This isn't the Tablet I am looking for.
Supposedly the `market' can do better.
How come it's not doing so?
Chavs yes, the rest of the youth not so much.
Actually, my wife loves my Motorola Droid as an ebook reader in bed (Nexus would work great too). She shuts off the light, wants my light off too, but doesn't mind if I keep reading, using Aldiko on Android, since I can put the background color to black, the foreground color to dark gray, and turn down the screen brightness all the way.
Perhaps not as low eye stress as e-ink with a light on, but I didn't have to buy anything except the ebooks.
Maybe if imports were actually inspected at the Border of the USA this crap would not happen. Very little of what is imported is inspected or even properly taxed.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If you're held without being informed of the charge, it's a violation of due process, regardless of whether or not charges have been filed, or whether or not you ultimately get released without charges formally being filed. If they were to try that kind of crap with me, they'd find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit. If for no other reason, then because you have a right to legal representation, and your lawyer can't properly prepare a case without knowing the charges.
Unfortunately for your argument, that part of the sixth amendment does not seem to have been incorporated against the states, so Texas could theoretically never tell you why you were being held, even if a federal prosecutor would have to tell you under the sixth amendment.
Please take a moment to read the whole article about incorporation. Seriously. It's a huge issue that very few people understand, but it's critical to understanding state vs. federal crimes, powers, and rights.
[cue Monty Python intermission music]
Okay, so you understand what incorporation is, and that the whole Bill of Rights is not currently incorporated against the states. Indignant yet?
If you're upset about the fact that the fourteenth amendment did not accomplish incorporation (which you probably are, since you previously thought that the whole sixth Amendment should apply to Texas), then you should be extremely interested in the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago which at first glance appears to be a gun case, but is in reality a case about full incorporation of the first eight Amendments to the US Constitution. Personally, I don't care about the fact that there are guns involved, the larger issues are way, WAAY too important.
McDonald v. Chicago is a history making case, not because it will apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, but because it should apply the Bill of Rights to the states. And it's about time.
You're kind of a funny person to be posting that, considering your work on Spring.
I mean, it's true, but you're a funny person to hear that from.
If you want to impose anything that has no logic to it or infringes basic human rights all you have to do is claim it is "for the children" and you get a free pass.
It's urea, not urine. Urine does contain urea, but so do many glues, foams, insulation products, etc.
They're not the same thing.
Two thoughts: First, I agree that the baby was some sort of strange mercy killing. It's the only interpretation that matches up with the various sixes that appear and develop through the story.
Second, has anybody squawking about this every read Grimm's fairy tales? Anyone? Bueller?
In classical European fairy tales, kids are on the menu for chrissakes (and apparently only tasty if cooked alive)!
My niece (10) saw the baby-killing scene in BSG and her dad and I made a great "teaching moment" about it. Niece was a little shocked, but did not have a breakdown or other indication of serious problems.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones