No, but it's about as valid a comparison, at least on the surface, as comparing lead bullets/shot to leaded gasoline. Elemental lead vs. tetraethyl lead.
You mean like the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's (JMSDF) fleet of Atago class (modified US Burke Flight IIA) and Kongo class (modified US Burke Flight I) Aegis guided missile destroyers? Seems to me like they could put a pretty credible group of AAW escorts from that. Add in the indigenous Akizuki and Takanami class ASW frigates, and I think the JMSDF could field a pretty credible short range carrier battle group with 2-3 Aegis destroyers and a similar number of ASW escorts if they had an appropriate carrier.
Their main weakness is a lack of replenishment ships, just having oilers, not general purpose replenishment ships like the US Lewis and Clark class for various dry supplies (munitions, provisions, spare parts, etc.) during long deployments. To be fair, they'd really only need these to project military power outside their coastal waters.
The reason they're failing in the market is the demand for them comes from people who do not, and have no desire to, own guns. The vast majority of gun owners simply do not want smart guns, largely due to reliability concerns.
The US was founded not all that long after the Inquisition ended. Let's not forget how profoundly important it is not to encourage governments to take the easy path of torture.
And the British equivalent, the Star Chamber, in which coerced (read tortured) confessions were admitted.
To the OP: it's not so much about the benefit to society of someone "taking the 5th" as the government abuses prevented by it outweigh the benefits of not having the rule. Many of the constitutional rights, e.g. freedom of speech, we have weren't designed (at least not entirely) for the direct benefit of society but to limit government abuses of society. With freedom of speech, it's not really protecting , for example, the KKK's speech is seen as a benefit but that the dangers of allowing the government to choose who's speech is worthy are greater.
So, I pretty much reject to premise of examining specific cases to find a benefit where the only variable is the exercise of a right or not. Often the direct benefit from a specific case is on the side of not having the right. The benefit of the right only becomes clear by examining the historical pattern of abuses which arise from not having the right.
Mainly because of the politics leading up to Bavaria (where Reinheitsgebot came from) joining the German Empire in the late 19th century. The expansion of these rules to the rest of the Empire was one of the conditions of this merger. This killed the diversity which had existed, pushing many other regional beers in the Empire to extinction since they didn't meet the limits of Reinheitsgebot. Fruit and spiced beers from northern Germany, Grätzer (a top fermented smoked wheat beer), etc. all mostly wiped out by the expansion of the Reinheitsgebot bread protection law (it was originally enacted to prevent brewers from using grains suitable to bread making for beer).
And, yes, I'd put the top of commonly available US beer up against any country's, not the just the hard to find stuff.
Typically the recent activity has been ballot initiatives requiring a simple majority in the state to protect long-standing laws before the legislature or state courts can expand it.
There are quite a few such sizes just for nominally 9mm calibers (ranging from 9mm to 9.25mm). You'd effectively be banning printing things with cylindrical holes.
Trying to restrict what can be 3D printed like this is the equivalent of some of the less well-thought out DRM schemes, e.g. those which prevent you from copying your own creations.
Specifically, they can subpoena Google for such records and any records provided by Google wouldn't be protected. Technically, for emails there are some statutory protections which need to be met first under the Stored Communications Act, but no Constitutional protections on firm ground currently due to the Third Party Doctrine.
Because they don't have access to the contents as part of the ordinary course of maintaining it, thus it's still protected. In fact, many of the procedures around safety deposit boxes are, at least in part, designed such that they keep the bank from being a third party under the doctrine. They never see what you put in it, etc.
OK, then go access my gmail account and post all the content therein online.
Oh, wait, you can't, because that account has a fucking lock on it, that only I (and Google, supposedly) have a key to.
But Google has access to them. And the Third Party Doctrine, endorsed by the US Supreme Court, doesn't extend your 4th Amendment rights to information of yours held and accessible by others.
If you give me something which would incriminate you in the clear and I put it in a safe (say a letter in an unsealed envelope), all that's needed to require me (under the 4th) to turn that letter over to the government is a subpoena, not a search warrant. If it was in your safe, it would require a search warrant. Having an email in plain text sitting on someone else's hard drive is analogous.
I'm not saying I agree with this doctrine (I don't), but that's the current state of the law in the US: once your information leaves your possession you've pretty much lost 4th Amendment protections to it from anyone else who obtains it turning it over.
It's not misconduct to follow procedures ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court, e.g. United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979).
To be clear, I think they should be protected, but as far as I can tell, that's not the current state.
Hell, Boston proved that the Fourth Amendment is no obstacle to searching people's houses without a warrant. Not only did the people there let them do it, but they were happy to let them do it.
Yes. And there's no violation of the 4th Amendment if you willingly wave that right and say, "Come right on in and look around!" The 4th is only about coerced searches.
In essence, the doctrine holds that information lawfully held by many third parties is treated differently from information held by the suspect himself. It can be obtained by subpoenaing the third party, by securing the third party’s consent or by any other means of legal discovery; the suspect has no role in the matter, and no search warrant is required.
Safety deposit boxes are different since you have a lock on it.
If I simply give you an unsealed packet of papers, I am assuming the risk you'll had those over to the government if they ask you for them even if I ask you not to. There's no 4th amendment protection under those circumstances. This is analogous to using a web mail provider like gmail, hotmail, etc. where you're asking them to store plain text emails. You've arguably lost the 4th amendment protections in this case. Any protections are statutory, not constitutional.
One if you're comparing European MPG ratings (i.e. British) and not the liters/100 km more often seen, yes the MPG seems inflated. You need to remember these are usually in miles per Imperial gallon, which is larger than the US gallon and so the MPG number is higher by roughly 20% from this difference alone.
Or the negligent discharges from failing to clear a Glock properly before disassembly. The, IMO, major unsafe part of the Glock is pulling the trigger on a (presumably) empty chamber to disassemble it for cleaning.
Additionally, with some designs it is actually fairly common to remove safety features. For example, it's pretty common to remove the magazine disconnect (a safety which requires a magazine be inserted to fire) on the Browning Hi-Power to improve the trigger pull.
Many popular firearms don't have safeties, at least not manually operated safeties when the shooter needs to do something other than grip the firearm normally and pull the trigger. Glock, Springfield XD/HS2000, Sig Sauer, revolvers in general, etc. do not have such manual safeties. Some of the have a grip safety (XD) which must be depressed by gripping the pistol, or a multipart trigger safety (XD, Glock), but Sig Sauer and revolvers generally rely on a heavy trigger pull (at least for the first shot) as the safety.
In this case, it's presumably adding this on top of any other safety mechanism(s). The concern is it's adding additional points of failure and, probably critically, one that isn't purely mechanical. Defensive firearms have less tolerance to a safety failure than, say, a purely competition one.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also fire hazard from steel bullets sparking when striking rock, etc. That's another reason their use is banned on some ranges.
Tungsten is also quite a bit harder than lead. Makes it kind of hard to make an expanding bullet from it, as is required in many states for hunting.
No, but it's about as valid a comparison, at least on the surface, as comparing lead bullets/shot to leaded gasoline. Elemental lead vs. tetraethyl lead.
Same way the Soviet and Russian navies called their Aviation Cruisers?
You mean like the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's (JMSDF) fleet of Atago class (modified US Burke Flight IIA) and Kongo class (modified US Burke Flight I) Aegis guided missile destroyers? Seems to me like they could put a pretty credible group of AAW escorts from that. Add in the indigenous Akizuki and Takanami class ASW frigates, and I think the JMSDF could field a pretty credible short range carrier battle group with 2-3 Aegis destroyers and a similar number of ASW escorts if they had an appropriate carrier.
Their main weakness is a lack of replenishment ships, just having oilers, not general purpose replenishment ships like the US Lewis and Clark class for various dry supplies (munitions, provisions, spare parts, etc.) during long deployments. To be fair, they'd really only need these to project military power outside their coastal waters.
The reason they're failing in the market is the demand for them comes from people who do not, and have no desire to, own guns. The vast majority of gun owners simply do not want smart guns, largely due to reliability concerns.
The star chamber was almost 150 years before the American war of independence.
still idiomatic today. Throughout the 18th century its abuses were cited in English case law and debate on civil rights.
The US was founded not all that long after the Inquisition ended. Let's not forget how profoundly important it is not to encourage governments to take the easy path of torture.
And the British equivalent, the Star Chamber, in which coerced (read tortured) confessions were admitted.
To the OP: it's not so much about the benefit to society of someone "taking the 5th" as the government abuses prevented by it outweigh the benefits of not having the rule. Many of the constitutional rights, e.g. freedom of speech, we have weren't designed (at least not entirely) for the direct benefit of society but to limit government abuses of society. With freedom of speech, it's not really protecting , for example, the KKK's speech is seen as a benefit but that the dangers of allowing the government to choose who's speech is worthy are greater.
So, I pretty much reject to premise of examining specific cases to find a benefit where the only variable is the exercise of a right or not. Often the direct benefit from a specific case is on the side of not having the right. The benefit of the right only becomes clear by examining the historical pattern of abuses which arise from not having the right.
Take a beer tour of, say, Portland, OR and say that.
Mainly because of the politics leading up to Bavaria (where Reinheitsgebot came from) joining the German Empire in the late 19th century. The expansion of these rules to the rest of the Empire was one of the conditions of this merger. This killed the diversity which had existed, pushing many other regional beers in the Empire to extinction since they didn't meet the limits of Reinheitsgebot. Fruit and spiced beers from northern Germany, Grätzer (a top fermented smoked wheat beer), etc. all mostly wiped out by the expansion of the Reinheitsgebot bread protection law (it was originally enacted to prevent brewers from using grains suitable to bread making for beer).
And, yes, I'd put the top of commonly available US beer up against any country's, not the just the hard to find stuff.
Typically the recent activity has been ballot initiatives requiring a simple majority in the state to protect long-standing laws before the legislature or state courts can expand it.
There are quite a few such sizes just for nominally 9mm calibers (ranging from 9mm to 9.25mm). You'd effectively be banning printing things with cylindrical holes.
Trying to restrict what can be 3D printed like this is the equivalent of some of the less well-thought out DRM schemes, e.g. those which prevent you from copying your own creations.
Specifically, they can subpoena Google for such records and any records provided by Google wouldn't be protected. Technically, for emails there are some statutory protections which need to be met first under the Stored Communications Act, but no Constitutional protections on firm ground currently due to the Third Party Doctrine.
Because they don't have access to the contents as part of the ordinary course of maintaining it, thus it's still protected. In fact, many of the procedures around safety deposit boxes are, at least in part, designed such that they keep the bank from being a third party under the doctrine. They never see what you put in it, etc.
OK, then go access my gmail account and post all the content therein online.
Oh, wait, you can't, because that account has a fucking lock on it, that only I (and Google, supposedly) have a key to.
But Google has access to them. And the Third Party Doctrine, endorsed by the US Supreme Court, doesn't extend your 4th Amendment rights to information of yours held and accessible by others.
If you give me something which would incriminate you in the clear and I put it in a safe (say a letter in an unsealed envelope), all that's needed to require me (under the 4th) to turn that letter over to the government is a subpoena, not a search warrant. If it was in your safe, it would require a search warrant. Having an email in plain text sitting on someone else's hard drive is analogous.
I'm not saying I agree with this doctrine (I don't), but that's the current state of the law in the US: once your information leaves your possession you've pretty much lost 4th Amendment protections to it from anyone else who obtains it turning it over.
Ok. Just making sure. It's a common mistake.
It's not misconduct to follow procedures ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court, e.g. United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979).
To be clear, I think they should be protected, but as far as I can tell, that's not the current state.
Hell, Boston proved that the Fourth Amendment is no obstacle to searching people's houses without a warrant. Not only did the people there let them do it, but they were happy to let them do it.
Yes. And there's no violation of the 4th Amendment if you willingly wave that right and say, "Come right on in and look around!" The 4th is only about coerced searches.
Yes, those all apply to email in your possession. But, not necessarily to those stored with third parties. It's called the Third Party Doctrine.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited/
In essence, the doctrine holds that information lawfully held by many third parties is treated differently from information held by the suspect himself. It can be obtained by subpoenaing the third party, by securing the third party’s consent or by any other means of legal discovery; the suspect has no role in the matter, and no search warrant is required.
Safety deposit boxes are different since you have a lock on it.
If I simply give you an unsealed packet of papers, I am assuming the risk you'll had those over to the government if they ask you for them even if I ask you not to. There's no 4th amendment protection under those circumstances. This is analogous to using a web mail provider like gmail, hotmail, etc. where you're asking them to store plain text emails. You've arguably lost the 4th amendment protections in this case. Any protections are statutory, not constitutional.
One if you're comparing European MPG ratings (i.e. British) and not the liters/100 km more often seen, yes the MPG seems inflated. You need to remember these are usually in miles per Imperial gallon, which is larger than the US gallon and so the MPG number is higher by roughly 20% from this difference alone.
Or the negligent discharges from failing to clear a Glock properly before disassembly. The, IMO, major unsafe part of the Glock is pulling the trigger on a (presumably) empty chamber to disassemble it for cleaning.
Additionally, with some designs it is actually fairly common to remove safety features. For example, it's pretty common to remove the magazine disconnect (a safety which requires a magazine be inserted to fire) on the Browning Hi-Power to improve the trigger pull.
Many popular firearms don't have safeties, at least not manually operated safeties when the shooter needs to do something other than grip the firearm normally and pull the trigger. Glock, Springfield XD/HS2000, Sig Sauer, revolvers in general, etc. do not have such manual safeties. Some of the have a grip safety (XD) which must be depressed by gripping the pistol, or a multipart trigger safety (XD, Glock), but Sig Sauer and revolvers generally rely on a heavy trigger pull (at least for the first shot) as the safety.
In this case, it's presumably adding this on top of any other safety mechanism(s). The concern is it's adding additional points of failure and, probably critically, one that isn't purely mechanical. Defensive firearms have less tolerance to a safety failure than, say, a purely competition one.
Except for security updates, presumably.