I know my rights, but when no lawyer in town will take your case and you can't afford an out of town lawyer, you're pretty much at the mercy of the police. I hear this a lot from people, but I honestly don't know what other options there are in such a situation. You can (a) let them check your ID and freeze your ass off for a few minutes or (b) try to stand up for your rights, have them beat the hell out of you, and then find that you don't have a case because they planted drugs or a weapon on you and claimed that you were resisting arrest. I've seen it happen. Southern law and politics are pretty messed up. Sometimes, even if you can find a lawyer to take your case, you lose by default when it turns out that the judge is the cop's brother or something.
It gets to 20 degrees in lots of parts of north Alabama during the winter. This was in February, in the Muscle Shoals area. I was dressed for a 10 minute walk from a friend's house to my house in such weather, not a 30 minute stint of standing still.
Not true. I have been asked to produce ID while driving a car when I haven't done anything wrong. You've never been through a road block where you had to produce ID just to drive on to your destination? Police are so protective of this chance to ask you to produce ID even though you haven't done anything wrong that it is a crime to avoid a road block, even through otherwise legal means.
I think my point here stands. You are subject to having to produce ID at any point when requested while driving a motorcycle, car, or boat. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the Nevada law as constitutional in the Hiibel case means that any state can pass a similar law (if they don't already have one) and have its constitutionality pre-guaranteed.
As to your statement that "police just don't randomly ask people for ID" I would have to ask you to explain just what you mean by "randomly". If I'm walking by the side of the road, minding my own business, and Johnny Law decides he doesn't like the way I look, can he stop me and ask me for ID? If I'm standing in front of a store smoking or waiting for a friend to get done shopping and an officer of the law thinks I look "suspicious", is this reasonable justification for making me produce ID? Where is the line drawn for what is reasonable and unreasonable? Who decides? And if the guidelines are sufficiently vague to allow either of the incidents I mentioned, how does this constitute a situation where pedestrians are not required to produce ID?
The reason I specifically mentioned the examples I gave is that both incidents have happened to me. I have long hair and I live in the southeast. In the southeast a guy having long hair is apparently sufficient justification for making him produce ID in virtually any circumstances. In one of those incidents an Alabama cop not only made me produce ID, but he got inside his car and took about 30 minutes running it to see if I had any prior convictions he could bust me for. I had to stand there in 20 degree weather while he sat in his car with the heater on, detaining me for having long hair.
Am I worried about the gradual disintegration of civil liberties under the Bush administration? HELL, YES!!! I'm not worried because I'm doing anything wrong; I'm worried because all too often those in power hold prejudices, and civil liberties are designed to protect us from the prejudices of people in power. If those liberties disappear then we live by the arbitrary values of whoever holds political power, whether they are just or not. The Constitution was designed to protect us from the likes of Ashcroft, and if we allow him to shred it in front of our faces then everything we sacrificed as a country to protect this political experiment we call America gets flushed right down the toilet.
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
I don't think this is quite correct. You do, in fact, have to have ID in order to travel by motorcycle, car, or boat because you have to have a license on you in order to legally do so (which is a form of ID... usually photo ID). Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that he did not have a right to fail to produce ID because the law had an overriding concern in establishing his identity. I personally think that this is a bunch of baloney... a pedestrian that is not breaking any laws should never be forced to show identification just because a police officer decides he wants to see some. Nevertheless, I think this pretty much destroys your initial point, and contributes to the point of the original article.
Fact is, you can't go anywhere in the United States right now (outside of your own private property... and I wonder how much longer that will stand) and expect to have the right to not show ID at a moment's notice.
A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office downplays the privacy and security considerations by saying, "If the soldier is uncomfortable with this process, he or she should not consider this option".
Oh, I see. If you're worried about security, don't use the system. Right. So, what's to prevent someone from using this system for me in my name? Who decides which ballot is valid in the case of multiple submissions? I certainly hope someone rethinks this idea before it gets implemented. There is simply WAAAAAY too much potential for abuse.
You still can anytime you want, from the comfort of your own home. I know someone that did it and she made pretty good money doing so (about $15/hour, I think). When I inquired about male employment she said they do hire men, but that most callers for men are gay, so men have to be prepared to do the gay thing (at least on the phone) if they want to work a phone sex line.
Don't kid yourself, though... it's work. In order to make the highest pay rate you have to pretty consistently satisfy the clients and keep them on the line, which is not as easy as you might think. People are different, and different things get them off. You have to figure out what they want pretty quickly or they'll move to someone else. You also have to be careful not to give them too much of what they want too quickly or they won't stay on the line long. There's a fair amount of psychology involved in doing it well.
I keep hearing this argument made in favor of outsourcing jobs, but what I never hear is a realistic estimate of the amount of time that has to pass before the good stuff comes back our way. If there's a fairly quick turnaround on work returning to the country of origin then it's a good argument, but I suspect that the amount of time that has to elapse in order for the jobs to start coming back is more likely to be measured in decades than years.
I've always viewed XP as being like ME. It looks to me like Microsoft decided to test the features they were wanting to put into Longhorn, so they released a lot of them on a 2000 platform, where they didn't perform well. That's what they did with ME... they put features they were wanting to put into 2000 on a 98 platform, and they didn't perform well there either.
More than anything else I'm just joking about Microsoft's habit of buying up other people's great ideas and seldom producing many of their own. Although I haven't really got any idea what the situation is with the MS gamepads you're describing I'd be willing to bet that if you were to dig around a little bit you'd find that the original design came from some smaller company that Microsoft swallowed up rather than from Microsoft's own R&D lab.
Once again, I could be wrong. After all, didn't MS Bob come from their R&D labs?;^)
I've heard stuff like this suggested before, and it makes a lot of sense. I think some bands ought to post the cost of recording an album (including paying themselves for their time doing so) on a website and then start begging for the funds via paypal or something. Seems like it would be really easy to put up some sort of chart indicating how much money had been received by any band and how close that put them to being able to record an album. The albums would be released for free via the band's website and the P2P networks, of course, since the fans had already paid for them in advance. Bands that suck won't make enough money to record... bands that people like would get to record as often as the public continues to fund them. The same process should work for movie production now that the means to shoot and edit a professional movie is within reach of a lot of people.
I think what scares the hell out of the movie and recording industries is that this would take them out of the catbird seat. It would no longer be necessary to pay for large chunks of the current apparatus for making movies, recording albums, and distributing content, and that makes a lot of executive types sweat bullets. The recording and movie industry as we know it would most likely shrivel up and float away on the wind. There's really no reason why artists cannot be supported directly by the public, and probably better supported than they currently are by a lot of media companies.
The democratization of these industries is coming, whether the media companies like it or not... the handwriting is on the wall, whether or not they choose to look at it.
You're completely missing the point. The point is that what Word ouputs is not clean HTML code; it's a mangled Word document. Word is not a good HTML editor. The post that prompted me to respond was pointing out that a simple "Hello World!" page produced an ungodly amount of ridiculously unneccessary code, and the specific response I was replying to was pointing out that the amount of extra code Word spits out can be reduced. I was just pointing out that even this pared down code still contains a lot of extra crap. I was intending the response to be somewhat humorous, but it's obvious that you take yourself way too seriously to be able to appreciate humor. Feel free to list any and all other problems with my example HTML you want... it will just further demonstrate your inability to appreciate the salient point and a sense of humor (not to mention your atrocious typing skills... what are you using to pound on the keyboard there, robsmama, hooves?).
By the way, what was that comment about OSS thrown in there for? I'm not the author of any OSS that I am aware of, so that was nothing more than a non-sequitur. I'm glad you're not an OSS fan, though. Keep using MS software. I like the idea that the open source community is mostly populated by intelligent, easy-going, fun people, and your participation and support would really spoil that idea for me.
OK... you got me. It's been a while since I was coding HTML, and I think I was using HTML 3 then. Nevertheless I think my point stands, which is that Word's "clean code" is full of a bunch of other crap that doesn't need to be there. My failure to include 1 extra line (a doctype, which any browser I've ever used will infer anyway) and lowercase my tags doesn't make the point any less valid, even if my code is.
Slashdot Mirror
It gets to 20 degrees in lots of parts of north Alabama during the winter. This was in February, in the Muscle Shoals area. I was dressed for a 10 minute walk from a friend's house to my house in such weather, not a 30 minute stint of standing still.
I think my point here stands. You are subject to having to produce ID at any point when requested while driving a motorcycle, car, or boat. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the Nevada law as constitutional in the Hiibel case means that any state can pass a similar law (if they don't already have one) and have its constitutionality pre-guaranteed.
As to your statement that "police just don't randomly ask people for ID" I would have to ask you to explain just what you mean by "randomly". If I'm walking by the side of the road, minding my own business, and Johnny Law decides he doesn't like the way I look, can he stop me and ask me for ID? If I'm standing in front of a store smoking or waiting for a friend to get done shopping and an officer of the law thinks I look "suspicious", is this reasonable justification for making me produce ID? Where is the line drawn for what is reasonable and unreasonable? Who decides? And if the guidelines are sufficiently vague to allow either of the incidents I mentioned, how does this constitute a situation where pedestrians are not required to produce ID?
The reason I specifically mentioned the examples I gave is that both incidents have happened to me. I have long hair and I live in the southeast. In the southeast a guy having long hair is apparently sufficient justification for making him produce ID in virtually any circumstances. In one of those incidents an Alabama cop not only made me produce ID, but he got inside his car and took about 30 minutes running it to see if I had any prior convictions he could bust me for. I had to stand there in 20 degree weather while he sat in his car with the heater on, detaining me for having long hair.
Am I worried about the gradual disintegration of civil liberties under the Bush administration? HELL, YES!!! I'm not worried because I'm doing anything wrong; I'm worried because all too often those in power hold prejudices, and civil liberties are designed to protect us from the prejudices of people in power. If those liberties disappear then we live by the arbitrary values of whoever holds political power, whether they are just or not. The Constitution was designed to protect us from the likes of Ashcroft, and if we allow him to shred it in front of our faces then everything we sacrificed as a country to protect this political experiment we call America gets flushed right down the toilet.
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
I don't think this is quite correct. You do, in fact, have to have ID in order to travel by motorcycle, car, or boat because you have to have a license on you in order to legally do so (which is a form of ID... usually photo ID). Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that he did not have a right to fail to produce ID because the law had an overriding concern in establishing his identity. I personally think that this is a bunch of baloney... a pedestrian that is not breaking any laws should never be forced to show identification just because a police officer decides he wants to see some. Nevertheless, I think this pretty much destroys your initial point, and contributes to the point of the original article.
Fact is, you can't go anywhere in the United States right now (outside of your own private property... and I wonder how much longer that will stand) and expect to have the right to not show ID at a moment's notice.
I'd love a Gmail invite! jdramsey email.com
Oh, I see. If you're worried about security, don't use the system. Right. So, what's to prevent someone from using this system for me in my name? Who decides which ballot is valid in the case of multiple submissions? I certainly hope someone rethinks this idea before it gets implemented. There is simply WAAAAAY too much potential for abuse.
Don't kid yourself, though... it's work. In order to make the highest pay rate you have to pretty consistently satisfy the clients and keep them on the line, which is not as easy as you might think. People are different, and different things get them off. You have to figure out what they want pretty quickly or they'll move to someone else. You also have to be careful not to give them too much of what they want too quickly or they won't stay on the line long. There's a fair amount of psychology involved in doing it well.
I keep hearing this argument made in favor of outsourcing jobs, but what I never hear is a realistic estimate of the amount of time that has to pass before the good stuff comes back our way. If there's a fairly quick turnaround on work returning to the country of origin then it's a good argument, but I suspect that the amount of time that has to elapse in order for the jobs to start coming back is more likely to be measured in decades than years.
I've always viewed XP as being like ME. It looks to me like Microsoft decided to test the features they were wanting to put into Longhorn, so they released a lot of them on a 2000 platform, where they didn't perform well. That's what they did with ME... they put features they were wanting to put into 2000 on a 98 platform, and they didn't perform well there either.
... I wonder if they'll admit to the existence of this laptop?
Once again, I could be wrong. After all, didn't MS Bob come from their R&D labs? ;^)
If it's a Microsoft product I'm pretty sure you can count on it being non-creative.
I think what scares the hell out of the movie and recording industries is that this would take them out of the catbird seat. It would no longer be necessary to pay for large chunks of the current apparatus for making movies, recording albums, and distributing content, and that makes a lot of executive types sweat bullets. The recording and movie industry as we know it would most likely shrivel up and float away on the wind. There's really no reason why artists cannot be supported directly by the public, and probably better supported than they currently are by a lot of media companies.
The democratization of these industries is coming, whether the media companies like it or not... the handwriting is on the wall, whether or not they choose to look at it.
By the way, what was that comment about OSS thrown in there for? I'm not the author of any OSS that I am aware of, so that was nothing more than a non-sequitur. I'm glad you're not an OSS fan, though. Keep using MS software. I like the idea that the open source community is mostly populated by intelligent, easy-going, fun people, and your participation and support would really spoil that idea for me.
OK... you got me. It's been a while since I was coding HTML, and I think I was using HTML 3 then. Nevertheless I think my point stands, which is that Word's "clean code" is full of a bunch of other crap that doesn't need to be there. My failure to include 1 extra line (a doctype, which any browser I've ever used will infer anyway) and lowercase my tags doesn't make the point any less valid, even if my code is.
What about this code is not standards compliant?
I think IE is designed to thwart people who read the fine print, as are some other products this company produces.