I work with IP security cameras, and in the last year there has been a huge increase in the number of IP cameras, even quite a few now with megapixel images.
Vivotek based in Taiwan is the OEM that made the DLINK cameras and has quite a few cheaper cameras (as well as expensive professional ones). Not sure where they can be obtained retail, I buy wholesale.
Congratulations. In one simple statement, you've managed to put all Law outside the realm of the common man, who (without the immediate aid of a lawyer) is doomed to getting screwed by The Man.
No, I didn't do it. It's how the law is designed in this country. I'm entirely serious, go ask a lawyer.
Because precedent can be broken, (or even conflicting) is the reason why not even lawyers are perfect at law.
The Common Law system is built upon tradition, and not strictly codified laws.
Any law that requires a lawyer to properly understand it should be scrapped and/or rewritten.
If you want to be able to be able to read a law and know exactly what it means, move to a place where the Civil Law system is practiced.
In France (a nation with a Civil Law system) their supreme court cannot hand down legally binding precedents. The opinions returned by their highest court are very short, brief and say "of the two laws presented, law XY prevails in this particular instance."
This is however, unlikely to occur in the USA, because lawyers are in power, and they will use the legal mechanics to stay there. (For instance, the government decided it would only pay people according to the level of degree that they have earned. So, Lawyers switched from getting a second bachelor's in law to getting a doctorate of law.)
"Rights" come from the Constitution and its amendments, not the Law itself. Laws are relatively simple matters to repeal, so any "right" they seem to grant aren't really rights, but "privileges". Constitutional rights, on the other hand, are much more difficult to take away, though Congress (and to some extent state and local authorities) have been slowly chipping away at them for more than a hundred years.
"Rights" as a legal term does not meet your definition. As an example, if someone has standing to sue, then they are said to have a "right of action".
You have numerous rights granted by statutes and common law traditions. If you have possession of property (meaning you live somewhere, whether or not you own it) you have a right of entry, a right of passage, among the more recognized right of privacy.
A court of law cannot take your right of entry to a property that you possess without due process. This is why you have to evict even squatters, (an individual who took possession of your property illegally).
However, I must point out that your side does not have an argument to invalidity because this is forcing individuals to buy something.
Why not?
Again, as I've said before, because some governments can force individuals to buy something.
It is much the same with health care: if I chose to utilize a strictly homeopathic approach to medicine, then I shouldn't be required to buy health care insurance, because I wouldn't need it. According to this law, I would be required to buy health care insurance, whether I used it or not.
To apply this to your favorite "car insurance" example, it would be exactly like requiring you to buy auto insurance, even if you don't own a car or have a license.
Actually, if you object to health care for religious reasons you have an exception from getting health insurance.
...and if they did, it would only show just how completely incompetent they are: information does not now, nor has it ever, required any particular operating system to be transmitted.
No, it does not require physically any particular operating system, however they could require it as a legal compulsion to do business. And this would likely be upheld on the same grounds as the slaughterhouse cases.
...and why it is critical that the law-makers be held responsible for their work. Having the sort of power you have (rightly) explained is not difficult to abuse.
Or, rather than using the word "abuse", just "use" in general. There was never any belief that 8 U.S.C. is an abuse of Federal power against the individual states.
I'm going to simply tell you that if you think states have the right to legislate immigration that you can cry me a river, because that's about all anything you can do is worth.
Shall I continue? It's all over the place, if you Google for "Obamacare terrorist" [google.com].
Obamacare is a right-wing term that the left-wing doesn't use except to make fun of the right-wing for. Your first example had "terrorist" in quotes , which places it in a grammatical case of "so called", as in... we're not using this term of our own choice.
If the left calls a right-winger a terrorist because he disagrees with government, it's because we're mocking the way that they called their opposition terrorists... as evidence, see your first link.
As for the Times Square bomber, there's no question that some homegrown terrorists have attacked in order to advance their political agenda... a certain plane flying into an IRS building comes to mind.
We do not blatantly assume though that every person from the Tea Party is going to blow something or someone up in order to prove their point.
Uh, no. The term they chose was "Tea Party". The term "tea bagger" is rather derogatory [washingtontimes.com].
The media assigned the term before they were aware of its negative connotations. When I see "tea bagger" I don't think someone stuffing their balls in someone else's face, I think of a person who is a part of the Tea Party.
However, I will personally stop using it since you all get offended by it... however, they did use the term "to tea bag [a politician]" a lot before it was pointed out to them what the negative connotation was.
...and if the feds are going to have a law on the books, they should either enforce it or remove it from the books. Challenging Arizona on this matter should result in one or the other.
Governments selectively enforce all sorts of laws. When is the last time you heard of someone being arrested for jay walking? Speeding 5mph over? Following too close? Too fast for conditions?
There are certain laws that are there only to assess guilt after the shit hits the fan.
Alright
As I write my post was modded up +5 Insightful. Damn you! I was ready to respond the the Troll mod by accusing the moderators on having joined the conspiracy too!
Way to undermine someone's argument guys!!!
Aha!
You deliberately modded me up so that I couldn't complain that my exposing the conspiracy was being censored! That's it isn't it? You guys are fiendishly clever.
In other words the mods ARE in on it, along with Taco, and the whole of the liberal-leaning Slashdot.
This thing just keeps getting bigger and BIGGER! When will it ever end?
I don't recall that he addressed how the inscrutable sentient ocean actually came to be.
In any case, Solaris gets my vote as one of the three greatest science fiction novels ever.
Why is it you never have mod points when you need them.
This is absolutely right. I know there are companies out there that have gone down the MySQL road and it will be a hassle to migrate to some thing else. But they have the choice to keep running what they have now until the end of time which is a better choice than the Solaris guys get. Or they have the choice to move to one of the MySQL forks or another open source database or if they really want they can poney up the dough and go proprietary. If MySQL truely goes away I think you will see some action around looking at what the next generation of database should rally look like and I don't mean Nosql. In some ways I see MySQL in it's current form as a bit of an anchor. But then again there are already stories out that Oracle is about to announce a cash transfusion and pump up the clustering for MySQL so who knows what will come of it.
Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars.
Treaties usually start wars. Non-aggression pacts, especially. Even more so secretive ones.
ACTA is a product of governments of the people, by the people, for people, who have managed to create something, of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests.
Or fuck knows . . . the treaty is being published after it's been ratified.
Um, like, what happened to political debate?
In other words, get over it and find something useful to do with your protests. If you don't like how they do it, make a competing product.
No thanks. I'd rather people were fully aware of the potential drawbacks to what they might buy, and as a result choose the best product - not the one with the best hidden shitty drawbacks.
As a neat aside, the company might have to make a better product. Everyone wins.
The signals are not the issue, you talk to the cellular gear via ATT. This is the same method that PCs using usb cellular modems use.
It seems like one of the biggest justifications for software patents is this:
Say I develop an algorithm that performs some task better than other existing algorithms. As soon as I ship my software, it can be reverse-engineered by my clever competitors who figure out my algorithm and implement it in their own software, where they can presumably undercut me on price because their reverse-engineering was less expensive than my original development. This makes me unhappy, because I feel like I've wasted my money on a new innovation. So I want to patent my algorithm so that I have a government-granted exclusive right to use it (or license it to others) for a period of time.
We have already identified several problems with this pattern. First, we feel like patents are granted inappropriately by the USPTO: the running gag (which is not all that separated from reality) is that a person can take any ordinary activity or item from real life, append 'on a computer/on the internet' to the end, and patent it. Second, we're only supposed to be able to patent 'non-obvious' things, and the determination of what's obvious in algorithms (as well other areas) is not clear. Third, since computer algorithms are isomorphic with mathematical algorithms (which are arguably not patentable), we think there's justification for software patents to be invalidated.
Now, I don't think it serves the public interest for algorithms to be patented. But here's an idea of how companies can get around this whole mess. And I apologize for the buzzwords, but this is a great opportunity to go for Software as a Service or Cloud Computing. Google, for example, has their pagerank algorithm, the specifics of which they keep secret. And since they don't deploy pagerank to customer sites, there's little opportunity for reverse-engineering. They get to keep their algorithm secret, there's no need for patents, the consumer gets the benefit of using Google's software, and competitors have to develop their algorithms on their own. Everyone wins, right?
I'm not really a big fan of always-on-line software. I don't want my stats analysis system to have to outsource its processing to another machine across the Internet. But if the makers of the software want to keep their algorithms secret, this seems like the only way to do it. And let's ditch software patents, because I think they do more harm than good.
That's the case law part of what I wrote, so yeah I'd agree with that statement.
Prevailing jurisprudence does change over time though, which can be good or bad (textualist jurisprudence being a particular retarded legal theory).
Specifically, I'm referring to your argument that "Science is one thing that if done right under socialism works best."
Under capitalism, science is often bent to the needs of the patron/employer/investor.
Under socialism, science is often bent to the political needs of the "people" as interpreted and enforced by the government.
Neither case must necessarily lead to a poor outcome. However, it's naive to think science can be completely unfettered from the society that supports it. All forms of government and economy concentrate power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Those few then use that power to shape the actions of others to suit their own needs and beliefs.
Gloss: Lysenko was the director of the Lenin All-Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, who decreed as a matter of state ideology (among other bizarre rubbish) that desirable traits in plants were not heritable, but instead could only spread through grafts and nongenetic methods. In short, he was a Lamarckian who could ruin a scientist's career, or worse, for daring question the validity of official state science.
Under Lysenko, agricultural science in the USSR was, from the late 1920s until 1964, based on ideology rather than the scientific method, and this led to uncounted misery for Soviet citizens due to massively underperforming or failed crops.
Wikipedia has a decent article about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.
However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.
Moral of the story: RTFA.
Eureka! -- Archimedes
