Police power is specifically granted by written law.
Details of interpreting those laws are given by courts, but there is no law saying police have the right to modify/attach things to my personal property without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.
If the judge says the police may do this because "it is the same as tailing", then that argument applies to citizens equally: it is legal to follow someone's car (unless they tell you to stop or some such thing). Therefore, per this judge, it is legal for a citizen to attach a GPS tracker to someones car.
There is a structure to our legal system. You should never, ever say "Well, they're police, so I guess they can do what they want!"
Police can only do things they are specifically entitled to do by law. They definitely aren't allowed to come do things to my property without a warrant (until now).
I feel this is no different. If police start attaching GPS devices to cars of people not accused of any crimes 'just to see where he goes' and then arresting them for speeding, I'm sure the courts will toss those out using exactly the same type of finding.
What type of finding? Unreasonable search? This judge just said that GPS tracking is not held to that standard. If it was, they would need either a) evidence of illegal activity AT THE SCENE (which doesn't make sense in this case), or b) a warrant.
Sure, the Mafia exploits markets created by the government. But you think without government intervention, the practices the Mafia is famous for would disappear? Seems to me, businesses tend to move in the direction of Mafia-esque behavior, rather than organizations moving towards civility.
Barry Bonds was clearly willfully ignorant or pretending ignorance about what his "muscle cream" was.
Obama hasn't done anything illegal due to his staff, he pays them to do research for him that he doesn't have time to do himself. If someone misleads him in some subtle detail, it is not his fault.
So, you are saying Obama told his vetting staff to ignore tax fraud in the vetting process? Otherwise, this is still a mistake of his vetting staff and not his fault.
Stop trying to smear one person based on the mistakes of others.
We found out because the people who are paid to investigate tax fraud discovered it. Obama is paid to run the country, not micro-manage the personal affairs of everyone he might nominate.
It isn't that hard to file a tax form correctly, it doesn't take careful investigation. That isn't what I said, you are blatantly misinterpreting my words. The people who committed tax fraud, intentionally or accidentally, should be held accountable. How is is Obama's fault though? Unless you are accusing Obama of tax fraud...
Big whoop. The people who spend their money on food shouldn't be taxed as much as the people who spend their money on luxuries. There, I said it. Redistribute wealth. Because that's what we've been doing since feudal times and god dammit if things don't get better the more we do it.
"But if the CFL is not recycled and it ends up in a landfill, EPA estimates that about 11% of the mercury in the CFL is released into air or water, assuming the light bulb is broken. This is because most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb. Therefore, if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) - they would add only 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans."
Everyone involved agrees a $2000 cleanup crew is ridiculous and should never have been recommended. It was never in fact used, as the person who broke the bulb couldn't afford it. There are now published cleanup instructions from various environmental agencies along the lines of "ventilate the room well".
Per the WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Mercury_emissions "CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury as vapor inside the glass tubing, averaging 4.0 mg per bulb... In areas powered by coal, CFLs end up saving on mercury emissions versus incandescent bulbs, due to the offset power use (coal releases mercury as it is burned).... In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 tons) that year."
Firstly, that fails to account for free market influences - when you get a new cost in production, that cost is not passed exactly to the consumer.
Secondly, paying at the point of purchase is far far better than at the point of earning for most Americans. Why should we all be paying part of our earnings on behalf of some yacht company that shelters most of its taxes? Maybe it would be preferable for people who fucking buy yachts to pay more and for the other 95% of us to pay less?
Heh. I was talking more classical Replublicanism, i.e. conservativism. The modern Republican party is just plain bizarre. You might say one party or the other doesn't make sense because you don't like the end result they are looking towards (nanny state vs anarchy), but the modern Republican party wants to have magical infinite resources and total freedom but no one doing anything bad.
The "little subculture" you speak of turns out to be a massive demographic. You can hurl pejoratives at it all you want, but it all amounts to "the Pirate Party are doo-doo heads" or any other partisan bullshit.
For particulars, I was talking about US parties when I mentioned Democratics, and merely using the commonly spouted anti-Democratic theme. As for Republicans, they have been saying for a LONG, LONG time now that "lower taxes is a core part of their platform". Not some certain tax rate, but "lower taxes". This has survived a drop from above 90% average tax rate in the 60s to below 30% tax rate in the 80s. HOW LOW DO TAXES HAVE TO GO before Republicans rescind this "core part of their platform"? The answer is obvious; so long as there are taxes they will rail against them, until there are no taxes and therefore no government.
So, is the Green Party a "fake party"? Because the Pirate Party's "tiny subculture" has more membership / votes than the Green Party in Sweden.
It is easy to belittle those with viewpoints different then yours. Are you from the US? Are you a member of either of the major parties? What jokes - the "we just want to tax and spend like crazy and limit personal freedoms" party VS the "we just want to have ZERO taxes and totally dismantle all forms of government" party. I would say they are as fake as they come.
By next year, Korea's Ministry of Information and Communications wants to upgrade the nation's high-speed backbone to 50 megabits, and by 2012, the ministry says, Koreans will be luxuriating in 100-megabit cascades of data.
Thank god for the wonders of private enterprise...
Slashdot Mirror
That is how it seems now isn't it?
However, it has never been proven.
This argument is BS.
Police power is specifically granted by written law.
Details of interpreting those laws are given by courts, but there is no law saying police have the right to modify/attach things to my personal property without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.
If the judge says the police may do this because "it is the same as tailing", then that argument applies to citizens equally: it is legal to follow someone's car (unless they tell you to stop or some such thing). Therefore, per this judge, it is legal for a citizen to attach a GPS tracker to someones car.
There is a structure to our legal system. You should never, ever say "Well, they're police, so I guess they can do what they want!"
Police can only do things they are specifically entitled to do by law. They definitely aren't allowed to come do things to my property without a warrant (until now).
I feel this is no different. If police start attaching GPS devices to cars of people not accused of any crimes 'just to see where he goes' and then arresting them for speeding, I'm sure the courts will toss those out using exactly the same type of finding.
What type of finding? Unreasonable search? This judge just said that GPS tracking is not held to that standard. If it was, they would need either a) evidence of illegal activity AT THE SCENE (which doesn't make sense in this case), or b) a warrant.
Pee Ess Pee
Sure, the Mafia exploits markets created by the government. But you think without government intervention, the practices the Mafia is famous for would disappear? Seems to me, businesses tend to move in the direction of Mafia-esque behavior, rather than organizations moving towards civility.
Not equivalent at all.
Barry Bonds was clearly willfully ignorant or pretending ignorance about what his "muscle cream" was.
Obama hasn't done anything illegal due to his staff, he pays them to do research for him that he doesn't have time to do himself. If someone misleads him in some subtle detail, it is not his fault.
So, you are saying Obama told his vetting staff to ignore tax fraud in the vetting process? Otherwise, this is still a mistake of his vetting staff and not his fault.
Stop trying to smear one person based on the mistakes of others.
We found out because the people who are paid to investigate tax fraud discovered it. Obama is paid to run the country, not micro-manage the personal affairs of everyone he might nominate.
It isn't that hard to file a tax form correctly, it doesn't take careful investigation. That isn't what I said, you are blatantly misinterpreting my words. The people who committed tax fraud, intentionally or accidentally, should be held accountable. How is is Obama's fault though? Unless you are accusing Obama of tax fraud...
Big whoop. The people who spend their money on food shouldn't be taxed as much as the people who spend their money on luxuries. There, I said it. Redistribute wealth. Because that's what we've been doing since feudal times and god dammit if things don't get better the more we do it.
"But if the CFL is not recycled and it ends up in a landfill, EPA estimates that about 11% of the mercury in the CFL is released into air or water, assuming the light bulb is broken. This is because most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb. Therefore, if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) - they would add only 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans."
From the source for the WP statement,
http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5411&p_created=1220627774
They are saying emissions, not including that which stagnates in the landfill.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
Everyone involved agrees a $2000 cleanup crew is ridiculous and should never have been recommended. It was never in fact used, as the person who broke the bulb couldn't afford it. There are now published cleanup instructions from various environmental agencies along the lines of "ventilate the room well".
Per the WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Mercury_emissions ... ...
"CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury as vapor inside the glass tubing, averaging 4.0 mg per bulb
In areas powered by coal, CFLs end up saving on mercury emissions versus incandescent bulbs, due to the offset power use (coal releases mercury as it is burned).
In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 tons) that year."
So, yeah, use CFLs.
Bullshit.
Firstly, that fails to account for free market influences - when you get a new cost in production, that cost is not passed exactly to the consumer.
Secondly, paying at the point of purchase is far far better than at the point of earning for most Americans. Why should we all be paying part of our earnings on behalf of some yacht company that shelters most of its taxes? Maybe it would be preferable for people who fucking buy yachts to pay more and for the other 95% of us to pay less?
That is ridiculous.
You say, "Don't blame Microsoft, because they have an incentive to do it!"
Ireland also has an incentive to create this tax haven. Having a positive incentive is not a god damned excuse for your actions.
Why doesn't Microsoft just start trafficking sex slaves? The money is so good, who could blame them?
Squuuuuuuuuuuuueeeezeeee more blood out of that rock, baby!
We can do it with NO TAXES AT ALL if we just make everything SOOOOOOOOOOOOO efficient!
Right, because he had time to carefully investigate the finances of everyone he nominated. Troll.
My dad used to call that the "Except for Microsoft" rule.
Heh. I was talking more classical Replublicanism, i.e. conservativism. The modern Republican party is just plain bizarre. You might say one party or the other doesn't make sense because you don't like the end result they are looking towards (nanny state vs anarchy), but the modern Republican party wants to have magical infinite resources and total freedom but no one doing anything bad.
The "little subculture" you speak of turns out to be a massive demographic. You can hurl pejoratives at it all you want, but it all amounts to "the Pirate Party are doo-doo heads" or any other partisan bullshit.
For particulars, I was talking about US parties when I mentioned Democratics, and merely using the commonly spouted anti-Democratic theme. As for Republicans, they have been saying for a LONG, LONG time now that "lower taxes is a core part of their platform". Not some certain tax rate, but "lower taxes". This has survived a drop from above 90% average tax rate in the 60s to below 30% tax rate in the 80s. HOW LOW DO TAXES HAVE TO GO before Republicans rescind this "core part of their platform"? The answer is obvious; so long as there are taxes they will rail against them, until there are no taxes and therefore no government.
So, is the Green Party a "fake party"? Because the Pirate Party's "tiny subculture" has more membership / votes than the Green Party in Sweden.
It is easy to belittle those with viewpoints different then yours. Are you from the US? Are you a member of either of the major parties? What jokes - the "we just want to tax and spend like crazy and limit personal freedoms" party VS the "we just want to have ZERO taxes and totally dismantle all forms of government" party. I would say they are as fake as they come.
Arlen Specter always was my favorite Reaper senator. He doesn't put up with much shit from people from either party.
Most people don't really pay attention to individual politicians, so they probably don't realize that Specter is one of the few respectable ones.
Only power users have CPUs with virtualization support? Okay...
I suppose only power users have CPUs made after like 2006...
By next year, Korea's Ministry of Information and Communications wants to upgrade the nation's high-speed backbone to 50 megabits, and by 2012, the ministry says, Koreans will be luxuriating in 100-megabit cascades of data.
Thank god for the wonders of private enterprise...
I read "18 seconds" and thought, that is a DAMN DAMN long time in terms of weird particle lifetimes go.