Even if the hard drive isn't yours, or it hasn't been established that it's yours, if they know you have the password for whatever reason they can compel you to give it up. Failure to do so would at least be obstruction, or perhaps as bad as aiding and abetting.
Provided they also have probable cause to think there's evidence on that device of course.
=Smidge=
Plus, you'd scoop up a lot more oceanic plant and animal life trying to extract that plastic material.
Actually, the critters might be a better fuel source than the plastics...
=Smidge=
In a perfect world, there would be no primaries at all because there would be no rigidly defined political parties as such... but I suppose it really is too much to ask that a candidate be considered on the weight of his individual ideas and actions rather than a postfix next to his name on a ballot.
But the next best thing would be to have each party solely responsible for nominating their own candidates, without outside influence. At least in that respect we could get someone who best represents their party, rather than the WORST representative.
Campaign financing is a whole other ball of wax...
=Smidge=
Voters end up with the exact same number of choices in the general election: two.
Not really, no. There is almost always more than two candidates for any particular office. The only exceptions I've personally encountered were lesser thought about elected officials like judges and public works.
But I think the parent's comment about "fewer choices" still applies: You are choosing the least bad instead of the best, so the real choice is diminished. Giant douche, or turd sandwich?
=Smidge=
It's a primary election, not a general election. Nobody is being elected into power here. The primary election is only to choose who the candidate will be that will run for office for that particular party.
If you want your political party to win, and you have open primaries, to group together to force the opponent party to select the LEAST desirable candidate, thus increasing your own candidate's chance of winning.
That's not democracy, that's gaming the system - and we all lose in the race to the bottom.
=Smidge=
Why not? You benefit from that partial ownership, you should share in the responsibility proportionally.
Having thousands of owners screaming at you, as well as being financially culpable, would be good cause for the people in charge to actually be careful about what they do.
=Smidge=
Not true. If every restaurant closed their doors, people would cook their own food. If every landscaping company folded, people would mow their own lawns.
Hahahaha... oh wow.
Yeah, assuming that everyone is willing any able to do their own cooking and yardwork (Ha!) who's going to do property maintenance for non-residential properties? Going to take turns at the office to see who's turn it is to trim the hedges that week?
=Smidge=
I think you're reading a bit too deeply into the words and missing the overall point... there are jobs that need to be done regardless of their cost.
Fine, bagging groceries is a poor example. What about janitorial work? Someone needs to do the basic maintenance of a public or commercial building.
=Smidge=
Imagine the minimum wage is $100/hour. There's a massive number of job which simply do not produce that much wealth per hour - they cannot exist, because to offer that job to someone is to lose money. All those jobs disappear.
Setting aside the stupidity of $100/hr minimum wage... (I mean, why not $1,000,000/hr right?)
The jobs that people do for under $15/hr still need to be done. Not every job produces wealth. Nobody gets rich by having clean floors, or mowed lawns, or bagged groceries. However, these are examples of tasks that arguable have to be done by someone, and the cost of not having them done can, at least in some cases, be argued to be greater than $15/hr.
The same applies to jobs that "do not produce that much wealth" - they still need to be done. Either you pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers, or you stop selling burgers and go out of business. Don't want to go out of business? Pay the $15/hr and increase your prices by the ten cents or whatever it averages out to be. What a goddamn stupid argument you're making.
I'd rather pay an extra buck for a trip to the local fast food place than have my tax dollars end up subsidizing the employees through food stamps and housing because they're barely paid enough to afford the same food they cook all day.
=Smidge=
The way to implement the experiment is to abolish the minimum wage entirely, and then leave it abolished since it will achieve the natural price for labor value.
We already tried slavery, feudalism, indentured servitude, company towns/stores, debt bondage, wage slavery... these are the labor systems that arise when you don't enforce paying laborers enough to keep them independent of their employer... aka "a living wage."
Maybe the problem is you don't understand what "living wage" really means.
=Smidge=
The Volt's drivetrain, for example, reportedly costs about $6k per vehicle. Why? It's a heck of a lot simpler than a gasoline drivetrain, with a tenth as many moving parts and less raw materials costs.
This statement makes no sense in light of the fact that the Volt's drivetrain includes a four cylinder gasoline engine.
I'm not convinced it's simpler in the transmission either. You still have three clutches, a planetery and a differential.
And yes, the engine can and will provide mechanical power directly to wheels
if conditions are right.
=Smidge=
That's not how rockets work... it's about momentum transfer, not velocity.
=Smidge=
It's a GAME, and every time someone pulls the reality card on an unintended gameplay mechanic
It's not unintended, that's the point.
=Smidge=
That's not a bug - that's how physics actually works.
Your walking speed is limited no matter what direction to go since you only have one pair of legs. But in a space ship, the thrusters add up using typical vector addition... in all three dimensions.
It was literally a feature, and a good one! The most unrealistic thing about it was only that the top speed was limited, which makes no sense for a spacecraft in a vacuum.
I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, 'cause real free-floating 3D with proper conservation of momentum would be a real pain in the ass.
=Smidge=
Cars will be fueled next on Compressed Natural Gas. Why? Because there is a cheaper option that doesn't weigh a lot or take up lots of space.
CNG tanks are huge compared to gasoline tanks for an equivalent amount of fuel. Consider the latest and greatest carbon fiber wrapped, nonmetallic tank: 20 gasoline gallon equivalent capacity at 3600 PSIG.
Weight: ~100 lbs empty, ~210 lbs full.
Dimensions: 60 inches long, 21 inches diameter.
Cost: ~$3600
CNG is not a serious contender for the personal automotive market... and I'm making this argument as someone who designs and builds CNG fueling stations.
Trucking is another matter, since trucks have the space and weight capacity - and the high cost and long service life to distribute that cost - to make it worthwhile.
=Smidge=
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
