Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
...wants to be free as in beer.
I keep hearing about this 'free' beer on slashdot, can someone PLEASE tell me where I can find it? I would save me so much money a month. TIA.
But they are lawyers and will do whatever is in the best interest of their bank accounts
There, fixxed that for ya....
I might not be explaining 1000% correct but enough that you'll get the jist of the problem...
[R]equires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.
Guess I need to pick Defense/Personal or Education/Other (as in his)?
After I RTFA, to refer to the correct Bill (S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House), I see this bill is call "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act, more Think of the Children BS. Guess I know what category to use now....
in the 1990s sign a paper indicating that I was not a member of the Communist Party or any organization allied with Communism. Everyone who joins a union today still has to sign such a statement.
Well, (unfortunately) I've been a member of a few unions and was never asked to sign a piece of paper that stated a I was or wasn't a member of any political party. They were all just interested in a cut of my paycheck.
I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue
While it's a nice thought, it's not gonna happen.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commence or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Which is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.
Of course he didn't have to re-authorize every Exective Order, but did. So much for change...
...insufficient attention to monopoly and consumer protection, to lack of capacity to enforce compliance, to overreach into non-technical areas such as adjudication of morality
I guess the Bush Regime would know all about that, considering that's something they've done time and time again.