I found this great place that had a whole row of apple trees on one boundary - overhanging the neighbours. Even though the place was about £30K over my budget and didnt really have enough room I still wanted it just so I could have apple trees overhanging my neighbours so that every day Id have to wake up and think 'will I be a dick about my apples today'.
It may vary by jurisdiction, but around here, the portion of the tree overhanging a neighbors property is the neighbors. So if your apple tree overhanged (is that a word?) onto your neighbor's lot, then the apples that fell on his property belong to him. You have no legal right to go over and demand they be given to you. They are his. And if he ever gets sick of your tree hanging over his yard, he is free to cut off all the branches, right back to the property line (leaving you with half a tree).
My father had a situation like this, where a neighbor allowed his maple tree to grow unchecked to the point where the branches hung over my dad's yard. When my dad would mow the lawn, he'd have to duck and dodge to get the portion of his own lawn under the branches. So my dad took matters into his own hands, brought his ladder out back, and cut off all the branches that were in his "airspace". The neighbor complained, but there was nothing he could legally do. My dad was completely within his rights.
Which leaves us with only nails available for carving by hand. "By knife" is not by hand as well, right?
In woodworking parlance, "by hand" means without the use of powered tools. "Handmade furniture" is built using hand planes instead of jointers and planars, handdrills instead of a drillpress, routing planes instead of a router, hand saws instead of table saws, etc.
Here's some rules of thumb: workout a little each day, eat healthy foods until you are comfortably full, drink water, get enough sun to ensure that you are distinguishable from paper, but not enough such that your skin could be used to reupholster a leather couch, find some destressing activities, and get enough sleep.
That's good advice, and not too far off from the generally accepted 5 "pillars" of healthy living: Eat healthy (5 balanced, small meals a day), drink plenty of water, get enough sleep, do some weight training and some cardio exercise.
Cardio exercise alone is not enough. Walking/running/whatever will burn off calories, but doesn't build bone or muscle density. If osteoporosis runs in your family, then you should pay extra attention to getting enough protein and calcium, and doing some light weight training a couple times a week.
As an aside, is it true that vitamin D can only be obtained by sunlight? My wife and I buy milk that claims to be "Vitamin A and D enriched" - is that not possible?
Cholesterol, for example, is necessary for the body to function.
And that, folks, is why advice you get on the Internet is worth every penny you paid for it. Which is to say, nothing.
Please don't go around saying such broad, unqualified statements. At the very least, please include a mention that there are two primary categories of cholesterol: HDL and LDL (High/Low Density Lipoprotein, respectively). The HDL is the "good" kind, the kind you're referring to. The LDL is the "bad" kind, and no amount of it is "good" for you, not even in moderation. Think of the "low density" cholesterol as soft and squishy, getting stuck in your arteries, blocking blood flow, while the "high density" cholesterol is harder, like little pebbles, flowing along with your blood, scrubbing away the squishy stuff.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, cholesterol isn't typically eaten anyway - it's created by your own body. There are certain foods which stimulate the production of HDL (good) cholesterol, which helps reduce the amount of LDL (bad) cholesterol.
Bottom line: Don't take one-line advice from faceless Slashbots then turn around and change your whole diet. Do your own homework.
Would you suggest we all get outfitted like NASCAR drivers? Five point harnesses, helmets, etc?
Actually, I've talked to some cops and paramedics about this, and their opinion is that the use of 5-point safety harnesses and helmets would dramatically reduce fatalities in auto collisions. Most people who die in car crashes do so because of what happens to their head and/or neck. They get smashed into something or twisted around. The steering wheel, dashboard, windows - whatever. A snug-fitting 5-point harness would keep them from flailing around inside the car, and the helmet would make a fatal crash survivable. Sure, their legs might still be crushed, or a few ribs broken, but they'd survive.
The problem is that there's no motivation for that. Not to sound too tinfoil-hatty, but why would insurance companies want to make these more-violent crashes survivable? A one-time $10,000 life insurance payout is a heck of a lot cheaper than 40 years of wheelchairs, physio, drug treatment, and nurses. So they're certainly not going to be lobbying for such safety features. And the auto industry - you think they want the added expense of a "helmet holder" and 5-point racing harness? That's not going to help minivan sales.
So without the support of the two major players in the auto-lobbying game, who's left to push such a safety agenda? Nobody.
The faster you drive, the more fuel you burn per-km (generally).
Not true. You burn more fuel traveling 100 km at 5 km/hr than at 10 km/hr. Generally, the closer you operate to the optimal efficiency of your engine and your transmission's gearing, the better your fuel efficiency. The less time you spend driving, the less fuel you'll burn. Of course, there is a point where wind resistence overcomes the efficiency gains of going faster. For most light, passenger vehicles, the apex of this curve happens at around 80 - 85 km/hr. Slower than that, and you're wasting fuel by spending more time than necessary traveling the distance. Faster than that, and wind resistence starts to seriously eat into your fuel economy. 80 km/h is the sweet spot (or so I've been told by multiple environmental experts).
I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen police in the US get away with speeding
Has it occurred to you that perhaps they're responding to a call?
Maybe it's different in your jurisdiction, but here in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, there are 3 different priority levels assigned to various calls. A Priority 1 ("P1") call is the "get-your-ass-there-RIGHT-NOW" kind of call, with the lights flashing and the siren blaring. A P2 call is "urgent," but doesn't warrant scaring traffic and risking collisions by running red lights and whatnot. A P3 call is the least urgent, sort of a "if you're not doing anything, go check out this silent alarm at some home in suburbia that is 99% most likely a false alarm."
In the P2 calls, the cops quite regularly (and rightly so) speed to get there, but without the lights and sirens. Lights and sirens make surrounding cars to funny, stupid things, and can sometimes be more dangerous than the skilled, trained police driver simply cruising past at a brisk pace, without getting the surrounding drivers all worked up.
Tell me something: Why do games today *have* to be something I can't let my 5 year old son play?
Because your 5 year old son doesn't buy nearly as many games as an 18-year-old Gen-Y'er, or a 26 year old Gen-X'er.
You'd be surprised how often the answer to pretty much any cultural, political, or social question is "because of money."
Re:What would be the significance of this?
on
Lake spotted on Titan?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You would hope us humans would have learned out lesson about draining the natural resources by then.
Uhm, not to be obtuse, but why shouldn't we drain and use the oil here on Earth? Do you think that if we leave it in the ground, it'll somehow eventually turn back into dinosaurs? It's a plentiful, efficient, portable, cheap (relative to the alternatives) energy source.
The problem with oil isn't that we're using it - it's that we have no plan to handle the byproducts produced by using it. The pollution is the problem. Global warming, smog, and all that. There's no benefit to leaving the oil in the ground and switching to more expensive energy sources before it's necessary.
Isn't that pretty much the (internal) argument that a lot of/.'ers make in regards pirating Microsoft software?
My kingdom for modpoints right now. I'd mod you through the roof, although it would probably just balance out all the "-1, Overrated" mods you're going to get for daring to point out Slashbot hypocrisy.
I wonder if the readers who are against Jackson asking for his fair share...
You must be new here. This is Slashdot. Such readers don't exist. Every single comment I've seen in this thread so far sides with Jackson, not the studio. Given the rabid-fanboy mentality of Slashdot, this is exactly what I'd expect.
Translation: You're preaching to the choir. The people you're referring to do not exist.
If the studios actually paid the taxes imagine how much they'd add to tax revenue?
That's an awfully bold claim to make without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever. Do you have any cites at all to back up your absurd claim that "movie studios don't pay taxes?"
Businesses can reduce the amount of taxes they pay through various exemptions, credits, and writeoffs, but here's a newsflash: so can you. Don't you claim the tax credit you're rightly due for your 401(k) contributions? Or your kid's school tuition? Are you a "scumbag" for taking advantage of these "loopholes" to "weasel" your way out of paying taxes?
Let's keep things in perspective here. Nobody likes paying more taxes than they're legally required to. Why would you expect businesses to be any different than you or I? But you don't help your point at all when you make wildly misleading and obviously false broad claims like "businesses don't pay taxes." They certainly, obviously, do.
"The tree of Liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and Patriots alike." - Thomas Jefferson.
Newsflash: Thomas Jefferson was not infallible! Why do all you group-think Slashbots love to parrot things that were said by dead people? Why are we all supposed to assume that anything that any of the founding fathers said is guaranteed to be 100% true and wise? Why don't any of you consider that maybe, just maybe, some of what they said was bullshit? Drunken rambling? A little over-the-top hyperbole? Why do Thomas Jefferson's words implicity garner more weight than Howard Stern, Jon Stewart, Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else?
Stop trying to prove points with quotes. All it does is show that some old, dead guy once said something that tangentially agrees with a related point you're trying to make.
Companies need to realize that crushing the competition and taking control of the market isn't going to be healthy for the consumer.
Actually, no, they don't. Take a look around you. Capitalism doesn't care a whit about what's "healthy for the consumer," but rather, "what's healthy for the shareholder."
If somebody like bruce wayne existed, he could do 100X more good by donating to established law enforcement
WTFM. In the movie, Gotham was being ravaged in the grips of corruption. Everyone from the DA all the way up to the mayor (including the police) were being paid off by crime bosses. Wayne's money would have simply fed the very sharks he was trying to eliminate.
Thing is, you simply converted 240 Gr into 0.24 kg, as if 1 Grain == 1 gram. This, I found dubious enough to ask Google about. The reply, for the click-lazy, was that 240 grains is about 15 grams.
You should have dug a little deeper. The "240 grain" is a measure of the gunpowder charge, not the mass of the bullet. Higher-load charges use the same bullet, just different, more powerful charges, that result in the bullet traveling faster.
I don't know what the actual mass of the bullet itself is. Maybe it turns out that it is actually close enough to 240 grains that the math works out similarly. But the "240 grain" written on the box of bullets refers to the gunpowder charge, not the bullets themselves.
By insinuating ownership over projects that their corporate culture couldn't create,
Uh... how is this *not* created by the corporate culture? The ideas are thought up by paid Google employees, at Google's offices, during paid regular business hours, possibly with the help of Google resources and while collaborating with other Google employees... exactly how is this not what R&D is all about?
Are you implying that every business idea must be thought up by upper management? And that if the company decides to use an idea thought up by an "underling," then they're stealing that underling's intellectual property? Why wouldn't you say that they're equally "stealing" the upper management's IP then, when they use his idea? Because that's what he's paid for? Well, what in the heck do you think the underlings are paid for, too?
I fail to see the difference here. This is exactly how R&D jobs are supposed to work. They pay you to think up stuff the company can use to make money. Where's the problem here?
Poor bastard needed to carry a.45. Might not have stopped him from getting a knife in the chest, but he might have left one of the hooligans with a sucking chest wound.
Or maybe the punks would have killed him before he got the safety turned off, in his anxiousm terror-stricken state. Or maybe, since he was outnumbered, one of the punks would have wrestled the gun out of his hands and shot him to death.
Guns don't make the situation any better. You can run from a knife. You can't run from a bullet.
You can make reasonable efforts to keep your bag in sight at all times so someone doesn't get the opportunity.
No you can't. In the Corby case, the drugs were allegedly planted by corrupt baggage handlers. There's nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from that.
Tell that to the Iranian bloggers who have been arrested merely for publishing their political views.
Careful. There are those who think waging a war against a plant is ludicrous. Many (myself included) think it's silly to jail someone for the "crime" of moving some plants across an imaginary line. Not to mention a government that dictates what you are and aren't allowed to do with your own body, in the privacy of your own home (drugs, prostitution), or what games you're allowed to play with your own money (gambling).
"Land of the Free?" Count me in. Now, just exactly where might I find it?
Wow, I posted too soon, I noticed a couple more things in your post.
Like get more help
He did. Backup arrived before he attempted to arrest her.
the next time a meter maid tries to write you a parking ticket (moving violation)
Once again, you're mistaken about traffic violations. Perhaps its different where you are, but here in Ontario, parking tickets are not moving violations. You cannot get any demerit points on your license for parking tickets. No matter how many parking tickets you get, they can never take your driver's license because of it. They are not moving violations.
The reason is that parking tickets are tickets against the vehicle, and you can't punish the owner for an offense that you can't prove he did. How can you prove that it was the owner who parked the car there? Are you going to revoke person A's license because person B parked person A's car in a handicapped zone one too many times?
Parking tickets are not moving violations, they do not result in demerit points against your license, and you cannot lose your license over parking tickets.
No one dissagrees that at times force is required, but do you really think that it applies to a simple traffic stop?
Once they discovered that her license was suspended, it was no longer a "simple traffic stop." It was a felony offense. What if the cops discovered that the car was reported stolen? Would you still say this was a simple traffic stop? They had discovered a felony offense, and were arresting the woman.
Bzzt! Driving with a suspended license is not just a ticketable offense. That's crossing over into felony-land. That is what they were arresting her for. Up until then, she was just being extremely beliggerent and rude, but they were dealing with her as professionally as they could, so they could write her her tickets and get her out of there. Once the cop learned that her license was suspended, that is when he started asking her to get out of the vehicle, because at that point, he was obligated to arrest her.
Slashdot Mirror
I found this great place that had a whole row of apple trees on one boundary - overhanging the neighbours.
Even though the place was about £30K over my budget and didnt really have enough room I still wanted it just so I could have apple trees overhanging my neighbours so that every day Id have to wake up and think 'will I be a dick about my apples today'.
It may vary by jurisdiction, but around here, the portion of the tree overhanging a neighbors property is the neighbors. So if your apple tree overhanged (is that a word?) onto your neighbor's lot, then the apples that fell on his property belong to him. You have no legal right to go over and demand they be given to you. They are his. And if he ever gets sick of your tree hanging over his yard, he is free to cut off all the branches, right back to the property line (leaving you with half a tree).
My father had a situation like this, where a neighbor allowed his maple tree to grow unchecked to the point where the branches hung over my dad's yard. When my dad would mow the lawn, he'd have to duck and dodge to get the portion of his own lawn under the branches. So my dad took matters into his own hands, brought his ladder out back, and cut off all the branches that were in his "airspace". The neighbor complained, but there was nothing he could legally do. My dad was completely within his rights.
Which leaves us with only nails available for carving by hand. "By knife" is not by hand as well, right?
In woodworking parlance, "by hand" means without the use of powered tools. "Handmade furniture" is built using hand planes instead of jointers and planars, handdrills instead of a drillpress, routing planes instead of a router, hand saws instead of table saws, etc.
Here's some rules of thumb: workout a little each day, eat healthy foods until you are comfortably full, drink water, get enough sun to ensure that you are distinguishable from paper, but not enough such that your skin could be used to reupholster a leather couch, find some destressing activities, and get enough sleep.
That's good advice, and not too far off from the generally accepted 5 "pillars" of healthy living: Eat healthy (5 balanced, small meals a day), drink plenty of water, get enough sleep, do some weight training and some cardio exercise.
Cardio exercise alone is not enough. Walking/running/whatever will burn off calories, but doesn't build bone or muscle density. If osteoporosis runs in your family, then you should pay extra attention to getting enough protein and calcium, and doing some light weight training a couple times a week.
As an aside, is it true that vitamin D can only be obtained by sunlight? My wife and I buy milk that claims to be "Vitamin A and D enriched" - is that not possible?
Cholesterol, for example, is necessary for the body to function.
And that, folks, is why advice you get on the Internet is worth every penny you paid for it. Which is to say, nothing.
Please don't go around saying such broad, unqualified statements. At the very least, please include a mention that there are two primary categories of cholesterol: HDL and LDL (High/Low Density Lipoprotein, respectively). The HDL is the "good" kind, the kind you're referring to. The LDL is the "bad" kind, and no amount of it is "good" for you, not even in moderation. Think of the "low density" cholesterol as soft and squishy, getting stuck in your arteries, blocking blood flow, while the "high density" cholesterol is harder, like little pebbles, flowing along with your blood, scrubbing away the squishy stuff.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, cholesterol isn't typically eaten anyway - it's created by your own body. There are certain foods which stimulate the production of HDL (good) cholesterol, which helps reduce the amount of LDL (bad) cholesterol.
Bottom line: Don't take one-line advice from faceless Slashbots then turn around and change your whole diet. Do your own homework.
Would you suggest we all get outfitted like NASCAR drivers? Five point harnesses, helmets, etc?
Actually, I've talked to some cops and paramedics about this, and their opinion is that the use of 5-point safety harnesses and helmets would dramatically reduce fatalities in auto collisions. Most people who die in car crashes do so because of what happens to their head and/or neck. They get smashed into something or twisted around. The steering wheel, dashboard, windows - whatever. A snug-fitting 5-point harness would keep them from flailing around inside the car, and the helmet would make a fatal crash survivable. Sure, their legs might still be crushed, or a few ribs broken, but they'd survive.
The problem is that there's no motivation for that. Not to sound too tinfoil-hatty, but why would insurance companies want to make these more-violent crashes survivable? A one-time $10,000 life insurance payout is a heck of a lot cheaper than 40 years of wheelchairs, physio, drug treatment, and nurses. So they're certainly not going to be lobbying for such safety features. And the auto industry - you think they want the added expense of a "helmet holder" and 5-point racing harness? That's not going to help minivan sales.
So without the support of the two major players in the auto-lobbying game, who's left to push such a safety agenda? Nobody.
The faster you drive, the more fuel you burn per-km (generally).
Not true. You burn more fuel traveling 100 km at 5 km/hr than at 10 km/hr. Generally, the closer you operate to the optimal efficiency of your engine and your transmission's gearing, the better your fuel efficiency. The less time you spend driving, the less fuel you'll burn. Of course, there is a point where wind resistence overcomes the efficiency gains of going faster. For most light, passenger vehicles, the apex of this curve happens at around 80 - 85 km/hr. Slower than that, and you're wasting fuel by spending more time than necessary traveling the distance. Faster than that, and wind resistence starts to seriously eat into your fuel economy. 80 km/h is the sweet spot (or so I've been told by multiple environmental experts).
I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen police in the US get away with speeding
Has it occurred to you that perhaps they're responding to a call?
Maybe it's different in your jurisdiction, but here in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, there are 3 different priority levels assigned to various calls. A Priority 1 ("P1") call is the "get-your-ass-there-RIGHT-NOW" kind of call, with the lights flashing and the siren blaring. A P2 call is "urgent," but doesn't warrant scaring traffic and risking collisions by running red lights and whatnot. A P3 call is the least urgent, sort of a "if you're not doing anything, go check out this silent alarm at some home in suburbia that is 99% most likely a false alarm."
In the P2 calls, the cops quite regularly (and rightly so) speed to get there, but without the lights and sirens. Lights and sirens make surrounding cars to funny, stupid things, and can sometimes be more dangerous than the skilled, trained police driver simply cruising past at a brisk pace, without getting the surrounding drivers all worked up.
Tell me something: Why do games today *have* to be something I can't let my 5 year old son play?
Because your 5 year old son doesn't buy nearly as many games as an 18-year-old Gen-Y'er, or a 26 year old Gen-X'er.
You'd be surprised how often the answer to pretty much any cultural, political, or social question is "because of money."
You would hope us humans would have learned out lesson about draining the natural resources by then.
Uhm, not to be obtuse, but why shouldn't we drain and use the oil here on Earth? Do you think that if we leave it in the ground, it'll somehow eventually turn back into dinosaurs? It's a plentiful, efficient, portable, cheap (relative to the alternatives) energy source.
The problem with oil isn't that we're using it - it's that we have no plan to handle the byproducts produced by using it. The pollution is the problem. Global warming, smog, and all that. There's no benefit to leaving the oil in the ground and switching to more expensive energy sources before it's necessary.
Isn't that pretty much the (internal) argument that a lot of /.'ers make in regards pirating Microsoft software?
My kingdom for modpoints right now. I'd mod you through the roof, although it would probably just balance out all the "-1, Overrated" mods you're going to get for daring to point out Slashbot hypocrisy.
I wonder if the readers who are against Jackson asking for his fair share...
You must be new here. This is Slashdot. Such readers don't exist. Every single comment I've seen in this thread so far sides with Jackson, not the studio. Given the rabid-fanboy mentality of Slashdot, this is exactly what I'd expect.
Translation: You're preaching to the choir. The people you're referring to do not exist.
If the studios actually paid the taxes imagine how much they'd add to tax revenue?
That's an awfully bold claim to make without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever. Do you have any cites at all to back up your absurd claim that "movie studios don't pay taxes?"
Businesses can reduce the amount of taxes they pay through various exemptions, credits, and writeoffs, but here's a newsflash: so can you. Don't you claim the tax credit you're rightly due for your 401(k) contributions? Or your kid's school tuition? Are you a "scumbag" for taking advantage of these "loopholes" to "weasel" your way out of paying taxes?
Let's keep things in perspective here. Nobody likes paying more taxes than they're legally required to. Why would you expect businesses to be any different than you or I? But you don't help your point at all when you make wildly misleading and obviously false broad claims like "businesses don't pay taxes." They certainly, obviously, do.
"The tree of Liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and Patriots alike." - Thomas Jefferson.
Newsflash: Thomas Jefferson was not infallible! Why do all you group-think Slashbots love to parrot things that were said by dead people? Why are we all supposed to assume that anything that any of the founding fathers said is guaranteed to be 100% true and wise? Why don't any of you consider that maybe, just maybe, some of what they said was bullshit? Drunken rambling? A little over-the-top hyperbole? Why do Thomas Jefferson's words implicity garner more weight than Howard Stern, Jon Stewart, Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else?
Stop trying to prove points with quotes. All it does is show that some old, dead guy once said something that tangentially agrees with a related point you're trying to make.
Companies need to realize that crushing the competition and taking control of the market isn't going to be healthy for the consumer.
Actually, no, they don't. Take a look around you. Capitalism doesn't care a whit about what's "healthy for the consumer," but rather, "what's healthy for the shareholder."
If somebody like bruce wayne existed, he could do 100X more good by donating to established law enforcement
WTFM. In the movie, Gotham was being ravaged in the grips of corruption. Everyone from the DA all the way up to the mayor (including the police) were being paid off by crime bosses. Wayne's money would have simply fed the very sharks he was trying to eliminate.
Thing is, you simply converted 240 Gr into 0.24 kg, as if 1 Grain == 1 gram. This, I found dubious enough to ask Google about. The reply, for the click-lazy, was that 240 grains is about 15 grams.
You should have dug a little deeper. The "240 grain" is a measure of the gunpowder charge, not the mass of the bullet. Higher-load charges use the same bullet, just different, more powerful charges, that result in the bullet traveling faster.
I don't know what the actual mass of the bullet itself is. Maybe it turns out that it is actually close enough to 240 grains that the math works out similarly. But the "240 grain" written on the box of bullets refers to the gunpowder charge, not the bullets themselves.
By insinuating ownership over projects that their corporate culture couldn't create,
Uh... how is this *not* created by the corporate culture? The ideas are thought up by paid Google employees, at Google's offices, during paid regular business hours, possibly with the help of Google resources and while collaborating with other Google employees... exactly how is this not what R&D is all about?
Are you implying that every business idea must be thought up by upper management? And that if the company decides to use an idea thought up by an "underling," then they're stealing that underling's intellectual property? Why wouldn't you say that they're equally "stealing" the upper management's IP then, when they use his idea? Because that's what he's paid for? Well, what in the heck do you think the underlings are paid for, too?
I fail to see the difference here. This is exactly how R&D jobs are supposed to work. They pay you to think up stuff the company can use to make money. Where's the problem here?
Are you saying he didn't die?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Most people survive stab wounds.
Gosh, you're right, it's way better that he just died defenseless.
"Guns don't make the situation any better."
No, but a gun might have made this person less dead.
"You can run from a knife."
Tell that to the dead guy's family.
WTF are you talking about? Who said anybody died? The original posted said the guy was stabbed. Nobody said anybody actually died.
Poor bastard needed to carry a .45. Might not have stopped him from getting a knife in the chest, but he might have left one of the hooligans with a sucking chest wound.
Or maybe the punks would have killed him before he got the safety turned off, in his anxiousm terror-stricken state. Or maybe, since he was outnumbered, one of the punks would have wrestled the gun out of his hands and shot him to death.
Guns don't make the situation any better. You can run from a knife. You can't run from a bullet.
Dude, where I live movies can cost as much as $16 CDN per person
I call bullshit. Unless you're counting IMax, I assert that there is nowhere in Canada where a full-priced, first-run movie costs $16. Prove it.
You can make reasonable efforts to keep your bag in sight at all times so someone doesn't get the opportunity.
No you can't. In the Corby case, the drugs were allegedly planted by corrupt baggage handlers. There's nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from that.
Tell that to the Iranian bloggers who have been arrested merely for publishing their political views.
Careful. There are those who think waging a war against a plant is ludicrous. Many (myself included) think it's silly to jail someone for the "crime" of moving some plants across an imaginary line. Not to mention a government that dictates what you are and aren't allowed to do with your own body, in the privacy of your own home (drugs, prostitution), or what games you're allowed to play with your own money (gambling).
"Land of the Free?" Count me in. Now, just exactly where might I find it?
Wow, I posted too soon, I noticed a couple more things in your post.
Like get more help
He did. Backup arrived before he attempted to arrest her.
the next time a meter maid tries to write you a parking ticket (moving violation)
Once again, you're mistaken about traffic violations. Perhaps its different where you are, but here in Ontario, parking tickets are not moving violations. You cannot get any demerit points on your license for parking tickets. No matter how many parking tickets you get, they can never take your driver's license because of it. They are not moving violations.
The reason is that parking tickets are tickets against the vehicle, and you can't punish the owner for an offense that you can't prove he did. How can you prove that it was the owner who parked the car there? Are you going to revoke person A's license because person B parked person A's car in a handicapped zone one too many times?
Parking tickets are not moving violations, they do not result in demerit points against your license, and you cannot lose your license over parking tickets.
No one dissagrees that at times force is required, but do you really think that it applies to a simple traffic stop?
Once they discovered that her license was suspended, it was no longer a "simple traffic stop." It was a felony offense. What if the cops discovered that the car was reported stolen? Would you still say this was a simple traffic stop? They had discovered a felony offense, and were arresting the woman.
e) suspended license is a moving violation
Bzzt! Driving with a suspended license is not just a ticketable offense. That's crossing over into felony-land. That is what they were arresting her for. Up until then, she was just being extremely beliggerent and rude, but they were dealing with her as professionally as they could, so they could write her her tickets and get her out of there. Once the cop learned that her license was suspended, that is when he started asking her to get out of the vehicle, because at that point, he was obligated to arrest her.