citizen 1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien). 2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
Regardless, children have constitutional rights. This includes every right that adults have against being prosecuted by people without proper authority.
That policy is completely illegal. The problem is that school policies don't have to pass any legal test before they can be made policy. Thus, illegal policies are practiced by the school until someone with enough money decided to sue the school and a judge rules the policy illegal. These students just got punished for something that the school has no legal authority to enforce. If it were me, I'd call the ACLU. I'm pretty sure they'd send a few lawyers down to help the affected students.
Seriously, how many airliners in the United States are at risk of shoulder fired missile attacks? Most of the time, the airlines are at an altitude much too high for shoulder fired missiles to work. There aren't any planes at risk except for those that pass over hostile, foreign countries on approach or takeoff. How many of those flights are there?
Whether or not this system is necessary at all, it sure as hell isn't necessary for every single flight. It's nothing more than a defense contractor trying to make an assload of money by selling systems that aren't necessary.
Raising the price or increasing supply aren't options. Increasing supply is limited by physical factors. They would have to buy more equipment, train more people, hire more managers, etc. Raising the price may quite possibly lower their total revenue depending on the elasticity of the Nintendo revolution. (because wii is a stupid name).
The information isn't privileged like it is with attorney-client. The issue here is that the technician violated a law in searching the client's computer for files to use. The idea here is that the evidence should be excluded because the technician had no permission to access those files. In fact from what I've heard, most computer-fixing places have contracts that all employees are held to that states they may not access/view any file that is not directly related in fixing the computer.
If this were a law enforcement officer then the evidence would be excluded because of the exclusionary rule. This doesn't apply to citizens though because they aren't conducting searches and seizures. For the evidence to be excluded here, one would have to prove that the client's rights were violated when the technician accessed the files in question. I'm not sure how much weight the contract holds when it comes to the client's rights being violated.
This might be a case in which the client can sue the technician for breech of contract (for accessing files w/o permission) but the client is still getting thrown in jail because the evidence wasn't discovered illegally. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
I think his point was that "only $200k" isn't very much when you take into account how expensive it would be to hire lawyers capable of fighting the RIAA. Considering the fact that the RIAA has an assload of money and in-house lawyers, it might take a lot more than $200k to beat them.
Slander and libel have different restrictions based on who the slander or libel is directed towards. A libelous remark made toward an individual person can be construed as libel and punished quite easily.
However, when slander or libel is directed toward a highly public figure, which includes just about everyone in the government, one has to prove actual malicious intent for the remark to be considered libel. Also, if a guy is critical of anyone in opinion form "I hate so and so", "I think that policy xyz is stupid" then the remark isn't slander or libel. This is why parody sites like http://www.theonion.com/ can publish false articles about the president, there's no malicious intent and it's made obvious that they're fake.
The FDA isn't going to approve it without sufficient testing. Although there's no way they exposed a human to nerve gas and then used these drugs to see if it worked, there's no way that kind of test will EVER happen. The best they can do is what they've already done and that was sufficient to get it approved.
Also, these drugs don't need to be tested as thoroughly as other drugs that would be taken on a normal basis. For example, the Advil you buy at the store had better damn well be tested enough that you know what's going to happen when you take it, because you take it on a normal basis. But a drug to counteract a nerve toxin is only going to be taken if you've been exposed to the nerve toxin. At that point, it's either die from the nerve toxin or have at least some chance of survival by taking this new drug. If it kills you, you were going to die anyway, if it doesn't then you live.
Or that chick whose number you just got at the local chemistry convention. (HA! If only...).
Seriously though, first-time contacts will go straight to the bottom regardless of importance. Other incredibly important things will end up with the spam as well such as college admission office communication. I'm applying to several colleges. They have emailed me about 3 times each "we need your transcript", "we're still waiting on that second letter of recommendation", etc. I want these emails to be top-priority.
I think the Internet has run out of shitty "social network" applications and now they're trying to re-market stuff we already have. I.E. myspace and facebook operate on the exact same principle. -- You have a page with information about you. People who don't know you don't give a shit about it, but they never see this page because they don't know you. The people who do know you (I.E. your friends) already know this information. -- You have a comments box (myspace) or a wall (facebook) which is a shitty version of a chat room. People post comments to you which other people can read as well, like a chat room or IRC conversation. The only differences are that A) It's slower than IRC and B) People reply to comments on different people's walls. It's like trying to have one IRC conversation across 3 different channels at the same time. -- You have instant messages. These are instant messages that are already available through 4 different instant messaging applications. The difference is that IM apps. run in the background whereas you have to be logged into a website for the myspace/facebook chat to work. -- You have private messages. This is a shitty form of email, which you already have because you need an email address to sign up on any "social networking" site. -- You have all of this being used at once. You send someone a PM, they reply to it on your wall, you ask them a question through IMs, they tell you to see the email they sent you already.
A "social networking" site is just a bulky way of packaging worse versions of applications that already exist into a crappy interface that attempts to slam them all together. It doesn't streamline communication, it just spreads the conversations we already have over a shit load of different mediums. It doesn't do anything but hinder communication.
I think they've finally realized that no one over 21 is buying into this crap so they decided to simply take something that everyone uses, change an algorithm that already works (Chronologically ordered. Ascending/descending) to one that hasn't been tested at all (more messages = that person is more important) and sell it back to us. I seriously have no idea how these companies stay in business.
Lead solder substitutes might not be cheap (I honestly have no idea if they are or not) but I'll be damned if launching a rover to any planet is supposed to be cheap.
It's your responsibility as an American citizen/company to fight taking any measures you feel are unconstitutional or illegal. I'm not even saying that they have to go far as to break a single law. A telco with the insane amount of money they have should have hired lawyers to fight the orders to comply with the government. (If they weren't even orders then the company doesn't even need lawyers, they just shouldn't have given up the info).
The telcos didn't do this for their own selfish reasons and they should pay the price for doing so. That said, the government is also responsible for using the telcos like this in the first place and they should definitely receive some type of punitive action. Sadly, this isn't going to happen until the next administration takes over. And then only if Bush doesn't "pardon all individuals who may have committed some type of crime during their action in the U.S. gov." on his last day.
I think someone has their terminology confused. LCDs have the back-lights, but the original post mentioned CRTs. I believe that CRTs can render a true black because they don't make the pixels that are supposed to be black emit any light.
There is less coverage in less populated areas, but that also means that there will be fewer accidents there too. The only exception is the helicopters and oil rigs you mentioned. First of all, a 911 call isn't going to save you from a helicopter crash anyway. Second, oil rigs have either radio or hard line data links to the mainland for T.V., phone, Internet, etc. Both for the enjoyment for the people working there (they're isolated from their family for weeks/months at a time, a phone call helps with that and T.V. keeps morale (and therefore productivity) up), and because oil rigs need those lines to conduct business and coordinate their operations. Also, due to the isolated nature of oil rigs they have their own medical facilities and all sorts of other safety equipment. (Yes, the medical facilities on the oil rigs don't really compare to a hospital, but it's enough to do a significant amount of help in the event of serious injury). You also have to consider the fact that the only people on a oil rig have already signed wavers and such acknowledging the inherent danger of working there.
You're either intentionally putting words in my mouth or you're a stupid, fucking moron. I'm not sure which, so I'll re-explain this for you.
I said that someone being rude does not give another person the right to do "whatever they damn well please". Never, not even once, did I say that you were not allowed to ask the person to put away the cell phone. See, asking them to put away the cell phone is legal. However, jamming the person's signal is a violation of their first amendment rights. Therefore, jamming is illegal and therefore not allowed.
Please don't respond to this. If you're a moron then you won't understand what you just read and your response will be meaningless. If you were putting words in my mouth (which I find more likely), then you just wasted my time and I don't intend to waste more by reading your reply.
Why don't you shoot them? It takes care of the problem permanently. Although you say "shooting them is usually illegal", you obviously don't have a problem breaking the law by jamming their cell phone. What you meant to say was "I don't have a problem breaking the law unless I get caught, I don't really care about it though"
The rudeness does not give you the right (in the opinion of anyone who matters, I.E. a judge) to "do what [you] damn well please". In fact, using this as your defense in front of a court is likely to land you the maximum sentence (or largest fine) for demonstrated lack of respect for the law.
In pre-response to: Just take it outside! Answer: It's illegal. Full stop. No one needs a different explanation, it's illegal to actively jam cell phone signals and for a damn good reason. Active jamming infringes on people's first amendment rights.
There are a lot of laws that don't make any sense and circumventing them makes a lot of sense. This isn't one of them. If it's a bad law, then the law needs to be changed, not circumvented.
If the protection they give missile silos is the same they give data centers, and it isn't adequate for data centers, I think we have a problem with our missile silos. Fortunately, I don't think this is the case.
Walmart doesn't give two shits about whether a supplier is unionized or not. They care about the price and only the price. Unionized suppliers are more expensive because the union ensures that the company is treating them fairly (and safely when the OSHA inspector isn't around).
Because the government is built to serve the people, not the other way around. This isn't a situation in which person A and person B are coexisting such that when one harms the other, the victim feels compelled to retalliate. Idealy, the government is the people's bitch. From the declaration of independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
True, but perhaps that's one of the many reasons I'm not learning Japanese or Chinese.
Also, I wonder what happens if you just really suck at drawing. And how long would it take to draw a picture? I don't want to spend 5 minutes recreating butterflies every time I lock my computer because I stepped away to get some water.
There will be too many people with these receipts to safely assume that no one will crack it. Cracking most stuff is damn near impossible, but when you're talking about double-digit percentage of the populous with the will to discover the key, I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something. You don't need more than about 1-10 people that happen to have access to a university supercomputer and are willing to legitimately or illegitamately use it to brute force the key.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you got that idea. From dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citizen
citizen
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
Regardless, children have constitutional rights. This includes every right that adults have against being prosecuted by people without proper authority.
That policy is completely illegal. The problem is that school policies don't have to pass any legal test before they can be made policy. Thus, illegal policies are practiced by the school until someone with enough money decided to sue the school and a judge rules the policy illegal. These students just got punished for something that the school has no legal authority to enforce. If it were me, I'd call the ACLU. I'm pretty sure they'd send a few lawyers down to help the affected students.
Seriously, how many airliners in the United States are at risk of shoulder fired missile attacks?
Most of the time, the airlines are at an altitude much too high for shoulder fired missiles to work. There aren't any planes at risk except for those that pass over hostile, foreign countries on approach or takeoff. How many of those flights are there?
Whether or not this system is necessary at all, it sure as hell isn't necessary for every single flight. It's nothing more than a defense contractor trying to make an assload of money by selling systems that aren't necessary.
Raising the price or increasing supply aren't options.
Increasing supply is limited by physical factors. They would have to buy more equipment, train more people, hire more managers, etc.
Raising the price may quite possibly lower their total revenue depending on the elasticity of the Nintendo revolution. (because wii is a stupid name).
The information isn't privileged like it is with attorney-client. The issue here is that the technician violated a law in searching the client's computer for files to use. The idea here is that the evidence should be excluded because the technician had no permission to access those files. In fact from what I've heard, most computer-fixing places have contracts that all employees are held to that states they may not access/view any file that is not directly related in fixing the computer.
If this were a law enforcement officer then the evidence would be excluded because of the exclusionary rule. This doesn't apply to citizens though because they aren't conducting searches and seizures. For the evidence to be excluded here, one would have to prove that the client's rights were violated when the technician accessed the files in question. I'm not sure how much weight the contract holds when it comes to the client's rights being violated.
This might be a case in which the client can sue the technician for breech of contract (for accessing files w/o permission) but the client is still getting thrown in jail because the evidence wasn't discovered illegally. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
I think his point was that "only $200k" isn't very much when you take into account how expensive it would be to hire lawyers capable of fighting the RIAA. Considering the fact that the RIAA has an assload of money and in-house lawyers, it might take a lot more than $200k to beat them.
Slander and libel have different restrictions based on who the slander or libel is directed towards.
A libelous remark made toward an individual person can be construed as libel and punished quite easily.
However, when slander or libel is directed toward a highly public figure, which includes just about everyone in the government, one has to prove actual malicious intent for the remark to be considered libel. Also, if a guy is critical of anyone in opinion form "I hate so and so", "I think that policy xyz is stupid" then the remark isn't slander or libel.
This is why parody sites like http://www.theonion.com/ can publish false articles about the president, there's no malicious intent and it's made obvious that they're fake.
The FDA isn't going to approve it without sufficient testing. Although there's no way they exposed a human to nerve gas and then used these drugs to see if it worked, there's no way that kind of test will EVER happen. The best they can do is what they've already done and that was sufficient to get it approved.
Also, these drugs don't need to be tested as thoroughly as other drugs that would be taken on a normal basis. For example, the Advil you buy at the store had better damn well be tested enough that you know what's going to happen when you take it, because you take it on a normal basis. But a drug to counteract a nerve toxin is only going to be taken if you've been exposed to the nerve toxin. At that point, it's either die from the nerve toxin or have at least some chance of survival by taking this new drug. If it kills you, you were going to die anyway, if it doesn't then you live.
Read the article and watch the video. It's not two people shaking the phones, dumbass. They have to be shaken in one hand together.
Or that chick whose number you just got at the local chemistry convention. (HA! If only...).
Seriously though, first-time contacts will go straight to the bottom regardless of importance. Other incredibly important things will end up with the spam as well such as college admission office communication. I'm applying to several colleges. They have emailed me about 3 times each "we need your transcript", "we're still waiting on that second letter of recommendation", etc. I want these emails to be top-priority.
I think the Internet has run out of shitty "social network" applications and now they're trying to re-market stuff we already have. I.E. myspace and facebook operate on the exact same principle.
-- You have a page with information about you. People who don't know you don't give a shit about it, but they never see this page because they don't know you. The people who do know you (I.E. your friends) already know this information.
-- You have a comments box (myspace) or a wall (facebook) which is a shitty version of a chat room. People post comments to you which other people can read as well, like a chat room or IRC conversation. The only differences are that A) It's slower than IRC and B) People reply to comments on different people's walls. It's like trying to have one IRC conversation across 3 different channels at the same time.
-- You have instant messages. These are instant messages that are already available through 4 different instant messaging applications. The difference is that IM apps. run in the background whereas you have to be logged into a website for the myspace/facebook chat to work.
-- You have private messages. This is a shitty form of email, which you already have because you need an email address to sign up on any "social networking" site.
-- You have all of this being used at once. You send someone a PM, they reply to it on your wall, you ask them a question through IMs, they tell you to see the email they sent you already.
A "social networking" site is just a bulky way of packaging worse versions of applications that already exist into a crappy interface that attempts to slam them all together. It doesn't streamline communication, it just spreads the conversations we already have over a shit load of different mediums. It doesn't do anything but hinder communication.
I think they've finally realized that no one over 21 is buying into this crap so they decided to simply take something that everyone uses, change an algorithm that already works (Chronologically ordered. Ascending/descending) to one that hasn't been tested at all (more messages = that person is more important) and sell it back to us. I seriously have no idea how these companies stay in business.
Lead solder substitutes might not be cheap (I honestly have no idea if they are or not) but I'll be damned if launching a rover to any planet is supposed to be cheap.
It's your responsibility as an American citizen/company to fight taking any measures you feel are unconstitutional or illegal. I'm not even saying that they have to go far as to break a single law. A telco with the insane amount of money they have should have hired lawyers to fight the orders to comply with the government. (If they weren't even orders then the company doesn't even need lawyers, they just shouldn't have given up the info).
The telcos didn't do this for their own selfish reasons and they should pay the price for doing so. That said, the government is also responsible for using the telcos like this in the first place and they should definitely receive some type of punitive action. Sadly, this isn't going to happen until the next administration takes over. And then only if Bush doesn't "pardon all individuals who may have committed some type of crime during their action in the U.S. gov." on his last day.
I think someone has their terminology confused. LCDs have the back-lights, but the original post mentioned CRTs. I believe that CRTs can render a true black because they don't make the pixels that are supposed to be black emit any light.
There is less coverage in less populated areas, but that also means that there will be fewer accidents there too.
The only exception is the helicopters and oil rigs you mentioned. First of all, a 911 call isn't going to save you from a helicopter crash anyway. Second, oil rigs have either radio or hard line data links to the mainland for T.V., phone, Internet, etc. Both for the enjoyment for the people working there (they're isolated from their family for weeks/months at a time, a phone call helps with that and T.V. keeps morale (and therefore productivity) up), and because oil rigs need those lines to conduct business and coordinate their operations. Also, due to the isolated nature of oil rigs they have their own medical facilities and all sorts of other safety equipment. (Yes, the medical facilities on the oil rigs don't really compare to a hospital, but it's enough to do a significant amount of help in the event of serious injury).
You also have to consider the fact that the only people on a oil rig have already signed wavers and such acknowledging the inherent danger of working there.
You're either intentionally putting words in my mouth or you're a stupid, fucking moron. I'm not sure which, so I'll re-explain this for you.
I said that someone being rude does not give another person the right to do "whatever they damn well please". Never, not even once, did I say that you were not allowed to ask the person to put away the cell phone. See, asking them to put away the cell phone is legal.
However, jamming the person's signal is a violation of their first amendment rights. Therefore, jamming is illegal and therefore not allowed.
Please don't respond to this. If you're a moron then you won't understand what you just read and your response will be meaningless. If you were putting words in my mouth (which I find more likely), then you just wasted my time and I don't intend to waste more by reading your reply.
I think the first analogy was better. Nothing personal, but yours doesn't make any sense at all.
Why don't you shoot them? It takes care of the problem permanently. Although you say "shooting them is usually illegal", you obviously don't have a problem breaking the law by jamming their cell phone. What you meant to say was "I don't have a problem breaking the law unless I get caught, I don't really care about it though"
The rudeness does not give you the right (in the opinion of anyone who matters, I.E. a judge) to "do what [you] damn well please". In fact, using this as your defense in front of a court is likely to land you the maximum sentence (or largest fine) for demonstrated lack of respect for the law.
In pre-response to:
Just take it outside! Answer: It's illegal. Full stop. No one needs a different explanation, it's illegal to actively jam cell phone signals and for a damn good reason. Active jamming infringes on people's first amendment rights.
There are a lot of laws that don't make any sense and circumventing them makes a lot of sense. This isn't one of them. If it's a bad law, then the law needs to be changed, not circumvented.
If the protection they give missile silos is the same they give data centers, and it isn't adequate for data centers, I think we have a problem with our missile silos.
Fortunately, I don't think this is the case.
Oh good, everyone's a winner!
Yeah, I'm sure coming through the wall with a power saw was an inside job.
Walmart doesn't give two shits about whether a supplier is unionized or not. They care about the price and only the price.
Unionized suppliers are more expensive because the union ensures that the company is treating them fairly (and safely when the OSHA inspector isn't around).
Because the government is built to serve the people, not the other way around. This isn't a situation in which person A and person B are coexisting such that when one harms the other, the victim feels compelled to retalliate. Idealy, the government is the people's bitch.
From the declaration of independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
True, but perhaps that's one of the many reasons I'm not learning Japanese or Chinese.
Also, I wonder what happens if you just really suck at drawing. And how long would it take to draw a picture? I don't want to spend 5 minutes recreating butterflies every time I lock my computer because I stepped away to get some water.
There will be too many people with these receipts to safely assume that no one will crack it. Cracking most stuff is damn near impossible, but when you're talking about double-digit percentage of the populous with the will to discover the key, I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something. You don't need more than about 1-10 people that happen to have access to a university supercomputer and are willing to legitimately or illegitamately use it to brute force the key.