Can I get a judge to open up ALL your email and dissect your computer by saying "I think PPH is a paedophile organising the storage of KP"?
Yes. The judge will receive a copy of all my e-mail and allow that which supports the case.
I would have to convince a judge that there's evidence already to hint that you are a paedo and involved in a KP ring before issuing the order.
That's how I'd end up in court in the first place. Its called reasonable suspicion.
Your example is a bad one, because possessing KP is a criminal offense. So the police and the prosecutor would have to develop the case and bring charges. On the other hand, the rules of evidence and proof of guilt differ between civil and criminal cases. So the procedures and filters on allowable evidence would be different.
That hasn't worked out very well for a few people in my corner of the world lately. The cops have just shot them based on the vehicle's use as a deadly weapon. And I doubt the law would take issue with a private citizen practicing self defense either.
If your beef is with the scientist, then you should say so right up front and persue it like any civil action against a person.
Hence the reference to a subpoena in the summary. That is issued by a court, meaning that there is a civil (or possibly criminal if the research involves public funds) action underway.
Judges have the power to allow or disallow evidence in court. So if the subject e-mails contain material not pertinent to the case, its a simple matter to have that redacted. If the content has bearing on the case, the judge can (and should) allow it.
If this is just an issue of the public's right to see the data and methods, then the e-mails aren't necessary. As long as pertinent data and methodology is documented in some form.
Motor vehicles travel faster than you and often cut you up by passing and then turning.
So you wait in line behind them until they've turned. That's the way its done with all other vehicle types. Why are bicycles special? Don't get so offended by being passed where you have to 'get back' at them.
Most of the cycle deaths in London are at poorly designed junctions where big stuff can turn across the path of cyclists going forward.
That's because when you are in an auto turning left (in the UK) or right (in the USA), you are in the far left or right lane. Just because there is two feet between you and the curb doesn't make it a legal lane for a cyclist to shoot straight through. Bicycles need to observe lane discipline. Stay in line behind the previous vehicle. Or pass them on the correct side (after signaling and checking traffic to switch lanes). Then you won't get run over.
Because putting bicycles on roads is an effective traffic calming technique. Cyclists are being used as speed bumps for cars.
Probably the safest place for bicycles is on their own dedicated lane. But here in Seattle (a place that supposedly promotes bike use) we are switching bikes off of the few dedicated lanes that exist back onto the roadway (with little painted bicycle symbols).
Look at The Netherlands for example. They have a network of dedicated bicycle paths to keep bikes and autos separated. In the USA, the bicycle lobby pushes for a 'share the road' philosophy. In some cases, abandoning existing bike paths for a painted bicycle symbol on the street. Also, in cities like Amsterdam, bicycles (with their own lane signals) are expected to stop and otherwise honor traffic controls. And these laws are enforced. Here, we have Idaho stops. In The Netherlands, you'll see people riding sedately, wearing business attire, carrying groceries, etc. Its just another form of transportation. Here, everyone is wearing spandex racing gear. And riding as though it was the tour de France. Perish the thought that a stop sign, pedestrian or traffic law should interfere with a rider shaving a few seconds off their previous best commute time.
Battleship shells still have to penetrate battleship armour kinetically when they arrive.
Theoretically true (theoretically, because we aren't likely to encounter that many battleships anymore). A 16 inch, 2700 pound projectile traveling with a (muzzle) velocity of 2700 ft per sec has quite a bit of kinetic energy, so penetration is not a problem. In addition, at long ranges the ballistic trajectory would result in the round traveling at an angle downwards. So the round would be penetrating the deck from above, not the (more heavily armored) sides of a battleship.
Glenn Beck has been known to use this device known as "sarcasm" which tends to escape the Aspergers crowd that runs Slashdot.
The problem is: Beck's followers don't recognize the humor either (if that's what it really is). For all I know, Beck is a Berkeley educated flaming liberal hippie freak. One who is smart enough to have found a market and produced product for it. Kudos for him. He's getting rich and probably laughing all the way to the bank.
The problem is the people who believe his 'connect the dots' theories. Beck may or may not know he is producing crap. If he takes it seriously, I've heard psychologists compare him and his scribbling to
John Nash. Russel Crowe was acting. Nash wasn't. I'm not certain Beck's followers can tell the difference either.
I will offer this caveat: If you are interviewing for a junior position at a law firm and they advertise an on site health club for their employees, run like hell. It means they'll be expecting you to work (very) long hours and keep a few changes of clothes on site.
That's how most futures contracts are settled. Not many speculators expect a rail tanker of crude to show up on their driveway at contract maturity. The only problem I can see with Bitcoin is that there are (presently) not many end users willing to settle in that currency. So speculating in crude oil would require hedging the Bitcoin/dollar, Bitcoin/Euro, Bitcoin/Renminbi, etc. exchange rates. Bitcoin may prove to be a better intermediary for conducting such trades, as there is no single political entity that can fiddle with the money supply (by design).
If Canada produced the oil and China was the eventual consumer, the only contracts you'd need wouldd be Bitcoin/$CDN, Bitcoin/Renminbi and Bitcoin crude futures. No dollars were harmed (or needed) in this transaction. This is when the US Marines enter the picture.
... locker rooms and showers. Probably already considered in a manufacturing facility. But you'd be surprised to see how this detail is missed in a white collar setting when employees start riding bicycles to work.
hard to tell from reading the details but it does appear that this is not actually backed by real futures contracts in oil and gold
What's a 'real futures contract'? Its just a contract between two private parties. It could be scribbled on a napkin an still be legal. Its an agreement to deliver some commodity at a future date for some fixed price*. It doesn't mean you have that commodity in your possession at the moment.
hence this would be classified as gambling in most countries
This was the case with CDSs. It wasn't actually necessary to possess the security that these bet against to write them. They are simply a bet against another security. At the end of the mortgage security boom, there were something like 5 times the coverage written against each security**. And that was explicitly made legal back during the Reagan Administration (I think).
Look at corn futures for example. Farmers enter into futures contracts all the time. Even before the corn has been grown.
* A particular exchange can have rules (often mandated by regulators) that require the parties to a contract to have some sort of collateral backing in order to trade. But that only depends on the jurisdiction of the regulator.
** No cabal of investors was necessary to bring the markets down at this point. The 'wisdom of the markets' described by Adam Smith suggests that when there is more profit to be made by the collapse of a security than by its continued liquidity, it collapses.
Why obscure the links behind a link abbreviation service,
Obscure what links? The https://icbit.se/ link is the actual domain name of the Bitcoin exchange, ICBIT. The URLs point to various futures pages on ICBIT.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have mod points.
Poorly written security procedures:
Q: If attacked, how many terrorists will we allow to infiltrate?
A: None.
How many of those feet consisted of steel and concrete?
Can I get a judge to open up ALL your email and dissect your computer by saying "I think PPH is a paedophile organising the storage of KP"?
Yes. The judge will receive a copy of all my e-mail and allow that which supports the case.
I would have to convince a judge that there's evidence already to hint that you are a paedo and involved in a KP ring before issuing the order.
That's how I'd end up in court in the first place. Its called reasonable suspicion.
Your example is a bad one, because possessing KP is a criminal offense. So the police and the prosecutor would have to develop the case and bring charges. On the other hand, the rules of evidence and proof of guilt differ between civil and criminal cases. So the procedures and filters on allowable evidence would be different.
That hasn't worked out very well for a few people in my corner of the world lately. The cops have just shot them based on the vehicle's use as a deadly weapon. And I doubt the law would take issue with a private citizen practicing self defense either.
If your beef is with the scientist, then you should say so right up front and persue it like any civil action against a person.
Hence the reference to a subpoena in the summary. That is issued by a court, meaning that there is a civil (or possibly criminal if the research involves public funds) action underway.
Judges have the power to allow or disallow evidence in court. So if the subject e-mails contain material not pertinent to the case, its a simple matter to have that redacted. If the content has bearing on the case, the judge can (and should) allow it.
If this is just an issue of the public's right to see the data and methods, then the e-mails aren't necessary. As long as pertinent data and methodology is documented in some form.
You've never ridden a bike in traffic, have you?
Yes I have. Quite often.
Motor vehicles travel faster than you and often cut you up by passing and then turning.
So you wait in line behind them until they've turned. That's the way its done with all other vehicle types. Why are bicycles special? Don't get so offended by being passed where you have to 'get back' at them.
Most of the cycle deaths in London are at poorly designed junctions where big stuff can turn across the path of cyclists going forward.
That's because when you are in an auto turning left (in the UK) or right (in the USA), you are in the far left or right lane. Just because there is two feet between you and the curb doesn't make it a legal lane for a cyclist to shoot straight through. Bicycles need to observe lane discipline. Stay in line behind the previous vehicle. Or pass them on the correct side (after signaling and checking traffic to switch lanes). Then you won't get run over.
Because putting bicycles on roads is an effective traffic calming technique. Cyclists are being used as speed bumps for cars.
Probably the safest place for bicycles is on their own dedicated lane. But here in Seattle (a place that supposedly promotes bike use) we are switching bikes off of the few dedicated lanes that exist back onto the roadway (with little painted bicycle symbols).
Look at The Netherlands for example. They have a network of dedicated bicycle paths to keep bikes and autos separated. In the USA, the bicycle lobby pushes for a 'share the road' philosophy. In some cases, abandoning existing bike paths for a painted bicycle symbol on the street. Also, in cities like Amsterdam, bicycles (with their own lane signals) are expected to stop and otherwise honor traffic controls. And these laws are enforced. Here, we have Idaho stops. In The Netherlands, you'll see people riding sedately, wearing business attire, carrying groceries, etc. Its just another form of transportation. Here, everyone is wearing spandex racing gear. And riding as though it was the tour de France. Perish the thought that a stop sign, pedestrian or traffic law should interfere with a rider shaving a few seconds off their previous best commute time.
Forget it. We need helmets here.
Something WCIT this way comes.
The question is, can you hit anything.
At that range, you'll either need a guided round or fire a pattern to cover an area.
Battleship shells still have to penetrate battleship armour kinetically when they arrive.
Theoretically true (theoretically, because we aren't likely to encounter that many battleships anymore). A 16 inch, 2700 pound projectile traveling with a (muzzle) velocity of 2700 ft per sec has quite a bit of kinetic energy, so penetration is not a problem. In addition, at long ranges the ballistic trajectory would result in the round traveling at an angle downwards. So the round would be penetrating the deck from above, not the (more heavily armored) sides of a battleship.
Glenn Beck has been known to use this device known as "sarcasm" which tends to escape the Aspergers crowd that runs Slashdot.
The problem is: Beck's followers don't recognize the humor either (if that's what it really is). For all I know, Beck is a Berkeley educated flaming liberal hippie freak. One who is smart enough to have found a market and produced product for it. Kudos for him. He's getting rich and probably laughing all the way to the bank.
The problem is the people who believe his 'connect the dots' theories. Beck may or may not know he is producing crap. If he takes it seriously, I've heard psychologists compare him and his scribbling to John Nash. Russel Crowe was acting. Nash wasn't. I'm not certain Beck's followers can tell the difference either.
The site in the summary has a well placed 'Contribute' button. But I didn't see any actual real time forest pictures.
I will offer this caveat: If you are interviewing for a junior position at a law firm and they advertise an on site health club for their employees, run like hell. It means they'll be expecting you to work (very) long hours and keep a few changes of clothes on site.
That's how most futures contracts are settled. Not many speculators expect a rail tanker of crude to show up on their driveway at contract maturity. The only problem I can see with Bitcoin is that there are (presently) not many end users willing to settle in that currency. So speculating in crude oil would require hedging the Bitcoin/dollar, Bitcoin/Euro, Bitcoin/Renminbi, etc. exchange rates. Bitcoin may prove to be a better intermediary for conducting such trades, as there is no single political entity that can fiddle with the money supply (by design).
If Canada produced the oil and China was the eventual consumer, the only contracts you'd need wouldd be Bitcoin/$CDN, Bitcoin/Renminbi and Bitcoin crude futures. No dollars were harmed (or needed) in this transaction. This is when the US Marines enter the picture.
hard to tell from reading the details but it does appear that this is not actually backed by real futures contracts in oil and gold
What's a 'real futures contract'? Its just a contract between two private parties. It could be scribbled on a napkin an still be legal. Its an agreement to deliver some commodity at a future date for some fixed price*. It doesn't mean you have that commodity in your possession at the moment.
hence this would be classified as gambling in most countries
This was the case with CDSs. It wasn't actually necessary to possess the security that these bet against to write them. They are simply a bet against another security. At the end of the mortgage security boom, there were something like 5 times the coverage written against each security**. And that was explicitly made legal back during the Reagan Administration (I think).
Look at corn futures for example. Farmers enter into futures contracts all the time. Even before the corn has been grown.
* A particular exchange can have rules (often mandated by regulators) that require the parties to a contract to have some sort of collateral backing in order to trade. But that only depends on the jurisdiction of the regulator.
** No cabal of investors was necessary to bring the markets down at this point. The 'wisdom of the markets' described by Adam Smith suggests that when there is more profit to be made by the collapse of a security than by its continued liquidity, it collapses.
Why obscure the links behind a link abbreviation service,
Obscure what links? The https://icbit.se/ link is the actual domain name of the Bitcoin exchange, ICBIT. The URLs point to various futures pages on ICBIT.
[citation needed]
You are aware that Bitcoin is traded in places other than the USA. Where US law does not apply.