DUI checkpoints are constitutional so you'd have to prove to the court why the two differ. That goes back to the fundamental right argument. Driving is not a fundamental right so if air travel was the two checkpoints would be different and DUI checkpoint constitutionality couldn't be used to shield TSA checkpoints. Without the fundamental right status then TSA searches are as reasonable as DUI checkpoint searches or parole officer searches or police searches. So with TSA you are consenting to a reasonable search not an unreasonable one.
And thank you for being civil. I'm more interested in the workings of law than I am TSA specifically. It's like being a coder that reverse engineers software because they want to see how it works. I like being called a "dictatorship apologist" as much as a coder likes being called "hacker," "cracker," or "thief" by software companies just because you want to understand how something works.
I replied to shaitland with a more detailed response. Both of you are hitting on the same question which is air travel should be a fundamental right and if it were wouldn't that negate the consent issue? And the answer is almost certainly. The problem is that it hasn't been held to be fundamental. I think I made a strong constitutional argument for why it should be, but the Supreme Court has not held that and may never. Therefore the consent issues still hold until that happens.
Concerning your statement that I somehow believe that murder or stabbing a person is a consentable act, I don't know where you get that.
First, I'm not sure what you're even getting at. I can see three different readings. First, that a person cannot consent to be killed. Second, that a person cannot consent to be murdered. Third, that a person cannot consent to be killed/murdered by a TSA agent or other government actor.
First, a person can consent to be killed it's called physician assisted suicide. Some states, I believe Oregon is one, do have this law.
Second, you cannot consent to be murdered. This also covers consent to be killed by a non physician. Here's the problem with your example: there is no consent element in a murder charge. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that the victim didn't consent. The defendant could claim that the victim consented in some way and try to get the charge reduced from murder to manslaughter, but that's a mitigation defense aimed at the jury not a question of law. In practical terms, that means you would file a motion for summary judgment with an affirmative defense of consent. The court will just throw it out, but feel free to tell the jury that. But, the court would never consider this so there really isn't any Fourth Amendment implication. Further, private citizens are not bound by the Fourth Amendment and so cannot violate your rights. That means consent doctrine with a private citizen is inapplicable. Feel free to break down your neighbors door and take pictures of all his illegal activities. You'll be charged with trespassing and other charges but the police will be able to use whatever you find even sans warrant.
Third, if a government actor, TSA agent, officer, FBI, DEA, stabs you for no reason then they are acting outside of their authority and are considered a normal citizen. Again, can't consent to murder so still not an issue, and the private citizen cannot violate your Fourth Amendment rights so there is obviously no need for consent.
The basic premise of your analogy is flawed. You can consent to waive your Fourth Amendment rights but cannot consent to murder. Your premise would be correct if TSA searches were illegal, but that's the problem I talked about in my first post. You'd have to distinguish TSA searches from all others just like it. I don't see how you can do that so your consent to a crime analogy is out. However, if it were held that TSA searches are criminal then it's in, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
In summation, you can either get the Supreme Court to elevate air travel to fundamental right status or show that TSA searches are all illegal. Either way and your aces. Problem is TSA searches have constitutional parallels you'd have to navigate while the fundamental right path builds off the Supreme Court's own rulings. I'd go fundamental right which would solve all these problems, and you wouldn't have to explain how TSA searches are different than every other governmental agency search.
Slashdot Mirror
um, jr. I spent a lot of time with Crossfire, Adventures in Math, Gato, and Kings Quest II. I learned to type playing Kings Quest II. My wife doesn't want our son to play video games, but I've already told her he's going to learn to type on Kings Quest games.
I'd vote for Terry Crews.
Triple confirmation.
This looks cloaked
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few cloaks in my time
1. He's Australian not American
2. He's announced he hacked these people previously
3. He's already been raided
4. He wants more attention
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/24/4024062/the-secrets-of-hacker-and-xbox-durango-leaker-superdae
>
And can some lawyer explain what a 'prenda law'is?
Sure, it's a law firm named Prenda Law.
I find your solution to short circuit this law to be both pedantic and juvenile.
I love it.
Maybe. National security issues often times result in bad decisions (Korematsu - sorry George Takei) and scary rationale. For example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, returned to the US, then denied habeas rights. O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer all said if Hamdi took up arms he can be detained for the duration of hostilities under the AUMF. Souter and Ginsburg concurred but said he should be tried via criminal law. Stevens and Scalia said screw you. Either suspend habeas (which you can't) or criminally charge him. And then Thomas said Hamdi is a combatant and the judiciary is not allowed to question the executive power (ed. Yikes!).
Scalia's dissent, joined by Stevens, should have been a 9-0 ruling. Like I said, national security issues befuddle the Court. In Korematsu the Court effectively abdicated its power and simply said we don't know war matters so the military can do what it wants. That's double plus ungood.
Of course, we have knew members on the Court, but even the remaining ones are hard to tell where'd they'd fall.
Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.
Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.
But I don't make the rules.
Here's the transcript from the launchpad.
Robot #2: "Uh oh, he froze up again."
Robot #3: "Try control, alt, delete!"
Robot #4: "Jiggle the cord!"
Robot #5: "Turn him off and on!"
Robot #6: "Clean the gunk out of the mouse!"
Fry: "Call technical support!"
Robot #2: "Ok, ok, he's back online."
Two cases like that actually. First is Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. and the second is Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982). Artic was selling Defender like ROMs with extremely similar code (we're talking pixels here) on them so others could make bootleg copies. Their argument was that the code or presentation was not copyrightable. The visible element or attract screen, Artic said, was not "fixed." The court, in both cases, held that it was fixed because the code was in the chips from which it can be perceived using the other game components.
Those cases, at least Williams, is still taught in law school today.
Gary Johnson is likely to be the Libertarian candidate this year. I can't say if he meets your criteria or not so here's the address:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
I'm not sure he gets what net neutrality really is, but he's old. So, you know how that is.
Turns out I was wrong. I made myself sad. Here's the technology that might actually transform space flight.
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket
The guy who invented it is an ex-Astronaut and VASIMR (or its tech underpinnings) was his PhD thesis at MIT for Applied Plasma Physics. I guess what I'm saying is he isn't a crank.
Probably. I left in 2006, but at that time there was talk a microwave was going to be installed. I don't know if they did or not.
Then I would've had to carry it around with me everywhere. Anything other than your A-3 bags (life support stuff in case you were shot down or went to a different environment) you had to carry with you. There was a chance you wouldn't be coming back to that location so we had to carry all our stuff with us every time we flew. Bringing a microwave sounds like a good idea (as does bringing an inflatable mattress) until you have to drag it around.
Why would the pilots be wearing flight gloves all the time? I don't remember seeing any of them wear their gloves much at all. The buttons and dials are so small a glove wouldn't be wise to use. I know I took mine off when I did the flight deck pre-flight.
It wasn't a Toughbook. It was some super expensive one-of-a-kind piece-of-shit whiz bang crappy touch screen. It only had one job, fill in Form F, and was super slow and annoying. Almost as annoying as the thermal printer. Hopefully this iPad stuff works out and they replace that monster with an iPad for the load station.
The C-17 has plenty of standard outlets on-board. There are two at the Load station and outlets every couple of feet above the sidewall seats. Plenty of outlets to be had.
I know, because I was a C-17 Load.
You know what it didn't have? A fucking microwave. Had a convection oven but no microwave.
FTFY. Now the answer is obvious.
Dr. Spengler: I'm worried, Arlet. It's getting crowded in there and all my data points point to something big on the horizon.
Winston: What do you mean, big?
Dr. Spengler: Well, let's say this hot dog represents the normal amount of pork for NASA. Based on this morning's test, it would be a hot dog. . . thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
Winston: That's a big hot dog.
I don't know how law works in Australia, so take this as an answer to your question that is applicable in the US but maybe not AUS. First, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" well anywhere except TV and armchair attorneys. It's "burden of going forward" and "burden of persuasion." But it's irrelevant here anyway. There is no "guilty" in civil court. It's liable not liable. Second, an injunction is not relief. An injunction is merely to maintain the status quo to prevent any irreparable harm while the court sorts out the case. Here, if Samsung could sell the tablet then what's the point of the case? If it gets released then even if an infringement ruling came down the damage is already done. You can't take back the Tabs. So the judge granted the injunction (which is not indicative of future rulings) to keep the status quo which was no Galaxy Tab in AUS.
HTH.
It doesn't apply to "cases which aren't frivolous?" Awesome, who decides what's frivolous and what's not? I thought I knew frivolous cases from reading newspapers. Then I went to law school and actually read the cases. Give me an example of what you consider a frivolous case.
And court fees are always the domain of the court. I do 8th amendment/1983 actions which allow fee shifting but doesn't require it. What you really want is universal fee shifting. And that's OK, my Advanced Civil Procedure Professor wanted it as well. I just disagreed with the results of such a measure. The UK does have it if you want to see it in practice.
Here's my professor's Amazon page for his books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Robert%20Hardaway
No, he couldn't remember anyone's name, but he knows everything about law. Even if he's wrong about universal fee shifting.
The court can always charge a side with legal fees if the lawsuit is without merit. What you actually want is universal fee shifting. Sounds great until you consider every company will pay their attorneys 1,000 dollars an hour. No suits will be brought.
As an attorney I think you're on to something and should push this as hard as possible. However, be aware that your idea give companies even greater power. Right now it's everyone pays their own fees with fee shifting in certain statutory situations and meritless cases. But if you had your way I could work 100 hours a year and make 100,000 dollars since companies would just use my fee as a intimidation tactic. Fine with me, but bad for you.
I guess if you don't care I don't.
The ruling would constitute persuasive authority in other circuits not precedent. I'm in the 10th circuit, so if I had a case like this I would say something along the lines of "Although this issue is one of first impression in the 10th Circuit, the 1st Circuit recently examined this very issue. In CASE X it was held that . . .." It just tells the court that this circuit hasn't seen the issue, yet, and the other circuit[s] that have held a certain way. It doesn't mean they have to follow it.
The problem is that an inalienable is not non waiverable. You can waive your 4th Amendment right but you still have the option to revoke that waiver. The issue with disallowing a waiver of 4th Amendment rights is that you'd need an attorney and the court system for everything. It's also a personal freedom issue. Shouldn't a rationale American citizen be allowed to waiver their rights if they want to? I don't know. It's a balance of virtues issue. On one hand the restriction such a rule would place on government authority would be huge, but then the additional legal requirements could backfire on the gains.
You can't consent to an unreasonable search now. That's where I think a lot of people go wrong. They really just want TSA searches to be unreasonable and therefore illegal. Except, unreasonable is a legal term of art that uses an objective standard. To claim it's an unreasonable search you'd have to differentiate it from DUI checkpoints. A checkpoint must not be roving, and cannot be for general law enforcement. TSA checkpoints don't move and they are searching for impermissible items not for general law enforcement. DUI checkpoints are constitutional so you'd have to prove to the court why the two differ. That goes back to the fundamental right argument. Driving is not a fundamental right so if air travel was the two checkpoints would be different and DUI checkpoint constitutionality couldn't be used to shield TSA checkpoints. Without the fundamental right status then TSA searches are as reasonable as DUI checkpoint searches or parole officer searches or police searches. So with TSA you are consenting to a reasonable search not an unreasonable one.
And thank you for being civil. I'm more interested in the workings of law than I am TSA specifically. It's like being a coder that reverse engineers software because they want to see how it works. I like being called a "dictatorship apologist" as much as a coder likes being called "hacker," "cracker," or "thief" by software companies just because you want to understand how something works.
I replied to shaitland with a more detailed response. Both of you are hitting on the same question which is air travel should be a fundamental right and if it were wouldn't that negate the consent issue? And the answer is almost certainly. The problem is that it hasn't been held to be fundamental. I think I made a strong constitutional argument for why it should be, but the Supreme Court has not held that and may never. Therefore the consent issues still hold until that happens.
Concerning your statement that I somehow believe that murder or stabbing a person is a consentable act, I don't know where you get that.
First, I'm not sure what you're even getting at. I can see three different readings. First, that a person cannot consent to be killed. Second, that a person cannot consent to be murdered. Third, that a person cannot consent to be killed/murdered by a TSA agent or other government actor.
First, a person can consent to be killed it's called physician assisted suicide. Some states, I believe Oregon is one, do have this law.
Second, you cannot consent to be murdered. This also covers consent to be killed by a non physician. Here's the problem with your example: there is no consent element in a murder charge. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that the victim didn't consent. The defendant could claim that the victim consented in some way and try to get the charge reduced from murder to manslaughter, but that's a mitigation defense aimed at the jury not a question of law. In practical terms, that means you would file a motion for summary judgment with an affirmative defense of consent. The court will just throw it out, but feel free to tell the jury that. But, the court would never consider this so there really isn't any Fourth Amendment implication. Further, private citizens are not bound by the Fourth Amendment and so cannot violate your rights. That means consent doctrine with a private citizen is inapplicable. Feel free to break down your neighbors door and take pictures of all his illegal activities. You'll be charged with trespassing and other charges but the police will be able to use whatever you find even sans warrant.
Third, if a government actor, TSA agent, officer, FBI, DEA, stabs you for no reason then they are acting outside of their authority and are considered a normal citizen. Again, can't consent to murder so still not an issue, and the private citizen cannot violate your Fourth Amendment rights so there is obviously no need for consent.
The basic premise of your analogy is flawed. You can consent to waive your Fourth Amendment rights but cannot consent to murder. Your premise would be correct if TSA searches were illegal, but that's the problem I talked about in my first post. You'd have to distinguish TSA searches from all others just like it. I don't see how you can do that so your consent to a crime analogy is out. However, if it were held that TSA searches are criminal then it's in, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
In summation, you can either get the Supreme Court to elevate air travel to fundamental right status or show that TSA searches are all illegal. Either way and your aces. Problem is TSA searches have constitutional parallels you'd have to navigate while the fundamental right path builds off the Supreme Court's own rulings. I'd go fundamental right which would solve all these problems, and you wouldn't have to explain how TSA searches are different than every other governmental agency search.