Unless you like the concept of insane interest rate hikes (the wonderful thing about fiat currency is that it's worth pretty much what people think it's worth), which would be needed to attract people back to the dollar, this is a _really_ bad idea. Also, dumping currency on that scale would severely devalue the dollar, reducing the value of US debt (good for the US, bad for those who are owed money). This would greatly reduce the amount the US could borrow. Furthermore, printing money would be less effective (dollar is worth less), and doing so would just make the problem even worse.
Let me put it this way - we're so far in debt (much of it to China) that China doesn't really have to fear a military attack, since they could quit lending to us (this would cause a fiscal crisis by itself), and dump the currency (making what little cash we have worthless, and driving up the cost of goods from everywhere else). We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan on our own now, how could we possibly be a threat to China with no money, no credit, and an insane cost on all imported goods?
"Saudi Arabia has $800bn (£400bn) in their future generation fund, and the entire region has $3,500bn under management. They face an inflationary threat and do not want to import an interest rate policy set for the recessionary conditions in the United States"... "why bear the risk in these dramatically changed circumstances? We think that a fall in dollar to $1.50 against the euro is not out of the question at all by the first quarter of 2008," he said.
"This is nothing like the situation in 1998 when the crisis was in Asia, but the US was booming. This time the US itself is the problem,"
So, please, we have enough problems - let's not go deliberately taunting the biggest superpower in the world (at least any more - with our 9 trillion in debt, we're not going to be the "world police" much longer.) Also, the "but our GDP grows faster than our debt" argument doesn't cut it when the GDP is shrinking, the currency is in the toilet, and we still get to pay the interest on all that debt.
Actually, paid out, or not, makes no difference. Either way, it doesn't cost Google anything.
Let's take a look - clicks are either legit, or aren't.
Legit Click - Money comes from publisher (not Google), and Google gets a cut. Bogus Click, Caught - No money changes hands. Without said bogus click, Google makes exactly the same amount of money. Bogus Click, Not Caught - Money comes from publisher (not Google), and Google gets a cut (profit).
If you look the scenarios, the only for Google to "lose" money is to mis-detect a legit click as fraudulant, as the publisher gets a legit click for free. Google, of course, minimizes this likelihood, and makes sure it's more likely to have false negatives than false positives (I spend enough on Google, and do my own metrics to know this is the case).
Fraud costs _publishers_ money; it _makes_ Google money (up until the point when advertisers start jumping ship).
The downside to this is that it's easy to both buy votes (someone watches you fill it out and drop it in the mail), and coerce people (especially family and friends) into voting a specific way, as the voting can be observed.
This is a duplicate of my comment over there, since we can't very well expect/. readers to RTFA, can we?
A user commented that "It was decided that the process of loading software from media into the computer's RAM constituted making a copy of the software, therefore a license is required in order to run the software."
That was the original legal theory behind the EULA, however, that theory is fundamentally flawed, and no longer pertainent.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
In other words, buying the software (Adobe vs. Softman - if it walks like a sale, it is a sale). Quoting Adobe vs, Softman -
It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange...
(quoting Microsoft vs DAK) "Because we look to the economic realities of the agreement, the fact that the agreement labels itself a "license" and calls the payments "royalties," both terms that arguably imply periodic payment for the use rather than sale of technology, does not control our analysis."...
The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license...
Raymond Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology 1.18[1] p. 1-103 (1992). The Court agrees that a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal proper and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software.
In other words, there's a good chance this case will be permitted to go forward - there's plenty of case law both sides can attempt to use.
You enter your options on a screen, and it prints your ballot out for you, and a barcode with a checksum. The ballot is read optically (like it often is now), and the checksum is verified. No match, it's counted by hand.
A system like this ensures no hanging chads, etc. It's 100% verifiable by the voter. The paper trail is just as good as the current system, and can be fully counted by hand. It's impossible for the voter to prove which way he voted; if he takes the ballot with him, it wasn't counted. If the system goes down, it can be marked by hand.
A system like this also has the benefit of being able to use slightly cheaper ballots (make them a little smaller, and have a booklet explaining the options in more detail - i.e. The ballot says "Prop 300 - Yes, No", and the screen and booklet have explanations). The use of a computer allows for more detailed explanations of voting options, the ability to use high-contrast/large fonts, candidate pictures, multiple languages, and audio announcing for the visually impaired - providing them a truly secret ballot should they so wish. Yes, they would have to choose between "auditable" and "secret", but that's still one more option than they have now. The checksum could ensure 100% reliable scanning for all automatically scanned ballots, and with the appropriate protocols (set before opening by at least two parties that distrust each other), it can make introduction of foreign ballots near-impossible. The system can be easily audited - if you want to know if your ballot was marked correctly, look.
It doesn't address dead people voting, nor poll workers collusion allowing multiple voting by the same person. Also, if the system is fully "open source", collusion by the poll workers potentially allows for the introduction of additional ballots. Of course, all of this can be said for the current system, too. As such, in a worse case scenario (failed/compromised machine), it's just as [in]secure as our current system.
Cheaper (less printed material, and less time spent [re]counting), faster, more reliable, more accessible, harder to cheat, 100% voter verifiable, and absolutely no less secure than our current system even in a worst-case scenario. It's no wonder politicians (and Diebold) don't want a system like this.
Why are these people so intent on advertising to people who are clearly not interested in it.
Because it works. Remember, there are 2 types of ads on the web - ads that want an immediate action (click here to buy X), and ads for branding purposes.
Branding ads are designed to "get in your head", and leave you with an impression (or even simple familiarity) with a product. It can be worthwhile to look at _why_ you think certain ways about products - you might be surprised.
As an example, I was thinking of getting a Vacuum. I immediately thought about brand X (no, I'm not going to to them a favor and Astroturf for them). Upon reflection, I realized that I didn't own, had never owned, nor did I know anyone who owned one of their vacuums, yet their brand was the one I though of first. I realized that I had heard about it only through ads, and I had heard them since I was quite young.
Or, to put it another way, you click on 0% of the ads you block, and perhaps 0.5% of the ads you do. That's still more than 0.
International phone calls, etc. are carried by non-US companies over non-US property and usually involve non-citizens. First off, how does one intercept calls between foreigners and U.S. citizens without infringing on the rights of the citizens?
Second, to state that the U.S. constitution only applies to citizens is intellectually dishonest, and by no means what the founding fathers intended. Let's quote the Declaration of Independence (no, it's not law per se, but it is a document explaining the reasoning behind what they were doing.)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If these rights are inherent, and granted "by their Creator", why would citizenship matter? If (as they believed) God created everyone, and that God is no respecter of persons, what do the circumstances of birth have to do with anything?
Second, it would have been utterly foolish to reserve _all_ rights to citizens. The constitution is intended to protect it's people from the government, and the government decides who is and is not a citizen. Therefore, providing protections only to citizens would be to render all protections meaningless.
The fourteenth amendment wasn't ratified until July 1868, guaranteeing "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This reduces the potential for abuse; however, that doesn't change the reasoning behind the initial text of the Constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
At the time this was written, it pretty much included everything. Let's blockquote something else here:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Fairly plain language, isn't it? In short, the Federal government doesn't (legitimately) have the right to wiretap, nor does it have the ability to give itself said right. This is _especially_ true if calls are, like you say, property (effects). So, to use the format you used:
1. The government doesn't have the right to wiretap it's citizens without a warrant issued based on probable cause 2. Because the constitution makes no distinction between interstate, intra-state, or international actions with regard to the fourth amendment, international calls are no different.
It's fairly simple - the constitution is an enumeration of the powers of the federal government. It doesn't make any "international" distinction, so either the (federal) government has the right to intercept all calls, or no calls.
Even if the fourth amendment doesn't apply, and the tenth is rejected on the basis of a constitutional lack of a "right to privacy" - I would point out the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The constitution is, by design, a list of what the federal government can (and cannot in some cases) do, not a list of what the people can do.
Furthermore, if calls are "property", there are potential fifth amendment issues (as well as potential self-incrimination):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And finally, the most important reason - people's behavior changes when they are spied on. As such, it is effectively abridging the freedom of speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
So, it's illegal, it's immoral, but they do it anyway. Until the constitution is amended, it really doesn't matter what laws congress passes allowing it - it's still unconstitutional.
If your defense relies on attacking the integrity or the ability of a police officer, you've lost.
I'm well aware of this fact; in fact, it was the point of my post. In my case, I took a plea deal on my charges - my attorney informed me I didn't stand a chance, no matter what the cop did, unless I had video proof or a crapload of witnesses. Even then, he'd probably only get paid administrative leave for an "investigation" that wouldn't discover anything.
If I ever end up on a jury, though, I'm certainly not going to convict simply based on the word of an officer alone. I trust cops no more, and no less, than any other person - that is to say, not much. OTOH, if the guy has a rap sheet 20 pages long, it would certainly count against _his_ credibility.
As for the HGN test itself, a quote from Wargames sums my thoughts more succinctly than I could put it myself - "A strange game; the only winning move is not to play." An honest cop, who follows the law, cannot ethically (in most states) use the refusal to take a field test as evidence of wrongdoing. On the other hand, taking the test can most certainly provide evidence for said honest cop.
As for a dishonest cop can pretty much say the results were whatever he wants. A camera in his car can show him administering the test, but won't show you pass or fail, unless you're really drunk and flailing around. Furthermore, even if he's honest, a lot of them don't administer the tests properly. My criminal justice teacher was a former prosecutor, and defense attorney. There is a laundry list of things that can be done wrong by the officer, all of which are grounds for dismissal of the case due to lack of probable cause. Of course, it doesn't matter if you're flailing around drunk on camera, but at that point, you're genuinely guilty anyway, and I have no sympathy.
Given that, why would you ever take the test, drunk or not?
At the same time, when the majority directly influence the government into doing disgusting things (interring the Japanese, among other things), nothing can protect those victims from tyranny.
That's largely, though not entirely, true.
With regards to the Japanese, we used census data to tell where to go round them up. Had this information not been available, it would have been much harder to do this. Furthermore, given the more rapid spread of non-censored information (the internet, SMS, etc.) - it would be much harder to just show up one night and get them all. If the United States were to it again, or were to persecute any other group for their race, I (and others) would be willing to do what I could to help undermine the illegal, immoral acts. I believe, and can only hope, that I would have been strong enough to do the same in the Nazi era as well.
Finally, there's the "second amendment" fallback. It's a lot easier to commit tyranny towards a group when you don't have to worry about dieing for trying it.
Realistically, there is a time and a place for the law, and a time and place to undermine it. In general, the majority can be counted on to do what's right; we just need to avoid the "tyrrany of the majority" that can occur.
but this issue is very simple: drink or drive, not both. My point is most certainly not that drinking and driving is acceptable; rather, the law should be very specific, and should be enforced exactly as written. The evidence should be proper, and the government should be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person violated said law.
If the legal limit needs to be raised or lowered, fine, but we shouldn't abuse bad evidence to do an end-run around the judicial process.
Really, you don't have to take a blood test either. They can't force it.
That's not the case in Arizona.
Prior to implementing the DPS phlebotomy program, the department used hospital phlebotomists to draw blood if consent was given, when a breath screening device such as an Intoxylizer was not immediately available, or after the officer obtained a search warrant to secure blood evidence from a DWI suspect. But some civilian phlebotomists were hesitant to draw blood on uncooperative DWI suspects or after a search warrant had been secured, due to unfounded legal concerns. The Arizona DWI law allows physicians, nurses, or "other qualified persons" to draw blood during DWI investigations. It is important that the blood is drawn in a professional and expedient manner in every DWI investigation.... When a suspect refuses to provide the requested test, the DPS officer applies for a search warrant from a judicial officer for obtaining samples of the suspect's blood. The warrant may be requested in person, via phone, or via facsimile; this process takes about 30 minutes.... Those who physically resist are restrained while their blood is drawn.
Ahh, but then you are "evasive", and if the officer decides that you look like you _might_ have been drinking (all he has to say is you slurred your vision, or your eyes had some of the symptoms of being drunk, etc.), that's grounds for probable cause to take your blood and have it tested.
Isn't it great - you have the choice whether or not to let them trample on your rights, and if you don't, it's probable cause to let them do it anyway.
It's a good indicator - if done properly, and in conjunction with the other tests that go along with it. (IIRC, there were a total of 3 tests to be performed, because some people will just fail any given test for a variety of reasons).
OTOH, the results of a HGN test issued in the field _never_ help you - the best you can hope for is not being hurt. Ultimately, it's up to the officer to do it right, but as for the "perjured testimony", it's his word against yours, and he's the "specialist". How would he get in trouble for perjury, especially given it's quite possible to fail HGN without drinking any alcohol at all?
Also, having had a cop threaten to kill me for not letting him search without a warrant (long story), I'm not too impressed with the concept of putting blind faith in any particular officer.
If you're really only 0.04, the limit's 0.05, and you read over it, I'm sorry that such a miscarriage of justice happened.
First off, I don't drink - never mind drinking and driving. And personally, I think that truly incapacitated drivers (not just Alcohol) that put others at risk should be jailed for a very long time. After all, killing someone lasts a lifetime.
That being said, laws should be enforced properly, and evidence should be good. If driving at 0.04 is bad, then that's where the limit needs to be, and that's where the equipment needs to be. Arbitrary enforcement of laws (speed limit, I'm looking at you) leads to contempt for the law.
We, as individuals, are subject to, and expected to abide by the law. It's bad enough that they have so many laws it's literally impossible to know all the ones that apply to you. Now you want to make it even harder making it so that even if you know the law and abide by it, you can still get in trouble?
America is supposed to be the land of the free, and was founded upon principles and laws designed to protect the people from the government. The government needs strict standards rigorously enforced by the people (by voting, constitutional amendments, and armed revolution - as appropriate). What good are having laws if the government disregards them at will? Furthermore, given our history (interring the Japanese, among other things), it should be blatantly apparent that the law (and by extension the collective power of the citizenry to enforce and replace it) is the only thing that can protect the people from tyranny.
You are giving away the ISPs services for free. All this freeloading removes money from the industry
I have a business class connection with Cox. I pay around $140/mo, and get something like 10mbps down, 1mbps up (IIRC, it's on autopay, and it's been a while since I set it up).
This is more bandwidth than I need, and my bandwidth isn't shaped (except for Cox's transparent port 80 proxy, but that's another issue), and I have _paid_ for my bandwidth. I'm contractually permitted to run servers on this connection.
Why is it an evil thing when I choose to share my unused (yet paid for) bandwidth over a WIFI connection, but just fine when I choose to share it over a P2P/HTTP connection? Why is it any worse than me hosting a few people for free since I have the bandwidth to spare. Are you saying that I don't have a right to use the bandwidth that I paid for, in a matter I see fit, up to the amount I contractually agreed to be limited to?
There's a limit to what can be legally said; however,
There is a sufficient linux market to justify making one There are companies with sufficient experience and technology to develop one The HD-DVD and Blu-Ray licenses don't prohibit development of one
The only major hurdles to be overcome are differences in libraries between Linux distros (easy enough to solve, with a decent build system, some chroot()s, and an open-source interface layer), and the resiliency requirements of the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD licenses (HDCP, etc.). The latter would require some cooperation between the software developer and the graphics hardware manufacturer, but as both Nvidia and ATI care enough to produce Linux drivers, one could assume it wouldn't be too difficult to convince them to do so.
Draw from these statements what conclusions you will:)
I don't believe that it's time for an armed uprising for this nation; rather, I believe that we are headed towards a time where such might be necessary. Few would argue that the primary goal of the United States government is to serve it's citizens, and individuals have a hard time providing the same level of cash that corporations can.
If our government can't be reigned in through voting, or bribery, only two methods remain for the people to exert their will over their government - force, and the fear of force. I sincerely hope that this fear is sufficient to keep them from turning this nation into a fascist dictatorship. With the Executive Orders, signing statement, and the (formerly) rubber-stamping congress, it's been a bad couple of years for liberty here.
The sight of blood in others causes me physical pain; I cannot look at others who are injured or in peril, and not feel some of it myself. It would be all to easy to just ignore what our government were doing, were it not for the fact that my government is committing great evil, killing many innocent people (and quite a few guilty ones) and using my tax dollars to do it.
I'm sorry, but the more I hear of him, the more Thomas Jefferson sounds like a dangerous, deranged psychopath. Well, the founding fathers committed an armed overthrow of the legitimate government. If you were to ask England, they were murderers, terrorists, and they committed treason. Had they not succeeded, they would have been executed as traitors to the crown.
The difference between a traitor and a patriot is often a matter of how successful one was. Fortunately for the United States, the people who started it's government did so because they wanted freedom from an oppressive government, rather than simply freedom to institute their own oppressive government. Unfortunately, there has been a sever slide towards tyranny in recent years.
We could use a few more patriots in this nation, even if it did result in some people dying in a revolution. The safest life is a solitary one in a padded cell, but I certainly wouldn't want to live like that. Besides, if it's acceptable for a soldier to fight (and give his life) to "preserve our way of life", why is it wrong to fight to better our way of life?
We need a better protection of our limited natural entitlement gun ownership that recognizes that it's more of a privilege, like a driver's license, than any kind of natural exercise of the human powers with which we are created.
I'm going to address the second part of your statement first. The right to self-defense is in itself a natural human right, and quite possibly the most important one. Without the right to self-determination (freedom to protect yourself from coercion), how can one have the right to Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness? If self-defense is a natural right, then so must be the right to bear arms - sometimes a gun is simply the only tool that will get the job done. Don't believe me? Just ask the police, or the military.
I recognize that the police and military do exist (in theory) to protect the citizenry; however, that doesn't address the issue that they have no obligation to the individual, nor that there are times where they simply cannot arrive in time. Furthermore, it is often the police and the military one most needs protection from. As a personal example, I have had a police offer pull out a knife, and threaten to shoot me unless I consented to an illegal search. He indicated that all he had to do was say I pulled the knife on him (he called it his "throwdown knife"), and he wouldn't face reprisal. Had several other police officers not arrived at that time, I would have consented. Ultimately, rights matter little when one is dead.
A gun in my hand wouldn't have helped much in my particular circumstance. On the other hand, an armed populace provides an obstacle to tyranny, and a deterrent to unjust rule through force. Having seen some of the weapons possessed by my fellow citizens in Wyoming, I can't help but feel sorry for any force stupid enough to try to conquer by force.
As for the line about gun ownership being a privilege, rather than a right - the point of the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves as citizens (by definition, the well-regulated militia) against the military (the well-regulated army). The very nature of licensing requires oversight, and ultimately enforcement, being done by the government. Do you not see the problem with giving the government the right to regulate the only thing that ultimately protects citizens from it?
As for the line about "And since a well-supplied militia is not necessary to the free state in which we live, unless you also think we should disband the standing army and stop buying it weapons, the basis of the noninfringement is gone.", you couldn't be further from the truth.
Given the existence of the standing army we have, the well-regulated militia is more important than ever. The United States government is the most formidable military force known to man, and it needs checks and balances more than ever. The U.S. government has shown they don't care enough to secure our voting against outside. The legislative branch routinely pass laws incompatible with the constitution, and the judicial branch fails to keep them in check (commerce clause, anyone?). The executive branch (by their own admission) considers both to be an obstacle to their rule. The president (through executive orders and "signing statements") routinely takes action with the force of law and disregards it when it stands in his way.
Given all that, the only real check left on the government is that if they get egregious enough in their behavior, the people can rise up and overthrow them, or at the very least make it impossible for them to continue on their present path. The citizenry is quite capable of disrupting supply lines, cutting off money, bombing troop locations, roadside explosives, etc. It may be considered "terrorism", but it's fundamentally how a well-regulated militia deals with a well-regulated army. Our military does so well in Iraq - it would be much harder here, when it's necessary to preserve infrastructure, demolishing large areas isn't nearly as viable
What's wrong with squeezing every penny out of the reporter's work? Don't you want every penny of salary you're entitled to get?
The issue is that they aren't entitled to every penny they can get.
Copyright law (to the extent it's compatible with the US constitution) is an government granted exclusive monopoly on distribution of works for a limited period to the extent that it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.
The natural state of things is that ideas, knowledge, etc. are yours, until you choose to share them with the world. Copyright (again, to the extent it's constitutionally protected) extends the natural protection with an artificial incentive to produce works by providing an additional measure to increase the ability to capitalize on your works, allowing sufficient time to capitalize on the production before it reverts to it's natural state - a free for all idea in the wild, which others may build on.
The original copyright period was 14 years, with good reason - given the relatively slow pace at which one could manufacture, print, distribute, and sell works worldwide, it was decided that this was enough time to allow the author to make enough of a profit to make it worth doing in the first place - promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. Given the speed of technology, distribution, and the number of books competing for readers (reducing the time a book can stay "on top") - copyright protection should be getting shorter, not extending longer and longer.
Furthermore, fair use was an integral part of copyright protection. Remember, the purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Allowing an absolute monopoly on works is in direct opposition to the very principle copyright law was founded on. It's been horribly abused, and is in fact the basis of the original EULAs. When you run software, it's copied to RAM, so you need a copyright license to run it. This legal theory was used to justify the position that they could take a license (which grants freedoms subject to terms), and use it as a means to circumvent both the doctrines of fair use and first sale. Fortunately, the law now contains a specific exemption for running, installing, and backing up software, which would render the argument moot. Unfortunately, companies now just pretend that the EULA is a contract (which opens up other legal issues, but it's rarely challenged in court).
I ask you this - do you honestly believe that there is a single author on the planet who would choose not to write a book simply because his descendants only could profit from the royalties for 50 years after his death instead of 75? The lack of such people shows that modern copyright law is unconstitutional, and the modern enforcement of copyright law (DMCA, EULAs, $150,000 statutory damages, Blizzard vs BNETd, copy-protected door openers, chipped printer cartridges, etc.) show that the system is being used in direct opposition to it's intended purpose. With the notable exception of so-called "copyleft" licenses, copyright has become a tool to bludgeon people into submission, to suppress thought, stifle innovation, and quash competitors. As such, is it any surprise that so many people have distrust or outright hostility for the entire illegal system? Is it really any surprise that so many people choose to disregard the potential consequences and infringe anyway?
Even those who simply want free music and don't figure they will get caught demonstrate the issue at stake here. Just laws, right laws, laws that society supports are enforced vigorously. Murderer, child molesting, etc. are met with some of the harshest punishments available nearly everywhere. There aren't many "murderers rights" lobbyists, and child molesters often have to be separated from the general population in prison to avoid serious harm to them. People demand punishment for what they consider to be just laws, with genuine victims. Politicians cater
On an "i" it's drawing 540 lines every frame, on a "p" it's drawing all 1080. Go with the "P" if you can afford the difference. It's worth it"
I'm a little confused. LCDs simply don't come in interlaced formats. Neither do LCoS, nor DLP, nor plasma.
While LCDs have only their native resolution, it is quite possible to produce a LCD that has a native resolution under 1920x1080, requiring stretching. Regardless of this, it's been my experience that just a monitor having a native resolution sufficient to draw a full 1920x1080 frame on it does not necessarily mean you can send it a HDMI 1080p signal. Anything can be scaled.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you like the concept of insane interest rate hikes (the wonderful thing about fiat currency is that it's worth pretty much what people think it's worth), which would be needed to attract people back to the dollar, this is a _really_ bad idea. Also, dumping currency on that scale would severely devalue the dollar, reducing the value of US debt (good for the US, bad for those who are owed money). This would greatly reduce the amount the US could borrow. Furthermore, printing money would be less effective (dollar is worth less), and doing so would just make the problem even worse.
Let me put it this way - we're so far in debt (much of it to China) that China doesn't really have to fear a military attack, since they could quit lending to us (this would cause a fiscal crisis by itself), and dump the currency (making what little cash we have worthless, and driving up the cost of goods from everywhere else). We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan on our own now, how could we possibly be a threat to China with no money, no credit, and an insane cost on all imported goods?
Don't believe this can happen?
Asian banks are reducing their U.S. holdings, which is expected to drive the dollar further down.
The Euro is at record highs against the US Dollar
The Saudis aren't matching interest rates with us Why?
The Sub-Prime Market imploded, which has been very bad for US banks, like NetBank (which was just shut down by the FDIC).
The budget defecit swelled to 117 billion dollars in August. For those keeping track, that's up 80% year over year, with spending up 30% month over month.
Oh, and for icing on the cake - it looks like housing sales in some areas are down 46% year over year, or 25% month over month.
So, please, we have enough problems - let's not go deliberately taunting the biggest superpower in the world (at least any more - with our 9 trillion in debt, we're not going to be the "world police" much longer.) Also, the "but our GDP grows faster than our debt" argument doesn't cut it when the GDP is shrinking, the currency is in the toilet, and we still get to pay the interest on all that debt.
Did she try using an ITIN on the application?
If you want to stop all the pre-screen credit card offers, opt out.
Actually, paid out, or not, makes no difference. Either way, it doesn't cost Google anything.
Let's take a look - clicks are either legit, or aren't.
Legit Click - Money comes from publisher (not Google), and Google gets a cut.
Bogus Click, Caught - No money changes hands. Without said bogus click, Google makes exactly the same amount of money.
Bogus Click, Not Caught - Money comes from publisher (not Google), and Google gets a cut (profit).
If you look the scenarios, the only for Google to "lose" money is to mis-detect a legit click as fraudulant, as the publisher gets a legit click for free. Google, of course, minimizes this likelihood, and makes sure it's more likely to have false negatives than false positives (I spend enough on Google, and do my own metrics to know this is the case).
Fraud costs _publishers_ money; it _makes_ Google money (up until the point when advertisers start jumping ship).
The downside to this is that it's easy to both buy votes (someone watches you fill it out and drop it in the mail), and coerce people (especially family and friends) into voting a specific way, as the voting can be observed.
A user commented that "It was decided that the process of loading software from media into the computer's RAM constituted making a copy of the software, therefore a license is required in order to run the software."
That was the original legal theory behind the EULA, however, that theory is fundamentally flawed, and no longer pertainent.
In other words, buying the software (Adobe vs. Softman - if it walks like a sale, it is a sale). Quoting Adobe vs, Softman -
In other words, there's a good chance this case will be permitted to go forward - there's plenty of case law both sides can attempt to use.
Actually, there's a better answer still.
You enter your options on a screen, and it prints your ballot out for you, and a barcode with a checksum. The ballot is read optically (like it often is now), and the checksum is verified. No match, it's counted by hand.
A system like this ensures no hanging chads, etc. It's 100% verifiable by the voter. The paper trail is just as good as the current system, and can be fully counted by hand. It's impossible for the voter to prove which way he voted; if he takes the ballot with him, it wasn't counted. If the system goes down, it can be marked by hand.
A system like this also has the benefit of being able to use slightly cheaper ballots (make them a little smaller, and have a booklet explaining the options in more detail - i.e. The ballot says "Prop 300 - Yes, No", and the screen and booklet have explanations). The use of a computer allows for more detailed explanations of voting options, the ability to use high-contrast/large fonts, candidate pictures, multiple languages, and audio announcing for the visually impaired - providing them a truly secret ballot should they so wish. Yes, they would have to choose between "auditable" and "secret", but that's still one more option than they have now. The checksum could ensure 100% reliable scanning for all automatically scanned ballots, and with the appropriate protocols (set before opening by at least two parties that distrust each other), it can make introduction of foreign ballots near-impossible. The system can be easily audited - if you want to know if your ballot was marked correctly, look.
It doesn't address dead people voting, nor poll workers collusion allowing multiple voting by the same person. Also, if the system is fully "open source", collusion by the poll workers potentially allows for the introduction of additional ballots. Of course, all of this can be said for the current system, too. As such, in a worse case scenario (failed/compromised machine), it's just as [in]secure as our current system.
Cheaper (less printed material, and less time spent [re]counting), faster, more reliable, more accessible, harder to cheat, 100% voter verifiable, and absolutely no less secure than our current system even in a worst-case scenario. It's no wonder politicians (and Diebold) don't want a system like this.
Why are these people so intent on advertising to people who are clearly not interested in it.
Because it works. Remember, there are 2 types of ads on the web - ads that want an immediate action (click here to buy X), and ads for branding purposes.
Branding ads are designed to "get in your head", and leave you with an impression (or even simple familiarity) with a product. It can be worthwhile to look at _why_ you think certain ways about products - you might be surprised.
As an example, I was thinking of getting a Vacuum. I immediately thought about brand X (no, I'm not going to to them a favor and Astroturf for them). Upon reflection, I realized that I didn't own, had never owned, nor did I know anyone who owned one of their vacuums, yet their brand was the one I though of first. I realized that I had heard about it only through ads, and I had heard them since I was quite young.
Or, to put it another way, you click on 0% of the ads you block, and perhaps 0.5% of the ads you do. That's still more than 0.
First off, how does one intercept calls between foreigners and U.S. citizens without infringing on the rights of the citizens?
Second, to state that the U.S. constitution only applies to citizens is intellectually dishonest, and by no means what the founding fathers intended. Let's quote the Declaration of Independence (no, it's not law per se, but it is a document explaining the reasoning behind what they were doing.)
If these rights are inherent, and granted "by their Creator", why would citizenship matter? If (as they believed) God created everyone, and that God is no respecter of persons, what do the circumstances of birth have to do with anything?
Second, it would have been utterly foolish to reserve _all_ rights to citizens. The constitution is intended to protect it's people from the government, and the government decides who is and is not a citizen. Therefore, providing protections only to citizens would be to render all protections meaningless.
The fourteenth amendment wasn't ratified until July 1868, guaranteeing "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This reduces the potential for abuse; however, that doesn't change the reasoning behind the initial text of the Constitution.
At the time this was written, it pretty much included everything. Let's blockquote something else here:
Fairly plain language, isn't it? In short, the Federal government doesn't (legitimately) have the right to wiretap, nor does it have the ability to give itself said right. This is _especially_ true if calls are, like you say, property (effects). So, to use the format you used:
1. The government doesn't have the right to wiretap it's citizens without a warrant issued based on probable cause
2. Because the constitution makes no distinction between interstate, intra-state, or international actions with regard to the fourth amendment, international calls are no different.
It's fairly simple - the constitution is an enumeration of the powers of the federal government. It doesn't make any "international" distinction, so either the (federal) government has the right to intercept all calls, or no calls.
Even if the fourth amendment doesn't apply, and the tenth is rejected on the basis of a constitutional lack of a "right to privacy" - I would point out the 9th amendment:
The constitution is, by design, a list of what the federal government can (and cannot in some cases) do, not a list of what the people can do.
Furthermore, if calls are "property", there are potential fifth amendment issues (as well as potential self-incrimination):
And finally, the most important reason - people's behavior changes when they are spied on. As such, it is effectively abridging the freedom of speech:
So, it's illegal, it's immoral, but they do it anyway. Until the constitution is amended, it really doesn't matter what laws congress passes allowing it - it's still unconstitutional.
If your defense relies on attacking the integrity or the ability of a police officer, you've lost.
I'm well aware of this fact; in fact, it was the point of my post. In my case, I took a plea deal on my charges - my attorney informed me I didn't stand a chance, no matter what the cop did, unless I had video proof or a crapload of witnesses. Even then, he'd probably only get paid administrative leave for an "investigation" that wouldn't discover anything.
If I ever end up on a jury, though, I'm certainly not going to convict simply based on the word of an officer alone. I trust cops no more, and no less, than any other person - that is to say, not much. OTOH, if the guy has a rap sheet 20 pages long, it would certainly count against _his_ credibility.
As for the HGN test itself, a quote from Wargames sums my thoughts more succinctly than I could put it myself - "A strange game; the only winning move is not to play." An honest cop, who follows the law, cannot ethically (in most states) use the refusal to take a field test as evidence of wrongdoing. On the other hand, taking the test can most certainly provide evidence for said honest cop.
As for a dishonest cop can pretty much say the results were whatever he wants. A camera in his car can show him administering the test, but won't show you pass or fail, unless you're really drunk and flailing around. Furthermore, even if he's honest, a lot of them don't administer the tests properly. My criminal justice teacher was a former prosecutor, and defense attorney. There is a laundry list of things that can be done wrong by the officer, all of which are grounds for dismissal of the case due to lack of probable cause. Of course, it doesn't matter if you're flailing around drunk on camera, but at that point, you're genuinely guilty anyway, and I have no sympathy.
Given that, why would you ever take the test, drunk or not?
At the same time, when the majority directly influence the government into doing disgusting things (interring the Japanese, among other things), nothing can protect those victims from tyranny.
That's largely, though not entirely, true.
With regards to the Japanese, we used census data to tell where to go round them up. Had this information not been available, it would have been much harder to do this. Furthermore, given the more rapid spread of non-censored information (the internet, SMS, etc.) - it would be much harder to just show up one night and get them all. If the United States were to it again, or were to persecute any other group for their race, I (and others) would be willing to do what I could to help undermine the illegal, immoral acts. I believe, and can only hope, that I would have been strong enough to do the same in the Nazi era as well.
Finally, there's the "second amendment" fallback. It's a lot easier to commit tyranny towards a group when you don't have to worry about dieing for trying it.
Realistically, there is a time and a place for the law, and a time and place to undermine it. In general, the majority can be counted on to do what's right; we just need to avoid the "tyrrany of the majority" that can occur.
but this issue is very simple: drink or drive, not both.
My point is most certainly not that drinking and driving is acceptable; rather, the law should be very specific, and should be enforced exactly as written. The evidence should be proper, and the government should be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person violated said law.
If the legal limit needs to be raised or lowered, fine, but we shouldn't abuse bad evidence to do an end-run around the judicial process.
That's not the case in Arizona.
Ahh, but then you are "evasive", and if the officer decides that you look like you _might_ have been drinking (all he has to say is you slurred your vision, or your eyes had some of the symptoms of being drunk, etc.), that's grounds for probable cause to take your blood and have it tested.
Isn't it great - you have the choice whether or not to let them trample on your rights, and if you don't, it's probable cause to let them do it anyway.
It's a good indicator - if done properly, and in conjunction with the other tests that go along with it. (IIRC, there were a total of 3 tests to be performed, because some people will just fail any given test for a variety of reasons).
OTOH, the results of a HGN test issued in the field _never_ help you - the best you can hope for is not being hurt. Ultimately, it's up to the officer to do it right, but as for the "perjured testimony", it's his word against yours, and he's the "specialist". How would he get in trouble for perjury, especially given it's quite possible to fail HGN without drinking any alcohol at all?
Also, having had a cop threaten to kill me for not letting him search without a warrant (long story), I'm not too impressed with the concept of putting blind faith in any particular officer.
If you're really only 0.04, the limit's 0.05, and you read over it, I'm sorry that such a miscarriage of justice happened.
First off, I don't drink - never mind drinking and driving. And personally, I think that truly incapacitated drivers (not just Alcohol) that put others at risk should be jailed for a very long time. After all, killing someone lasts a lifetime.
That being said, laws should be enforced properly, and evidence should be good. If driving at 0.04 is bad, then that's where the limit needs to be, and that's where the equipment needs to be. Arbitrary enforcement of laws (speed limit, I'm looking at you) leads to contempt for the law.
We, as individuals, are subject to, and expected to abide by the law. It's bad enough that they have so many laws it's literally impossible to know all the ones that apply to you. Now you want to make it even harder making it so that even if you know the law and abide by it, you can still get in trouble?
America is supposed to be the land of the free, and was founded upon principles and laws designed to protect the people from the government. The government needs strict standards rigorously enforced by the people (by voting, constitutional amendments, and armed revolution - as appropriate). What good are having laws if the government disregards them at will? Furthermore, given our history (interring the Japanese, among other things), it should be blatantly apparent that the law (and by extension the collective power of the citizenry to enforce and replace it) is the only thing that can protect the people from tyranny.
You are giving away the ISPs services for free. All this freeloading removes money from the industry
I have a business class connection with Cox. I pay around $140/mo, and get something like 10mbps down, 1mbps up (IIRC, it's on autopay, and it's been a while since I set it up).
This is more bandwidth than I need, and my bandwidth isn't shaped (except for Cox's transparent port 80 proxy, but that's another issue), and I have _paid_ for my bandwidth. I'm contractually permitted to run servers on this connection.
Why is it an evil thing when I choose to share my unused (yet paid for) bandwidth over a WIFI connection, but just fine when I choose to share it over a P2P/HTTP connection? Why is it any worse than me hosting a few people for free since I have the bandwidth to spare. Are you saying that I don't have a right to use the bandwidth that I paid for, in a matter I see fit, up to the amount I contractually agreed to be limited to?
Dropping Blu-Ray for HD-DVD is like dumping your super model girlfriend to date Rosie O'Donnell.
For $100 Million, I'd date Rosie O'Donnell. Apparently, so would Paramount.
There's a limit to what can be legally said; however,
:)
There is a sufficient linux market to justify making one
There are companies with sufficient experience and technology to develop one
The HD-DVD and Blu-Ray licenses don't prohibit development of one
The only major hurdles to be overcome are differences in libraries between Linux distros (easy enough to solve, with a decent build system, some chroot()s, and an open-source interface layer), and the resiliency requirements of the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD licenses (HDCP, etc.). The latter would require some cooperation between the software developer and the graphics hardware manufacturer, but as both Nvidia and ATI care enough to produce Linux drivers, one could assume it wouldn't be too difficult to convince them to do so.
Draw from these statements what conclusions you will
I apologize if my comment was misunderstood.
I don't believe that it's time for an armed uprising for this nation; rather, I believe that we are headed towards a time where such might be necessary. Few would argue that the primary goal of the United States government is to serve it's citizens, and individuals have a hard time providing the same level of cash that corporations can.
If our government can't be reigned in through voting, or bribery, only two methods remain for the people to exert their will over their government - force, and the fear of force. I sincerely hope that this fear is sufficient to keep them from turning this nation into a fascist dictatorship. With the Executive Orders, signing statement, and the (formerly) rubber-stamping congress, it's been a bad couple of years for liberty here.
The sight of blood in others causes me physical pain; I cannot look at others who are injured or in peril, and not feel some of it myself. It would be all to easy to just ignore what our government were doing, were it not for the fact that my government is committing great evil, killing many innocent people (and quite a few guilty ones) and using my tax dollars to do it.
I'm sorry, but the more I hear of him, the more Thomas Jefferson sounds like a dangerous, deranged psychopath.
Well, the founding fathers committed an armed overthrow of the legitimate government. If you were to ask England, they were murderers, terrorists, and they committed treason. Had they not succeeded, they would have been executed as traitors to the crown.
The difference between a traitor and a patriot is often a matter of how successful one was. Fortunately for the United States, the people who started it's government did so because they wanted freedom from an oppressive government, rather than simply freedom to institute their own oppressive government. Unfortunately, there has been a sever slide towards tyranny in recent years.
We could use a few more patriots in this nation, even if it did result in some people dying in a revolution. The safest life is a solitary one in a padded cell, but I certainly wouldn't want to live like that. Besides, if it's acceptable for a soldier to fight (and give his life) to "preserve our way of life", why is it wrong to fight to better our way of life?
We need a better protection of our limited natural entitlement gun ownership that recognizes that it's more of a privilege, like a driver's license, than any kind of natural exercise of the human powers with which we are created.
I'm going to address the second part of your statement first. The right to self-defense is in itself a natural human right, and quite possibly the most important one. Without the right to self-determination (freedom to protect yourself from coercion), how can one have the right to Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness? If self-defense is a natural right, then so must be the right to bear arms - sometimes a gun is simply the only tool that will get the job done. Don't believe me? Just ask the police, or the military.
I recognize that the police and military do exist (in theory) to protect the citizenry; however, that doesn't address the issue that they have no obligation to the individual, nor that there are times where they simply cannot arrive in time. Furthermore, it is often the police and the military one most needs protection from. As a personal example, I have had a police offer pull out a knife, and threaten to shoot me unless I consented to an illegal search. He indicated that all he had to do was say I pulled the knife on him (he called it his "throwdown knife"), and he wouldn't face reprisal. Had several other police officers not arrived at that time, I would have consented. Ultimately, rights matter little when one is dead.
A gun in my hand wouldn't have helped much in my particular circumstance. On the other hand, an armed populace provides an obstacle to tyranny, and a deterrent to unjust rule through force. Having seen some of the weapons possessed by my fellow citizens in Wyoming, I can't help but feel sorry for any force stupid enough to try to conquer by force.
As for the line about gun ownership being a privilege, rather than a right - the point of the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves as citizens (by definition, the well-regulated militia) against the military (the well-regulated army). The very nature of licensing requires oversight, and ultimately enforcement, being done by the government. Do you not see the problem with giving the government the right to regulate the only thing that ultimately protects citizens from it?
As for the line about "And since a well-supplied militia is not necessary to the free state in which we live, unless you also think we should disband the standing army and stop buying it weapons, the basis of the noninfringement is gone.", you couldn't be further from the truth.
Given the existence of the standing army we have, the well-regulated militia is more important than ever. The United States government is the most formidable military force known to man, and it needs checks and balances more than ever. The U.S. government has shown they don't care enough to secure our voting against outside. The legislative branch routinely pass laws incompatible with the constitution, and the judicial branch fails to keep them in check (commerce clause, anyone?). The executive branch (by their own admission) considers both to be an obstacle to their rule. The president (through executive orders and "signing statements") routinely takes action with the force of law and disregards it when it stands in his way.
Given all that, the only real check left on the government is that if they get egregious enough in their behavior, the people can rise up and overthrow them, or at the very least make it impossible for them to continue on their present path. The citizenry is quite capable of disrupting supply lines, cutting off money, bombing troop locations, roadside explosives, etc. It may be considered "terrorism", but it's fundamentally how a well-regulated militia deals with a well-regulated army. Our military does so well in Iraq - it would be much harder here, when it's necessary to preserve infrastructure, demolishing large areas isn't nearly as viable
What's wrong with squeezing every penny out of the reporter's work? Don't you want every penny of salary you're entitled to get?
The issue is that they aren't entitled to every penny they can get.
Copyright law (to the extent it's compatible with the US constitution) is an government granted exclusive monopoly on distribution of works for a limited period to the extent that it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.
The natural state of things is that ideas, knowledge, etc. are yours, until you choose to share them with the world. Copyright (again, to the extent it's constitutionally protected) extends the natural protection with an artificial incentive to produce works by providing an additional measure to increase the ability to capitalize on your works, allowing sufficient time to capitalize on the production before it reverts to it's natural state - a free for all idea in the wild, which others may build on.
The original copyright period was 14 years, with good reason - given the relatively slow pace at which one could manufacture, print, distribute, and sell works worldwide, it was decided that this was enough time to allow the author to make enough of a profit to make it worth doing in the first place - promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. Given the speed of technology, distribution, and the number of books competing for readers (reducing the time a book can stay "on top") - copyright protection should be getting shorter, not extending longer and longer.
Furthermore, fair use was an integral part of copyright protection. Remember, the purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Allowing an absolute monopoly on works is in direct opposition to the very principle copyright law was founded on. It's been horribly abused, and is in fact the basis of the original EULAs. When you run software, it's copied to RAM, so you need a copyright license to run it. This legal theory was used to justify the position that they could take a license (which grants freedoms subject to terms), and use it as a means to circumvent both the doctrines of fair use and first sale. Fortunately, the law now contains a specific exemption for running, installing, and backing up software, which would render the argument moot. Unfortunately, companies now just pretend that the EULA is a contract (which opens up other legal issues, but it's rarely challenged in court).
I ask you this - do you honestly believe that there is a single author on the planet who would choose not to write a book simply because his descendants only could profit from the royalties for 50 years after his death instead of 75? The lack of such people shows that modern copyright law is unconstitutional, and the modern enforcement of copyright law (DMCA, EULAs, $150,000 statutory damages, Blizzard vs BNETd, copy-protected door openers, chipped printer cartridges, etc.) show that the system is being used in direct opposition to it's intended purpose. With the notable exception of so-called "copyleft" licenses, copyright has become a tool to bludgeon people into submission, to suppress thought, stifle innovation, and quash competitors. As such, is it any surprise that so many people have distrust or outright hostility for the entire illegal system? Is it really any surprise that so many people choose to disregard the potential consequences and infringe anyway?
Even those who simply want free music and don't figure they will get caught demonstrate the issue at stake here. Just laws, right laws, laws that society supports are enforced vigorously. Murderer, child molesting, etc. are met with some of the harshest punishments available nearly everywhere. There aren't many "murderers rights" lobbyists, and child molesters often have to be separated from the general population in prison to avoid serious harm to them. People demand punishment for what they consider to be just laws, with genuine victims. Politicians cater
While LCDs have only their native resolution, it is quite possible to produce a LCD that has a native resolution under 1920x1080, requiring stretching. Regardless of this, it's been my experience that just a monitor having a native resolution sufficient to draw a full 1920x1080 frame on it does not necessarily mean you can send it a HDMI 1080p signal. Anything can be scaled.