And in unrelated news Jon Corzine hired a new 28 year old assistant with banking experience in Moldova...

It seems that if you use a sewer treatment plant as a spider farm you will get much better results.

National Security Letters are not court orders they are administrative subpenas. And that is what are used. Further they can't be a warrant because it would be a general warrant and that is unconstitutional. The Government's position is that any papers of yours that are not in your control you have no right to privacy for them, thus doesn't require a warrant( Smith v. Maryland, 422 U.S. 735 (1979)). That is how come a subpena can be used to compel and no warrant. But they are still your letters. If they were the papers of the telco then the telco could refuse short of anything but a warrant. They could squash the subpena under the business's fourth amendment rights. That this can't happen shows who's papers they are.

Depends on what kind of blackmail the NSA has on him. If its as much as they had on Obama; damn fast. If he's had a squeaky clean life; then probably take a near death experience like Reagan's.

Just because it's illegal or not authorized doesn't mean that they will stop. They'll simply continue and do their best to keep it hush hush

This is true. It also severely erodes the rule of law. As more mundane average productive Americans realize that they're following the rules but the government isn't, and get screwed by it, they'll start to realize they should only follow the rules when they would get caught. This is a recipe for an uncivil society leading to a societal collapse.

Or to paraphrase a saying from communist countries; They pretend to enforce the law and we'll pretend to follow the law.

Your information about your phone calls that the phone company keeps is your papers. The phone company has it but it really belongs to you. We know this because the phone company can't refuse to give it to them without a warrant because it is ruled its not their papers to withhold. We know this because the phone company only receives a subpena for this in the form of a national security letter.

The biggest issue with converting a vehicle to an electric vehicle is getting light relatively inexpensive batteries. These might just be the ticket to that problem for DIY electric vehicle. Previously getting and making a LiON pack was either more expensive or harder to source the cells. This may solve the battery and charger issue and allow people to make decent ranged electric conversions for a lot less money.

The real issue, is the grid tie in inverters. You'll go through a few of them in the life of the panels, and they are expensive. If they get those down to a couple hundred dollars, the rest will fall in place. Installation and power electronics is over half the installed system cost. This also makes it not financially feasible to buy a couple panels and roll out more as you save money; the price difference between the whole system and the two panel system designed to be upgraded is negligible.

Looks like MS is going to kill McAfee's application control(used to be solidcore) product.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Any warrant that doesn't list the particular; one that authorizes a general collection is unconstitutional and illegal regardless of what the Judge says. In this case the Judge ruled they could generally collect any electronic phone data in range of the stingray. Judges can and do make illegal orders. They just have ruled that they're immune from punishment for their illegal actions, and we let them. Note that in the United States, judicial immunity is not by any statute passed by a legislature. Its by Judicial order. Its just another brick in the tyranny we live under.

If they do this, they're going against the magnuson moss act.

In a just world they would lose copyright when they stop warranting the product. You want copyright of that ecu? You give a permanent warranty on it and replace them every time they fail, for free. Don't want to have to replace it? then you give up copyright to the code on it because user needs to fix it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Oil is not the complete set of fossil fuels. It may be that we have run the oil age too long and it would be hard to get to oil again, but lets look back 100 years ago and notice that it was the coal age then. We switched from coal to oil not because we ran out of coal; we did it because the oil was more efficient. If we needed to reboot it would go back to coal, and there are still vast easily exploited coal fields. We could coal power civilization until we got back to petroleum; but really we're already changing over to a natural gas age, just like 100 years ago they were changing to petroleum. And we could just skip petroleum, do coal, and then gassified coal and go on towards whatever we have next, which really could be fusion.

1.5Million crimes per year prevented in the United States by guns.

In UK most home robberies are home invasions when the victims are home. In the United States, that is rare. Most home robberies are done when people aren't home.

So we Americans also price these benefits against guns and find that they are a net positive.

Moving the goalpost I see. From "No courts have ruled that way" I found that the 7th circuit did in fact rule that way, and they based it on a Supreme Court Ruling as well(that would be the second quote). So I said that courts recognize that Atheism is a religion. The courts agree.

My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.

You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.

I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.

IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.



So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?