Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Anybody know the plate# for each scotus? (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#46834077) Attached to: Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips

A person's word that an infraction has been comitted does, however, reach the status of being able to ask the suspected vehicle to pull over and expect the driver to answer at least one question, which probably would have only amounted to "have you had anything to drink tonight?", perhaps with a caveat that they had received a report about the vehicle so that the driver understands the reason for the question.

Not in my state. Here, the police can only pull you over based on probable cause of an infraction (or worse). "Reasonable suspicion" is not sufficient grounds.

Comment: Re:Forgot to mention... (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#46828001) Attached to: Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips

Automobiles in operation on public roads do not enjoy the same protections as a private home, vehicle on private property, etc. If the officer had found the suspect vehicle parked in a driveway, knocked on the front door and then smelled marijuana, he would have to go through the added step of justifying a search warrant.

I am aware of that. And IANAL either. But do you honestly think there was no reason at all for this to go all the way up to the Supreme Court?

Comment: Re:Anybody know the plate# for each scotus? (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#46827737) Attached to: Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips

It (theoretically) takes proof to convict. It only needs suspicion to investigate. [emphasis added]

That depends on what is being investigated, which is the crux of the matter here.

Generally speaking, it takes more than just "reasonable suspicion" for A SEARCH. It takes probable cause.

The idea that suspicion, rather than probable cause, is enough evidence for a search is what makes this decision so controversial. And, I might add, more liable to being overturned in the future.

A person's word that someone else committed a crime or infraction normally does not reach the status of probable cause.

Comment: Re:Anybody know the plate# for each scotus? (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#46824837) Attached to: Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips

The stuff might be 100% legal, but it still has to be something that the person actually witnessed firsthand. Saying that you "think" somebody is doing something illegal is not valid unless you actually saw them *DO* something that you thought was illegal.

I think you REALLY missed the point, which is the same one Justice Scalia raised in the dissent: people can lie.

We've made some strong advances in getting rid of some BS things like paid informants, who were notorious liars. That resulted in a great deal of innocent suffering (Ruby Ridge is just one famous incident... there were a great many that never saw press).

It doesn't matter if the language is strong, if the person speaking is telling a lie.

Comment: Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score 1) 372

The average wait for a white person to vote in Michigan is 7 minutes. The average wait for a black person to vote in Michigan is 46 minutes.
Yeah, you still need affirmative action.

We agree on many things, but this is not one of them.

"Affirmative Action" is not voting. It does not say who can vote, or how, or who cannot, or why.

Certainly discrimination still exists, but voting is a very different area of the law and affirmative action doesn't fix it, nor is it intended to. While the things you mention still need work, Affirmative Action in college admissions simply does not serve that purpose.

Further, it is arguable that in many ways Affirmative Action was self-defeating. There is a point of diminishing returns, beyond which one does not help eliminate discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. For a long time now AA has often tended to stir up racial unrest, when part of its purpose was to reduce it.

Comment: Re:No answer will be given (Score 1) 307

I am only pointing out that people who are up in arms about what he is doing were, for the most part, completely silent when Bush did it.

... and then there are those of us who yell when ANYBODY does it.

GP's comment was valid. While it may not have been quite what you meant, your comment gave the impression of an apologia for Obama on the basis that Bush did it too.

Comment: Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (Score 1) 158

It's taking a lot of the carbon from the soil instead of the air... so no. Also, consider all the gasoline used to plant/harvest/transport it. Ethanol is a corn-state boondoggle. It drives up corn prices and brings in massive revenue to the midwest. Ethanol support is critical for any politician that wants to win in states like Iowa. When you hear a 60yr old farmer start talking about "green energy" you know he grows corn.

But the vast majority of the carbon in corn comes from the air, not the soil! It might surprise you to learn that most of the bulk of a huge tree, for example, was produced from the air, not the ground. The ground supplies trace minerals and water, and little else.

Another real problem with ethanol is that it is a low energy density fuel, compared to gasoline. So beyond a certain small percentage, it actually reduces the efficiency of your vehicle and causes it to burn MORE gasoline per mile, rather than less, which negates the advantages of using ethanol in the first place.

Comment: Re:Unregulatable! (Score 0) 207

No it's not. Just require people who own a 3d printer to have a license for it. If you don't have a license, you go to jail. Simple.

In the U.S. this is not a viable model. SCOTUS has ruled, more than once, that a practice may not be outlawed simply because it can be abused, as long as it also has legitimate uses. Anything else is a form of "prior restraint".

People may argue: yes, but automobiles are licensed. While that is true, if you look at similar laws you will find that automobiles are very much the exception, and in fact State ability to "license" their use is still an open Constitutional question. Not only are other machines not licensed as vehicles are, it is generally accepted that they are not legally licensable the way vehicles are.

It might be illegal for me to make and sell a rifle with my milling machine. That does not mean that my milling machine is illegal. (And, in fact, making a rifle for my own use is not illegal. Selling it across state lines is. In some states I could probably even legally sell it, as long as it remained within the state.)

Comment: Good Luck Trying To Hire Me (Score 0) 108

I'm not trying to get a security-related job anyway, but even so: I won't be applying to companies who want to take my fingerprints or my photograph.

I don't do piss tests or credit checks. Why should I do fingerprints of photographs?

Not very damned many people need a particular job that badly; there is usually other work to be had.

Comment: Re:huh? (Score -1) 327

it seems like it's really good news for the people who stream Netflix on Comcast.


People tend to forget: they're already paying for that bandwidth. What Comcast has done is start charging Netflix to send you video over bandwidth you're already paying for. And now Netflix's costs are higher, which they will likely pass onto you, so you will end up paying twice for the same ISP service.

No, that's not good.

Comment: Re:Scrap librarians too? (Score -1) 32

You'd think that all they do is sell papers, when in fact they collect and organize them.

Anyone that does serious research will have used specialist librarians before. Just because the data is out there and available, doesn't mean you're going to find it. Even if you do find it, it doesn't mean your search was efficient.

I think you missed the whole point. The bill wouldn't stop them from doing the research. It would simply stop them from SELLING the results to other government agencies.

I mean come on, think about how ridiculous that is. The research was done with taxpayer dollars. Then they sell that research to other government agencies for more taxpayer dollars?

I do think it's a good idea to account for which government agencies use the service, and how much. But selling? Too far.

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.