No we dont, free speech is only allowed in free speech zones. Doing it outside a designated zone means you get tazed in the junk by police.

That was really stupid. only a moron would throw it away, you could have easily got $50 on craigslist for it.

I always register as Ron Jeremy, Movie Star...

It needs a gps so it can rat on them if they are speeders. People who speed in residential areas need to have Progressive send someone out to punch them in the taint over and over until they understand that only scumbags speed in residential areas.

It's just one of the perks of Progressive.

Because the fuckers will not allow me to access my raw data. I don't care if my data is curing cancer, HONEST companies would let me at the data stream for my own uses.

What get's me is why hasn't anyone hacked the fitbit's data stream? you think there would have already been drivers that capture the data for you and keep it private or android apps that harvst the data and keep it away from the mothership.

No. The goal, as I said, is to allow the person being sued to defend himself. You want to take a public squabble to court and have a judge rule on it, you have to accept the side effects. You don't want those issues raised, let the character of the person making the statements you don't like speak for itself. Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the climate science field would put much weight behind anything Mark Levin says, so it would be hard to prove there is much damage from it. I also find it hard to imagine that anyone will change their mind about Mann whether he wins or loses.

You're worried that whatever is discovered might be taken "out of context" or twisted somehow? Well, you're already going to court over the matter, it's not like you have to find a lawyer and file suit over that. It will be part of the proceedings THAT YOU STARTED.

Whether the claims that were made by the defendant are baseless or not is not entirely clear, and are a matter for the courts at this point. But also as I said, the fact that this is about AGW makes it a fascinating story but is really irrelevant to this issue.

Here's a bit of information that might shed light on the baselessness of the claims. I recall an email from a handful of years ago, after the initial appearance of the hockey stick, from NCAR scientists who were quite giddy with glee that they had been able to modify some of the parameters of the model to obtain a much more significant upturn in the rate of change. It was pretty clear from that email that the goal was not to accurately represent the physical processes involved but to get a scarier result. No, I don't have that email anymore so I can't quote it, but I do remember the message it conveyed. It wasn't "we understand the physics better and here's the new results", it was "we changed the parameters and got a higher rate of increase."

Now, I assume that Mann was on the NCAR mailing list that came out on, and I'd say that were I him, I'd really not want that email showing up in a trial.

Take that as you will.

I'm the NSA, we have always been in your house... and can you please change to 2 percent milk? Agent Jenkins is getting fat and starting to stick out from behind the TV.

Most people don't need that

Irrelevant. It is what most people want, or else range anxiety would be a non-issue.

[ubiquitous charging] seems to be the case already

Only near very metropolitan areas. If you are needing to drive rural for any real stretch, then there's a problem. Sure that's not most people, but take a guess how many cars there are on rural roads every single day? It's not exactly a small numbeer

The Model S is cheaper than similar sedans

The model S costs $80k... which is a good $30k or more than what one could spend on a brand new car that is just as good in terms of features, but may not carry any sort of status symbol or prestige with it. Hell, it's $50k more than the most expensive car that I ever bought.

H1B's can do the managements job a Lot better and a lot cheaper. There is far more savings in replacing everyone at the manager level and up.

This. It is called "original intent", and it is often the crux of cases before SCOTUS. What did the legislators intend? The only way to get that is to look at the work product and not just the final published result. The Federalist Papers are one bit of the puzzle, but not the only part, and limiting the determination of original intent to that one document is limiting oneself to one man's opinion of what was intended. And, of course, the FP cover only the founders and the Constitution, ignoring completely the legislation created over the last 240 years.

What were the arguments about the law in question? What were the compromises? What was never considered?

The goal here is to allow someone to defend themselves against a lawsuit filed because someone who has made himself a public figure didn't like what some other public figure said about him in public. In this case, the person who filed the lawsuit is a scientist. The person who didn't like what was being said was the scientist.

Now, if you admit that releasing the scientist's email would destroy his reputation, that's a pretty damning statement about that scientist, I would say.

But as has been pointed out by another, the fact that this deals with AGW makes it interesting reading but has no relevance to the legal issues involved.