No. The standard is reasonable doubt, not every doubt.
--
JimFive

I could be wrong, but I think that only applies in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. In most places airspace is Class G within some distance (700 ft?) above ground level but around airports and in other areas airspace is controlled all the way to the ground. I suspect that the capitol (if not all of D.C.) is controlled all the way down.
--
JimFive

That math clearly doesn't work out. At 3% a year an investment doubles in 24 years. So in 96 years that dollar doubles 4 times to become $16. To get to $1 million you need to double at least 20 times which will take 480 years. But really you never get to $1 million because you have to keep the lights on.
--
JimFive

Anti-Trust Law is about preventing dominance in one market being used to create an advantage in a different market. Google is accused of using its dominance in search to give itself an advantage in online shopping. Simply not selling your product to a competitor would not be anti-trust.

Google's defense could be "we don't have a dominant position" but they have 90% of the EU search market so that's a loser. It could be, "we don't manipulate the search results to give advantage to our shopping sites", which would end up requiring them to give the code (and history) to the court for analysis. Or it could be a lot of technical legal wrangling which is probably what will happen. It definitely WON'T be "you're anti-trust laws are stupid".

An analogy, if I own 90% of the billboards in a state I can't refuse to sell billboard space to Jack's Auto Repair just because I also own John's Auto Repair.
--
JimFive

The allegations are that Google is abusing its position in one market (search) to give itself an advantage in other markets, specifically online Shopping, by promoting sites on its own Google Shopping platform over other sites, and doing so without indicating to the consumer that Google has an interest in those sites. So, Google has a financial interest in people buying from certain retailers and is using its search engine to push consumers toward those retailers without disclosing that interest. This is giving Google Shopping a significant advantage over competitors, not because it has earned that advantage, but because Google Search has a 90% share of that market. This is, arguably, anti-competitive, even without a 100% monopoly position.

If this goes to court the EU would have to show that all of the above is true.
--
JimFive

He should have trained 535 owls to fly in to the Capitol building and drop the letters on the floor.
--
JimFive

McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics". It was an attempt to say that you can't use a giant megaphone to express those opinions within a certain time before an election. Did it succeed? The Supreme Court said, "No".

Is money corrupting the political process? Is there a way to stop it? Reasonable people can disagree about those things.

Do you think that laws against libel and slander violate the first amendment? What about a law requiring that political ads not be misleading? What about a law requiring that using someone's name in an ad requires the permission of the named? What about a law requiring that any factual statements in an ad or speech be given a reputable source (and what would reputable mean)? What about a law saying that all donors must be disclosed?

By the way, it wasn't Citizen's United ruled that money is speech, it was Buckley v. Valeo(1976)

If you can't find anyone willing to work the job you have for what your offering you need to reconsider what you're offering. The "market" has clearly priced that job at $250k.
--
JimFive

Turning off a camera can be treated in the same way as destruction of evidence if that is how the law is written. There's nothing magic about it, if evidence should (In this case "is required to") exist and doesn't then we presume that the evidence goes against the person that should have it.

Yes. They can turn the camera back on if they are interacting with the public.
--
JimFive

It should also be "ensure" not "insure".
--
JimFive

Most of your concerns are addressed by ensuring through law and policy that the purpose of the camera is to act as a witness to the actions of the officer, not the public. To respond to each point:
1) I doubt the cameras are more intimidating than all of the rest of the trappings of a witness interview.
2) Don't allow access to the videos without a specific complaint and legal process (subpoena, etc).
3) Allow them to turn it off, but if a complaint is made and the interaction is not on video then it is presumed that the complaint is valid, just like any other destruction of evidence.
4) The recordings would only become public record if there was an investigation and associated subpoena/warrant activity to get the video into court.
--
JimFive

WhatsApp isn't the man in the middle, they are at both ends.

The expression "You're right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" is apt here.

Property value is a proxy for "fitness for purpose". It is possible for your neighbor to use es property in a way that makes your property less useful to you. Your neighbor in that situation is infringing on your right to use your property as you see fit. Resolving these types of conflicts between personal rights is one of the purposes of government. Most local governments use zoning and permitting to set equitable standards for land use to prevent those disputes up front.
--
JimFive

You say, "Nonsense," and then proceed to agree with me.

The view, the sound, the smell, the risk, increased traffic, etc. Those are the externalities I was talking about. It is clear in your example that the smelting plant next to you affects the value of your property. It affects its value to you, or you wouldn't move, and it presumably affects its value to potential buyers. Therefore, the smelting plant has reduced the value of your property, that is a sign that the smelting plant is imposing a hidden cost on you and your neighbors. That is an externality.

To put it within your stated moral framework. You aren't telling them what they can do with their land. You are telling them that whatever they do can't affect the commons in such a way that it is detrimental to their neighbors. (For the purposes of this argument, the commons includes visual scenery, the air and intangibles such as danger, if you have a better word, feel free to propose it)
--
JimFive

And if they could keep all of the externalities on their land then you would be correct. However, the mere fact that you wouldn't like it indicates that they CAN'T keep the externalities on their land. If they could, you wouldn't care. So, since they can't keep the sight, sounds, smells, pollutants, etc. confined within their property, society has created zones to separate unseemly activities from residential and retail neighborhoods. The fact that commons are involved means that society has a say.
--
JimFive