>My original post was just to point out how stupid the defense was.
The argument seems to rest on the idea that drinking and driving is okay, so long as you don't get caught, or if you do get caught, that your alcohol levels are so close to the legal threshold as to bring the tolerances of the breathalyzer into question.
I'm sure the state will take the position that drinking and driving is not okay, and that since the defendants are not able to claim they had *not* been drinking, then these claims will have no merit.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying how it will probably go down.
The underlying assumption in the article, is that people should be able to drink and drive as long as they are doing so at a threshold within the accuracy of the test equipment.
However, the position of the state is that nobody should drink any amount of alcohol and drive, at all. And instead of a zero-tolerance policy, a compromise policy with a specific criterion for prosecution is created.
Are the unlucky people who are the clients of the lawyer in the article claiming that they have not had any alcohol whatsoever and are being convicted of DUI anyway, or are they actually admitting to drinking and driving, and trying to avoid the consequences of getting caught doing so, by claiming the accuracy of the equipment cannot be verified?
I don't expect the state to be sympathetic to their position.
>If we can use eminent domain to grab people's land for a private developer (and not just >to make way for roads, etc.) for some "fair" price according to the Supreme Court, why on >Earth can't we do the same with the copyrights, patents or trade secrets required to make >the evidence from these things admissible?
"We" can. Make the case for a "compelling state interest" and the magic happens.
>That's why the police always uses the formula 'speed = measured speed - 5mph'. Exactly >*because* the radar gun has an accuracy +/-5 mph. I wonder what would have happened if >the wall would have been measured to go at -4mph?
I pass one of those signs that clocks speed, about once a day. It's spot on. I know my speedometer is accurate because I have calibrated it myself -- and it's km/h, and I'm in the US, and I wish there was a Geek Code for that:-)
"1) Why would you give a third world country free software when most of them arnt going to use it or even have computers that can run it? Its a waste of packaging and cd's."
The ones that have electricity and devices like computers, can use it. If it's a waste to you, then don't contribute to such a project.
Do you think all of Africa is like some barren wasteland or something?
"2)Why would you give software to a country that is in more need of food, water, and medicine?"
It would be nice if people would give them those things too. But questions like this come from a point of view of advocating *withholding* free software from them.
"3)Why would you give software to a country that is mostly underdeveloped?"
"As this merchandise has apparently been deliberaately randomized by the manufacturer, exactly how are you going to determine what serial number xxxx is?"
Okay, then, the deal's off. Looking at Intel-based notebooks now instead.
It's not about "saddam" or "root servers", it's about the fact that you want action from a country that operates by a doctrine of "might makes right" by some other method besides force. That won't work anyway, it's a waste of time. Either you agree with the policies of the US, or you do something to change them. The only methods that will work will be through economic impact of military force. But nobody seems to want to try those methods, and so they will never get their way.
I don't believe the US is a rogue tyrant nation, but people want me to believe that the US is "hated" in the world. I won't believe that until I see some action. Until then, I'll believe that everything is just fine, everybody in the world pretty much agrees with US policy, no government is seriously taking the position that the US is a rogue state or that the war in Iraq is a crime.
My point is not to advocate WWIII or violence, but rather to observe that for all the rhetoric, there really is no evidence of institutionalized "hatred" or any national rejection of US policies. At least none that are serious enough for anyone to take *action* to correct.
>How exactly are they going to about "forcibly" removing the established >governing body from control?
The only things that would get a response:
1. Economic embargo. 2. Military force.
The rest of the world could get its way against the US, and it would be very simple. Three steps:
1. Immediately cease all trade with the US. 2. Revoke all visas to US citizens, and order all US citizens to leave. Give them 24 hours before they are rounded up and jailed or deported. 3. Leverage a military opposition to the US. Blockade the Persian Gulf with your navy if you think the US invasion is a crime.
Take action, and stop whining.
If Americans suddenly find themselves not allowed to travel, or do business, in Europe or Asia, they will respond.
Yes, I realize I am proposing a course of events that would provoke World War Three. I keep hearing about how all these other countries "hate" the US, but they never take any action.
>I thought carrying an unloaded pistol in your checked baggage was legal anyway.
It depends on your destination, as always.
You cannot fly into Massachussetts or DC, for instance. But I routinely take firearms on trips from Arizona to Oregon. There's a little drill at the baggage check, where you have to say certain words verbatim; the weapon has to be unloaded in a locked container, and any ammo has to be in the packaging as it came from the factory and also locked.
There's always a little stressful situation at the counter where you have to take the gun out of the box, show them it's unloaded (open the revolver, rack the slide, etc.). Invariably, there's someone in line behind me that freaks out on this.
Then you have to carry your bag to a special X-Ray line, and tell the X-Ray guy what's in there. They make sure you have the only key.
At the destination, nobody ever seems to care, or know, what's in the suitcase, and rifle cases are always just piled with the golf bags.
But there's nothing to it. Get this -- in AZ, it's perfectly legal to wear a pistol openly in a holster on your hip, in the airport, all the way to the first checkpoint (but absolutely not past it!).
"If you declare that before you went through security, I'm sure they would just let you pass through after a peekinto your bags."
Oh, no, not at all.
*Nothing* you say to TSA people is going to hasten your experience. I have a similar problem as the miner's. Nitrate residues off the scale from my bag, due to my work environment.
Do not overestimate the level of intuition of security personnel or cops, ever. Anything you try to say to them will merely be regarded as suspicious.
The last time I flew, I had to deal with two different people who did not speak English... at Logan.
Another thing to consider... Just about the entire TSA staff has been hired in the last 4 years, and I'm being generous with that. For many of them, it's their first job after getting their GED. Don't expect them to regard ANYTHING you tell them as anything but a threat.
" So if I happens to eat a couple slice of salami the night before and touch my luggage, the rent-a-cop at the airport going to put me in jail?"
You're joking, but my laptop (the bag in particular) has gotten a great deal of attention numerous times at several airports, because I spend a significant amount of time working in an environment that is extremely high in nitrates.
Slashdot Mirror
>My original post was just to point out how stupid the defense was.
The argument seems to rest on the idea that drinking and driving is okay, so long as you don't get caught, or if you do get caught, that your alcohol levels are so close to the legal threshold as to bring the tolerances of the breathalyzer into question.
I'm sure the state will take the position that drinking and driving is not okay, and that since the defendants are not able to claim they had *not* been drinking, then these claims will have no merit.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying how it will probably go down.
The underlying assumption in the article, is that people should be able to drink and drive as long as they are doing so at a threshold within the accuracy of the test equipment.
However, the position of the state is that nobody should drink any amount of alcohol and drive, at all. And instead of a zero-tolerance policy, a compromise policy with a specific criterion for prosecution is created.
Are the unlucky people who are the clients of the lawyer in the article claiming that they have not had any alcohol whatsoever and are being convicted of DUI anyway, or are they actually admitting to drinking and driving, and trying to avoid the consequences of getting caught doing so, by claiming the accuracy of the equipment cannot be verified?
I don't expect the state to be sympathetic to their position.
>If we can use eminent domain to grab people's land for a private developer (and not just >to make way for roads, etc.) for some "fair" price according to the Supreme Court, why on >Earth can't we do the same with the copyrights, patents or trade secrets required to make >the evidence from these things admissible?
"We" can. Make the case for a "compelling state interest" and the magic happens.
>That's why the police always uses the formula 'speed = measured speed - 5mph'. Exactly
>*because* the radar gun has an accuracy +/-5 mph. I wonder what would have happened if
>the wall would have been measured to go at -4mph?
I pass one of those signs that clocks speed, about once a day. It's spot on. I know my speedometer is accurate because I have calibrated it myself -- and it's km/h, and I'm in the US, and I wish there was a Geek Code for that
>All the politicians talk tough, but the drunks are still out there driving.
Bars are allowed to have parking lots. They are allowed to serve patrons who have driven to the bar...
>Typical lawyer - he'll do anything to get his client off.
Anything else would be malpractice. You can hire a lawyer who won't try to get you out of trouble, but I won't come visit you in jail.
"1) Why would you give a third world country free software when most of them arnt going to use it or even have computers that can run it? Its a waste of packaging and cd's."
The ones that have electricity and devices like computers, can use it. If it's a waste to you, then don't contribute to such a project.
Do you think all of Africa is like some barren wasteland or something?
"2)Why would you give software to a country that is in more need of food, water, and medicine?"
It would be nice if people would give them those things too. But questions like this come from a point of view of advocating *withholding* free software from them.
"3)Why would you give software to a country that is mostly underdeveloped?"
Why and how would you withhold it from them?
It's unfortunate that the Open Source movement has to be advocated by homocidal users of a dangerous drug.
Is English Cmdr Taco's first language? I could not make any sense of the post.
> Is it legal to do what the EEF did
I'm sure the EFF would *love* for the US Gov't to make a stink over this.
"As this merchandise has apparently been deliberaately randomized by the manufacturer, exactly how are you going to determine what serial number xxxx is?"
Okay, then, the deal's off. Looking at Intel-based notebooks now instead.
"these ninjas make over $100/hour! which, at 40 hours/week for a 6 month contract (26 weeks) is twice what I make in a year in half the time!"
I gather, you are not qualified to work for that contracting firm? Otherwise your strategy should be obvious.
At this point, I'd ask for it in writing that the product will be serial number past xxxx, whatever the cutoff is. Can't deliver, then no sale.
> Why? You would be getting exactly what you played for.
But his expectations have changed. I'd make the vendor understand I want the new version or the deal is off.
"If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion."
Why not? Sounds like one of the more exciting jobs -- and you'd have the respect of a [i]lion[/i].
A little over $5.00 each? Sounds reasonable.
It's not about "saddam" or "root servers", it's about the fact that you want action from a country that operates by a doctrine of "might makes right" by some other method besides force. That won't work anyway, it's a waste of time. Either you agree with the policies of the US, or you do something to change them. The only methods that will work will be through economic impact of military force. But nobody seems to want to try those methods, and so they will never get their way.
I don't believe the US is a rogue tyrant nation, but people want me to believe that the US is "hated" in the world. I won't believe that until I see some action. Until then, I'll believe that everything is just fine, everybody in the world pretty much agrees with US policy, no government is seriously taking the position that the US is a rogue state or that the war in Iraq is a crime.
My point is not to advocate WWIII or violence, but rather to observe that for all the rhetoric, there really is no evidence of institutionalized "hatred" or any national rejection of US policies. At least none that are serious enough for anyone to take *action* to correct.
>How exactly are they going to about "forcibly" removing the established
>governing body from control?
The only things that would get a response:
1. Economic embargo.
2. Military force.
The rest of the world could get its way against the US, and it would be very simple. Three steps:
1. Immediately cease all trade with the US.
2. Revoke all visas to US citizens, and order all US citizens to leave. Give them 24 hours before they are rounded up and jailed or deported.
3. Leverage a military opposition to the US. Blockade the Persian Gulf with your navy if you think the US invasion is a crime.
Take action, and stop whining.
If Americans suddenly find themselves not allowed to travel, or do business, in Europe or Asia, they will respond.
Yes, I realize I am proposing a course of events that would provoke World War Three. I keep hearing about how all these other countries "hate" the US, but they never take any action.
I'm sorry -- I still believe the Representatives and Senators were elected by at-large votes, not bought, and generally, not fraudulent elections.
So by your personal doctrine, any large nation is at liberty to take over any smaller nation?
"You'd hope the screeners would wonder why they suddenly started getting a 100% hit rate and figure it out."
You're overestimating the intuition possessed by law enforcement and security people.
>I thought carrying an unloaded pistol in your checked baggage was legal anyway.
It depends on your destination, as always.
You cannot fly into Massachussetts or DC, for instance. But I routinely take firearms on trips from Arizona to Oregon. There's a little drill at the baggage check, where you have to say certain words verbatim; the weapon has to be unloaded in a locked container, and any ammo has to be in the packaging as it came from the factory and also locked.
There's always a little stressful situation at the counter where you have to take the gun out of the box, show them it's unloaded (open the revolver, rack the slide, etc.). Invariably, there's someone in line behind me that freaks out on this.
Then you have to carry your bag to a special X-Ray line, and tell the X-Ray guy what's in there. They make sure you have the only key.
At the destination, nobody ever seems to care, or know, what's in the suitcase, and rifle cases are always just piled with the golf bags.
But there's nothing to it. Get this -- in AZ, it's perfectly legal to wear a pistol openly in a holster on your hip, in the airport, all the way to the first checkpoint (but absolutely not past it!).
"If you declare that before you went through security, I'm sure they would just let you pass through after a peekinto your bags."
Oh, no, not at all.
*Nothing* you say to TSA people is going to hasten your experience. I have a similar problem as the miner's. Nitrate residues off the scale from my bag, due to my work environment.
Do not overestimate the level of intuition of security personnel or cops, ever. Anything you try to say to them will merely be regarded as suspicious.
The last time I flew, I had to deal with two different people who did not speak English... at Logan.
Another thing to consider... Just about the entire TSA staff has been hired in the last 4 years, and I'm being generous with that. For many of them, it's their first job after getting their GED. Don't expect them to regard ANYTHING you tell them as anything but a threat.
"If 9/11 was only an aberration, then we don't have to worry about security. It's over and done with. "
If the status quo is lowered, it will encourage copycats.
" So if I happens to eat a couple slice of salami the night before
and touch my luggage, the rent-a-cop at the airport going to
put me in jail?"
You're joking, but my laptop (the bag in particular) has gotten a great deal of attention numerous times at several airports, because I spend a significant amount of time working in an environment that is extremely high in nitrates.