Looks fake to me, probably an iFan trying to take bad press away from Apple. For one thing Apple or Steve Jobs would make a public statement before sending a simple, one-line email to a customer. In fact Apple has refused to comment on this issue. For one thing he would not claim that the iPhone does not track this data since anyone with an iPhone can use the free tool to see where they've been.
Thirdly, Alexander Hamilton's beliefs or non-beliefs are of no consequence whatsoever. And he was a coward.
He only designed most of the Government of the United States, not to mention that he was one of this nations first constitutional lawyers, and also wrote most of the Federalist Papers. As for being a coward, he was ready to die for his beliefs. In fact he fought in the Revolutionary Way.
No they would not come from 'green' sources. Take a look into the waste that is generated by the manufacturing of solar panels, look at all the waste involved in the manufacture of the batteries used in solar and wind setups, to say nothing of their disposal. Doesn't look so 'green' now does it?
You have no idea what you are talking about, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No treaty can overrule the Constitution. The only way to give something the force of law that the US Constitution has would be to turn it into an amendment. A treaty is simply an agreement between two nations. To quote Alexander Hamilton "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States". The US Supreme court has even said
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
Okay, I remembered that one wrong, however there are tons of inventions that you can trace back to NASA. They have over 6500 patents, you use stuff that NASA invented every day.
They have made quite a bit, where do you think things like the microwave came from? You also cannot have R&D without money to begin the research with. However, NASA's patents have made quite a bit of money over the years. None of this really matters though since NASA currently receives less than a percent of the national budget.
GP's concern with a nova or supernova seems to me to be displaced - but I am betting on that mother of all asteroids. Somewhere out there, I'm quite certain that there is a rock on a collision course with the earth. It may or may not be large enough to "destroy the earth" - but it doesn't need to be that big to "end life as we know it" on earth. There is evidence of previous rocks, one of them in Siberia, one in the Gulf of Mexico, that were truly devastating, with global implications.
I can assure you that the Tunguska event in Siberia did not have "global implications".
Do you have any idea how much so called "green" energy pollutes? Do you have any idea what goes into making a Prius, solar panel, or a wind farm? If you did the research you would see that none of those could hardly be considered to be "green".
Last I checked no sovereign nation answers to any outside authority (the UN in this case), for that would mean that they are not a sovereign state. In addition, any and all UN (and other) treaties that go against the US Constitution (or any nations Constitution for that matter) are automatically null and void. The UN exists mainly as a place for countries to complain to one another without going to war, it is purely for show and has no real authority.
Do you have any idea how much money NASA has made over the years selling new technologies that they have invented as part of the space program? A better idea is to just cut all the redundant government agencies and all the senators pet projects (aka pork) from the budget, and to quit bailing out "too big to fail" corporations and banks. The money Obama gave to the banks alone has tripled our debt, not to mention that we paid them with fiat currency that those banks earn interest on. You see, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for profit, financial institution. The only thing 'Federal' about it is in the name.
Those should be going away soon since the US Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does in fact guarantee that individuals have the right to own a firearm. Lots of the draconian firearms laws will be going away in the next 10 years thanks to that ruling.
Read the article, the police are trying to say that because he has a wardriving setup in the car that he is stealing credit card numbers. They offer no evidence to support their claim.
All I saw in the article was the police saying stolen gift card (not a credit card number) + wardriving setup in his car = he is stealing credit cards. I see no mention of any other evidence here. If the police had evidence that he was in fact stealing credit card numbers he would be in jail. It is pretty obvious that there is no other evidence since they were asking for permission to seize the car, something that would have been done already if they could obtain a warrant.
Many officers believe they are above the law, and will arrest you and charge you, even if you will ultimately be vindicated, you still suffer as a result of not cooperating.
Well for one thing the police do not have the power to charge you, that is up the the District Attorney. I also guarantee you that if you know and assert your rights that you will not be illegally arrested in 99.999% of encounters with the police if you are not breaking the law. You see, the police know that the citizens who know what their rights are also quite likely know what 42 USC 1983 says, those officers do not want to be held personally liable for their actions. Everything you have been saying is exactly what the police want you to think, it means that you will be a good little sheep.
People love to claim MS prices are in line, but they forget that they did not get a free win 7 disk in the mail.
I got Windows 7 Ultimate in the mail, for free, from Microsoft, a week before it hit store shelves. I also got Windows 7 Professional for free, through my colleges MSDN-AA subscription. Microsoft is also known to give away tons of software, including the latest version of Windows, at many events.
You are wrong about resisting an officer, there is plenty of case law that says that you can use up to and including deadly force to resist an illegal arrest. Case in point, Bear Lincoln.
They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply.
You do have to comply. If there is an item in your car in plain sight then and there, and an officer orders you to give it to them, you cannot refuse.
You do not have to consent to a search, but you cannot interfere, or refuse to follow orders too. If the officer asks you to give him something, and you refuse, the crime of so-called disorderly conduct has been committed.
You have really been brainwashed by the state, you only have to follow lawful orders. If an officer removes something from your car that is considered a search, unless you give consent it is not a legal search unless something illegal is in plain sight.
The officer can legally seize any item he happens to see, if there is suspicion it could contain evidence of a criminal act; which is especially likely to happen if an unusual or out of place item is seen, such as a phone hidden in a compartment, or...
No an officer cannot seize anything he wants, he also cannot seize an item because he believes that it may contain evidence of an as of yet unknown crime, that is known as an illegal fishing expedition. When an officer stops a vehicle he is only investigating the crime for which he pulled you over for (a traffic violation), this cannot be used as a pretext for searching your vehicle unless something illegal is in plain sight.
If the officer happens to see anything he suspects to be a gun/weapon in your glove box when you open it to get out registration; an even more inconvenient (for you) response is likely, Hint: you won't be allowed to be the one rummaging around in the glove box.
And unless there actually is a firearm in the glove box the police cannot seize anything, they'd also better be able to articulate pretty damn well why they believed there was a firearm in that glove box since they will be drawing on you at that point (use of deadly force). People like you are the kind that police love, you'll let them violate your rights, the whole time believing that they have authority to do whatever they want. In fact you'll even give your consent, at which point it becomes a voluntary search. Do not believe the police when they say things like "we're going to search your car, you might as well cooperate", if they had PC to search your car they wouldn't be asking for permission.
Not true at all, most police want you to own firearms so that you can protect yourself. The FBI also has nothing to do with firearms, that would be the BATF, and you can buy as many as you want. You're also confusing those other agencies with the Brady Campaign, they're the ones who always push for "common sense gun laws". Common sense would be to enforce the ones we have and realize that criminals do not obey the law. However the truth is that the Brady Campaign does not want anyone to own firearms, except for some of them who not only own firearms but also have CCWs.
Perhaps you should brush up on the law and understand the legal meaning of "shall be liable"? Qualified immunity does not apply when you knowingly violate someones civil rights, it is only a protection when there is "good faith", furthermore there should be no such thing as qualified immunity since it goes against the equal protection part of the 14th Amendment. You see, police are no different from regular citizens, and as such they should have no special protections under the law.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
That says that they are personally liable, not the department that they work for, and not their union. Officers effectively lose all legal protection from both their department and their union when they have a USC 1983 civil rights lawsuit filed against them (these cases only move forward when there is no qualified immunity). However, should the officer win, they can recover legal fees from the plaintiff. I know LA thinks they make the law but they do not, they've been smacked down several times for trying to play by their own rules.
Slashdot Mirror
I seriously doubt Steve Jobs wrote back to this guy. He would make a public statement first, and he would not write back a simple one line message.
Looks fake to me, probably an iFan trying to take bad press away from Apple. For one thing Apple or Steve Jobs would make a public statement before sending a simple, one-line email to a customer. In fact Apple has refused to comment on this issue. For one thing he would not claim that the iPhone does not track this data since anyone with an iPhone can use the free tool to see where they've been.
Oops, that should say "Revolutionary War" not "Revolutionary Way".
Thirdly, Alexander Hamilton's beliefs or non-beliefs are of no consequence whatsoever. And he was a coward.
He only designed most of the Government of the United States, not to mention that he was one of this nations first constitutional lawyers, and also wrote most of the Federalist Papers. As for being a coward, he was ready to die for his beliefs. In fact he fought in the Revolutionary Way.
No they would not come from 'green' sources. Take a look into the waste that is generated by the manufacturing of solar panels, look at all the waste involved in the manufacture of the batteries used in solar and wind setups, to say nothing of their disposal. Doesn't look so 'green' now does it?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/greater-oversight-needed-solar-panel-manufacturing-disposal.php
You have no idea what you are talking about, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No treaty can overrule the Constitution. The only way to give something the force of law that the US Constitution has would be to turn it into an amendment. A treaty is simply an agreement between two nations. To quote Alexander Hamilton "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States". The US Supreme court has even said
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
Okay, I remembered that one wrong, however there are tons of inventions that you can trace back to NASA. They have over 6500 patents, you use stuff that NASA invented every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
They have made quite a bit, where do you think things like the microwave came from? You also cannot have R&D without money to begin the research with. However, NASA's patents have made quite a bit of money over the years. None of this really matters though since NASA currently receives less than a percent of the national budget.
GP's concern with a nova or supernova seems to me to be displaced - but I am betting on that mother of all asteroids. Somewhere out there, I'm quite certain that there is a rock on a collision course with the earth. It may or may not be large enough to "destroy the earth" - but it doesn't need to be that big to "end life as we know it" on earth. There is evidence of previous rocks, one of them in Siberia, one in the Gulf of Mexico, that were truly devastating, with global implications.
I can assure you that the Tunguska event in Siberia did not have "global implications".
Do you have any idea how much so called "green" energy pollutes? Do you have any idea what goes into making a Prius, solar panel, or a wind farm? If you did the research you would see that none of those could hardly be considered to be "green".
When a country signs a treaty that goes against their own laws, said treaty is null and void. Everything the UN does is purely for show.
Last I checked no sovereign nation answers to any outside authority (the UN in this case), for that would mean that they are not a sovereign state. In addition, any and all UN (and other) treaties that go against the US Constitution (or any nations Constitution for that matter) are automatically null and void. The UN exists mainly as a place for countries to complain to one another without going to war, it is purely for show and has no real authority.
Do you have any idea how much money NASA has made over the years selling new technologies that they have invented as part of the space program? A better idea is to just cut all the redundant government agencies and all the senators pet projects (aka pork) from the budget, and to quit bailing out "too big to fail" corporations and banks. The money Obama gave to the banks alone has tripled our debt, not to mention that we paid them with fiat currency that those banks earn interest on. You see, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for profit, financial institution. The only thing 'Federal' about it is in the name.
Those should be going away soon since the US Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does in fact guarantee that individuals have the right to own a firearm. Lots of the draconian firearms laws will be going away in the next 10 years thanks to that ruling.
Read the article, the police are trying to say that because he has a wardriving setup in the car that he is stealing credit card numbers. They offer no evidence to support their claim.
All I saw in the article was the police saying stolen gift card (not a credit card number) + wardriving setup in his car = he is stealing credit cards. I see no mention of any other evidence here. If the police had evidence that he was in fact stealing credit card numbers he would be in jail. It is pretty obvious that there is no other evidence since they were asking for permission to seize the car, something that would have been done already if they could obtain a warrant.
Many officers believe they are above the law, and will arrest you and charge you, even if you will ultimately be vindicated, you still suffer as a result of not cooperating.
Well for one thing the police do not have the power to charge you, that is up the the District Attorney. I also guarantee you that if you know and assert your rights that you will not be illegally arrested in 99.999% of encounters with the police if you are not breaking the law. You see, the police know that the citizens who know what their rights are also quite likely know what 42 USC 1983 says, those officers do not want to be held personally liable for their actions. Everything you have been saying is exactly what the police want you to think, it means that you will be a good little sheep.
Steam is on the PS3 now.
Being unable to get Vista/7 to run on Netbooks didn't help them either.
All these netbooks prove you wrong.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=netbooks+with+windows+7&x=0&y=0
He can, Microsoft always gives away the new version of Windows at launch events and the like.
People love to claim MS prices are in line, but they forget that they did not get a free win 7 disk in the mail.
I got Windows 7 Ultimate in the mail, for free, from Microsoft, a week before it hit store shelves. I also got Windows 7 Professional for free, through my colleges MSDN-AA subscription. Microsoft is also known to give away tons of software, including the latest version of Windows, at many events.
You are wrong about resisting an officer, there is plenty of case law that says that you can use up to and including deadly force to resist an illegal arrest. Case in point, Bear Lincoln.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/rv/rv-background.html
They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply.
You do have to comply. If there is an item in your car in plain sight then and there, and an officer orders you to give it to them, you cannot refuse.
You do not have to consent to a search, but you cannot interfere, or refuse to follow orders too.
If the officer asks you to give him something, and you refuse, the crime of so-called disorderly conduct has been committed.
You have really been brainwashed by the state, you only have to follow lawful orders. If an officer removes something from your car that is considered a search, unless you give consent it is not a legal search unless something illegal is in plain sight.
The officer can legally seize any item he happens to see, if there is suspicion it could contain evidence of a criminal act; which is especially likely to happen if an unusual or out of place item is seen, such as a phone hidden in a compartment, or...
No an officer cannot seize anything he wants, he also cannot seize an item because he believes that it may contain evidence of an as of yet unknown crime, that is known as an illegal fishing expedition. When an officer stops a vehicle he is only investigating the crime for which he pulled you over for (a traffic violation), this cannot be used as a pretext for searching your vehicle unless something illegal is in plain sight.
If the officer happens to see anything he suspects to be a gun/weapon in your glove box when you open it to get out registration; an even more inconvenient (for you) response is likely, Hint: you won't be allowed to be the one rummaging around in the glove box.
And unless there actually is a firearm in the glove box the police cannot seize anything, they'd also better be able to articulate pretty damn well why they believed there was a firearm in that glove box since they will be drawing on you at that point (use of deadly force). People like you are the kind that police love, you'll let them violate your rights, the whole time believing that they have authority to do whatever they want. In fact you'll even give your consent, at which point it becomes a voluntary search. Do not believe the police when they say things like "we're going to search your car, you might as well cooperate", if they had PC to search your car they wouldn't be asking for permission.
Here are some videos that you should watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights
Not true at all, most police want you to own firearms so that you can protect yourself. The FBI also has nothing to do with firearms, that would be the BATF, and you can buy as many as you want. You're also confusing those other agencies with the Brady Campaign, they're the ones who always push for "common sense gun laws". Common sense would be to enforce the ones we have and realize that criminals do not obey the law. However the truth is that the Brady Campaign does not want anyone to own firearms, except for some of them who not only own firearms but also have CCWs.
Perhaps you should brush up on the law and understand the legal meaning of "shall be liable"? Qualified immunity does not apply when you knowingly violate someones civil rights, it is only a protection when there is "good faith", furthermore there should be no such thing as qualified immunity since it goes against the equal protection part of the 14th Amendment. You see, police are no different from regular citizens, and as such they should have no special protections under the law.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
That says that they are personally liable, not the department that they work for, and not their union. Officers effectively lose all legal protection from both their department and their union when they have a USC 1983 civil rights lawsuit filed against them (these cases only move forward when there is no qualified immunity). However, should the officer win, they can recover legal fees from the plaintiff. I know LA thinks they make the law but they do not, they've been smacked down several times for trying to play by their own rules.