|
|
Only because the murder rate reached an extreme peak the year that prohibition was repealed. The year after the repeal, the murder rate was still significantly higher than any other year during prohibition.
Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone,
No it wouldn't. You kill the drug market but leave the players behind, you end up with a ton of violent criminals looking for new profitable crimes to commit. That's what happened with prohibition - it basically created organized crime in the US and once liquor was relegalized they didn't just get regular 9-5 jobs, they branched out.
If drugs are legalized in the US, we should be prepapred for the violence to get worse before it gets better.
Good job of quoting her. Now she's going.to send godaddy a takedown on slashdot.
So the intent of ANPR is little different indeed from the motivations that first led to license plates.
What?
You just disproved your own claim. The guy wanted to catch people who had committed a crime, he didn't want to record all the people who were not committing crimes.
Any of the Gawker Media websites, some times you have to reload t hem 3 times to get the fricking hyperlinks to work.
A little tangent....
Gawker's websites suck in other ways that relate to usuability too. I use noscript religiously, there is nothing about the gawker websites that need javascript, but all you get is a nearly blank page if you don't enable javascript. UNLESS you change your brower's user agent to something Gawker doesn't recognize as supporting javascript (I change mine to an old version of googlebot). Then they send you pages that work perfectly well without javascript.
So clearly they can do non-javascript pages, but if they recognize your browser they won't give them to you and even worse, they won't even explain what's going on, it just silently fails with a blank page. They can't even be bothered to tell you to enable javascript, which is really just pathetic.
It's the DEA. Doing the same thing outside of California. Logging traffic to find patterns of drug runners across the border.
ANPR seems like a huge violation of both the right to travel freely and the right to be free of unreasonable searches. We've gone from a model where license plates were used after the fact of a crime to where they are used when there is absolutely no suspicion of wrong-doing. That's not the bargain we signed up for when license plates were first made mandatory.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the classic, "FBI Mobile Surveillance Van."
I bet that one will freak out a lot more people than "WeCanHereYouHavingSex."
In the interest of preserving Constitutional authority, I hope the SCOTUS decides in that manner regarding the individual mandate; however, given recent decisions by said court that blatantly flout the Constitutional rights of the People... I'm not holding my breath.
Yep. That bird flew the coop when the DEA got to do things administratively that previously required a full-blow constitutional ammendment (prohibition). As long as we're getting screwed over like that, I say at least lets get something useful out of the situation.
"In order to declare a particular functionality, the language demands that the method declaration take a particular form," notes Alsup (emphasis in original).
Indeed, this is just so. And you can't copyright "functionality"; that's akin to copyrighting a concept, which is not what copyright is about. Copyright is about protecting implementations of concepts, and those are still protected. But a programming language requires a rigid codification of the concept itself.
Oracle's response made me chuckle a little...
"The court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms," the company said in a statement issued this afternoon. "Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise."
That's really immaterial to the reasoning for why an APIs aren't protected under the Copyright Act in the first place. It would be relevant if "interoperability" were a defense against copyright infringement, but it's not, since the item in question wasn't protected in the first place.
Just because my implementation of fopen() breaks programs that depended on your implementation of fopen() that doesn't suddenly mean that your declaration of a function called fopen() is protected and my identical declaration is infringing. This would imply that copyright infringement claims based on APIs would suddenly be dependent on some kind of compatibility test.
And on that note, it was that last line that made me chuckle. Brings to mind something about ships and sailing, or barn doors and horses.
The mean human IQ at a particular time and place (IQs for given test results have been adjusted downward several times because people are in general becoming more educated [which some people assume means smarter for some reason but hey]).
Point being -- relative to a universal scale incorporating all possible intelligence values (not just those attainable by living humans) 100 IQ is probably pretty stupid... but so is 180 IQ.
Liar, n.: A lawyer with a roving commission. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"