Depends on the state. Here in Kentucky, refusing tests is an aggravating circumstance that results in doubling of minimum sentence and disqualifies you from a hardship license (KRS 189A.10 and KRS189A.410). It also results in suspension of your driver's license for the same amount of time as a for a conviction (KRS 189A.107). The refusal can be used as evidence of DUI (KRS 189A.105).
My (simplified) understanding is that the frequency spectrum is public property and the FCC is tasked with administering that property for the benefit of the public. The money paid is not so much a purchase of spectrum but purchase of a license to use a block of spectrum. The unlocked device restriction is a term of that license.
The constitutional mandate probably comes from Congress's Article IV Section 3 powers to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".
Note that he's talking about sheet film, not 35mm. He's presumably using 4x5" sheets with a field or view camera which generally don't have any electronics in them.
IANAL, but IIRC you're correct IF you're shooting a "newsworthy" event. If, however, I just went out on the street, shot John Q. Citizen's photo and proceeded to sell it he'd have a case.
You're correct based on the definition of refugee, at least in international law. Under common English usage, however, "refugee" is a perfectly acceptable term for the New Orleans refugees. As I recall, the correct legal category is "Internally Displaced People" since they've not (in general) left the US.
Electric heat can be pretty darn economic, too, depending on where you are. Including all the regulatory fees and taxes I pay just under US$0.06/kWh (0.0597 and some). My electric bill (and I have all electric, no gas or oil and so includes heat and hot water) for December was under US$60.
I don't think the implication was that he wasn't smart. It was that there might be something wrong with the American system that someone so obviously qualified to be an Engineer, Physics researcher, etc. sees the smart choice as going into Law.
Excepting that I live about 3 blocks from the town center whereas all the stores that stock anything resembling a reasonable selection are at least few miles OUT from the center, say about four miles to the closest.
This is what happens when you let rednecks become rocket scientists.
They've graduated from shooting up road signs, water heaters, etc. to shooting up whole planets!
I'd be more interested in a comparison between, say, a hybrid Civic and a similarly equipped conventional Civic. Or a hybrid Highlander and similarly equipped conventional Highlander. Seems to me that comparison of the same model, one conventional and one hybrid, would better highlight any difference.
Yes, Congress may "determine the Time of chusing the Electors", but what if a state decided to have a traditional runoff style election, where the top two candidates for elector in a vote held, say the second Tuesday of October, were subject to a second vote on the national selection day of the second Tuesday in Novemeber? The elector would not have been chosen until the Congressionally determined time, would it?
Also, your 14th Ammendment argument is presupposing that there is an election held for the choice of electors. Read the ammenedment again, "But when the right to vote at any election...". If an election (per Article II Section 1) is not held for the office of elector, but is held for the other offices named, would this apply?
It wouldn't be unconstitutional to use something other than first-past-the-post. The sections relevent to elections are:
Article I Section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Article II Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
Ammendment XVII: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years"
No where does the US Constitution direct the means of election, generally leaving that up to the states. In fact, I can't find anything in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from choosing to have it's legislature or governor from choosing the electors in a presidential election, or awarding electors based on the paries of it's congressional delegates. So a traditional runoff, instant runoff, Condorcet, etc. would be allowed under the US Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the state. Here in Kentucky, refusing tests is an aggravating circumstance that results in doubling of minimum sentence and disqualifies you from a hardship license (KRS 189A.10 and KRS189A.410). It also results in suspension of your driver's license for the same amount of time as a for a conviction (KRS 189A.107). The refusal can be used as evidence of DUI (KRS 189A.105).
My (simplified) understanding is that the frequency spectrum is public property and the FCC is tasked with administering that property for the benefit of the public. The money paid is not so much a purchase of spectrum but purchase of a license to use a block of spectrum. The unlocked device restriction is a term of that license. The constitutional mandate probably comes from Congress's Article IV Section 3 powers to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".
Note that he's talking about sheet film, not 35mm. He's presumably using 4x5" sheets with a field or view camera which generally don't have any electronics in them.
We're talking about something like this or this.
RAID3 (and RAID4) uses a dedicated disk for parity so it would be:
DDP
DDP
DDP
The difference between RAID3 and RAID4 is in the striping: RAID3 stripes bytes and RAID4 stripes blocks.
IANAL, but IIRC you're correct IF you're shooting a "newsworthy" event. If, however, I just went out on the street, shot John Q. Citizen's photo and proceeded to sell it he'd have a case.
You're correct based on the definition of refugee, at least in international law. Under common English usage, however, "refugee" is a perfectly acceptable term for the New Orleans refugees. As I recall, the correct legal category is "Internally Displaced People" since they've not (in general) left the US.
Electric heat can be pretty darn economic, too, depending on where you are. Including all the regulatory fees and taxes I pay just under US$0.06/kWh (0.0597 and some). My electric bill (and I have all electric, no gas or oil and so includes heat and hot water) for December was under US$60.
I don't think the implication was that he wasn't smart. It was that there might be something wrong with the American system that someone so obviously qualified to be an Engineer, Physics researcher, etc. sees the smart choice as going into Law.
Excepting that I live about 3 blocks from the town center whereas all the stores that stock anything resembling a reasonable selection are at least few miles OUT from the center, say about four miles to the closest.
This is what happens when you let rednecks become rocket scientists. They've graduated from shooting up road signs, water heaters, etc. to shooting up whole planets!
I'd be more interested in a comparison between, say, a hybrid Civic and a similarly equipped conventional Civic. Or a hybrid Highlander and similarly equipped conventional Highlander. Seems to me that comparison of the same model, one conventional and one hybrid, would better highlight any difference.
Heck, I've got a 1990 DeskJet+ that's still going strong. Back in the day, HPs were tanks.
Yes, Congress may "determine the Time of chusing the Electors", but what if a state decided to have a traditional runoff style election, where the top two candidates for elector in a vote held, say the second Tuesday of October, were subject to a second vote on the national selection day of the second Tuesday in Novemeber? The elector would not have been chosen until the Congressionally determined time, would it?
Also, your 14th Ammendment argument is presupposing that there is an election held for the choice of electors. Read the ammenedment again, "But when the right to vote at any election...". If an election (per Article II Section 1) is not held for the office of elector, but is held for the other offices named, would this apply?
It wouldn't be unconstitutional to use something other than first-past-the-post. The sections relevent to elections are:
Article I Section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Article II Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
Ammendment XVII: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years"
No where does the US Constitution direct the means of election, generally leaving that up to the states. In fact, I can't find anything in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from choosing to have it's legislature or governor from choosing the electors in a presidential election, or awarding electors based on the paries of it's congressional delegates. So a traditional runoff, instant runoff, Condorcet, etc. would be allowed under the US Constitution.
Mullets? Where's the Camaro owner?