Yes, this is Slashdot!

Ignoring everything except "As long as the wealth is created in a free market, that wealth is a reflection of merit"

I have to ask 2 questions:
1) What merit is reflected into ones birth that causes the reflection of wealth there?

2) What is the reflection of merit when the increase in wealth before expenses would be the same percentage but due to the starting point of rich over poor. The Rich's expenses are well under that percentage and his wealth grows, but the Poor's expenses vary around that percentage and while occasionally the wealth grows, it also often shrinks. Bonus points if you don't fall back on living within one's means and extol the virtues of living as a pauper or working 24x7 so as to avoid needing to have a place to sleep.

I seriously doubt any people will actually quit... the memo actually states that your managers are already aware of the next steps, so it going to be dependent on managers...

If I was affected I would just continue the status quo while looking for a new job on the side....
once they cut my access and closed done my office and layed me off... I would file unemployment...

Clearly the judge formed the thought that the man was going to name the king... in that context and given the crime if 'insulting the king' isn't it pretty insulting to the king for the judge to immediately assume that the king would have been mentioned?

No, they won't want anyone who has access to schools to have weapons... Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster you can't trust anyone.

The 'commercial' part is going to come back to haunt them. The rules for commercial use are so different than for non-commercial use. They will shut down the commercial aspect the first time one of the following happens:

1) A user takes a picture of a person who did not consent to commercial use of their likeness. (something that is not needed for the original individual to post for non-commercial use)

2) A photographer gives an individual a photograph without license for commercial use and that someone posts the photograph with consent for non-commercial purposes and it's used a third-party for commercial purposes.

In each of the above cases the up-loader was within their rights and the commercial publisher can't get an appropriate license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate permissions.

The commercial publisher is going to be the target of the law suits and they won't be able to use the defense of any license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate license to transfer. They can try and sue Instagram to recover damages and Instagram may try to sue the original up-loader, but I can't see that getting very far. (not for lack of trying as much as for lack of money and original usage not violating the usage.

Examples of case one.. I was in Story Land a few years back, and this young woman had a frown on her face, I can only image she wanted to be somewhere else.. anyway, I took a picture of her on one of the rides with this huge frown and arms folded across her chest. (not that anyone would want to use her photo as a advertisement for the story land, but I think it falls under editorial if not artistic use... but I have no right to use her image for commercial purposes, so can't give that right to anyone else)

Example for case two, both of my kids school pictures included a small sized digital image which was explicitly licensed for non-commercial usage. So I was within my rights to use it non-commercial. posting it so relatives could see them. ( as I didn't get a commercial right I can't transfer one)

Even if I used Instagram (which I don't), even if I am agreeing that by uploading an image I transfer all rights, I can't transfer what I don't own. Commercial publisher sues, Instagram, Instagram sues me .... I doubt it, and the Commercial Publisher has no relationship with me, so they can't sue me. Even if I was sued, I can't believe any judge would find against me as I didn't attempt any commercial usage and even if they did.... They would likely spend more on the legals fees than they would ever see from me.

I would normally say, no 'legit' commercial publisher is going to purchase and use a photograph for commercial use without a firm release signed, etc.... but there this case not that long ago.. and many similar ones since then....

http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157600541608353/

Most survivalist will be dead in 4 weeks, the preppers will likely last about 6 months, then the farmers will get what's left.

ah, sorry I wasn't thinking... states can have their own set of rules which vary, state to state

It has not been challenged again.... it would be interesting to see if it was challenged again ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States ... ...
Opinion of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home. Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment. As a result, Justice Scalia asserted that the difference between “off the wall” surveillance and “through the wall” surveillance was non-existent because both methods physically intruded upon the privacy of the home. Scalia created a “firm but also bright” line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the “‘entrance to the house’”.[1] This line is meant to protect the home from all types of warrantless surveillance and is an interpretation of what he called “the long view” of the Fourth Amendment. The dissent thought this line was “unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment”[2] because according to Scalia’s previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined. ... ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html ...
YLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded. ... ...
      (b) While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home’s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 6—7. ... ...

##
## Not disagreeing, but surely you can see my confusion as both of the above refer to "...technology in question is not in general public use..."
##

The key component is "plain view', thermal enhanced imaging is not plain view, and trained dogs are not plain smell. If the officer can smell your pot without a dog, you will still have issues.

My memory of that ruling is a little fuzzy but I believe (but could be wrong) that the ruling was basically if the police using something (equipment) which is something the ordinary people have ready access to then no warrant was required.. ie, if they used a common telescope or binoculars and saw something it could be used, but at the time thermal imaging or low flying photos (or observation) from helicopter or plane was considered a governmental (as in only they could do it due to the resources) search and therefore required a warrant.

That (if my memory is correct) was the test that allowed the police to claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine when they happened to smell or see something that was really in 'plain view' while preventing the police from claiming plain view for every new search that could be performed remotely.

Wow... someone else with common sense,,, I find it funny that our existence doesn't prove anything. To the Atheist it lends proof to evolution because they assume there is nothing that exists that could have designed or controlled things to cause us to be here. To the Theologists its supporting evidence of Gods grand design.

If you find logs stacked in two parallel rows with two other parallel rows at 90 degrees forming a rectangular enclosure with a few breaks that can be used to enter or exit and enclosure, does it prove that eventually the absurd odds of trees just randomly falling will build a log cabin or does it prove that even if you have no other proof that some intelligence built it, that there is some intelligence that €you just haven't found yet.

Can you please provide a written definition for your use of theory, because even:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ... ...
The term theoretical

Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory. ... ...