(3) at the same time as a seizure of contraband relevant to the forfeiture,
The theory behind this type of forfeiture is that the money is an instrument of a crime and therefore contraband. Therefore this amounts to a self-justifying statement.
It appears the vast majority of those 200,000 are... because the Associated Press wrote about the case and it has 160,000 distribution partners.
I have a tip for them: if they had just searched Google for "SDCC lawsuit", the 607,000 matches would have been much more impressive and and also made just about as much sense.
Generally speaking, there's less crime in America than there has been for decades, but cops are "fearing for their safety" like it's 30 years ago.
No, not really. They are fearing for their life more like they're living in Grand Theft Auto, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and the society of Judge Dredd... all rolled into one.
They could quadruple the budget and somehow there still wouldn't be enough money to pay people to do this. DHS just wants to keep everything forever, and any promise to the contrary is nonsense.
Interviewer: Even though you have now secured this data, by giving it to another company to process and not ensuring that it would not be exposed you have basically screwed your customers.
So one might read this the government is good with Bots. But that's not really the case: the government's only good with comments that they agree with.
I bet they rated all the comments pro and con...and then just threw out the pros.
It isn't a matter of what he invented that is the issue, it's the breadth of his claims.
Let's put it into the context of electricity, which was discovered well before 1600 and commercialized by men such as Edison and Tesla. By 1936, when the Rural Electrification Administration was formed, most cities were already well electrified. This is a matter of historic record.
Now let's suppose an inventor was born in 1996 and in 2016 stuck iron and aluminum plates in a solution and showed that it produces electricity, inventing the iron-aluminum battery. Let's say it even has advantages and so he gets a well-deserved patent for it.
That patent would entitle him to exclusive manufacture and sale of any iron-aluminum battery.
But suppose the inventor goes beyond that and asserts that his patent covers all electricity. He demands that everyone must pay him who makes/sells electricity (Con Edison, Duke Energy); anyone who makes an electrical device (light bulbs, toasters); and anyone who uses electricity (the SuperDome, you). Well the breadth of that claim would be obvious bullshit, wouldn't it? And that inventor would be like Shiva..
In the lawsuit, Murray's evidence that this is false seems to focus on semantics and making fun of the MSHA inspectors...
But, by Murray's own standards, isn't this defamation of the MSHA inspectors?
Peter Thiel put his billions behind a lawsuit against Gawker on behalf of a third party. Seems to me that he set an example that Oliver might imitate: By filing a defamation lawsuit against Murray on behalf of the MSHA inspectors.
That would make at least as much sense as Murray's lawsit against Oliver. Very fine irony, too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Checked luggage is put in containers
You want to say so long as no one is directly affected by the explosion, all is good. You forget that, direct harm aside, the passengers are packed in a tin can with the explosion and its consequences; that the tin can is held up by air; and that many of the consequences of an explosion in the tin can result in it and the passengers impacting the ground at high speed.
And if the plane does crash, the fact that the explosion might not itself have directly harmed the passengers, is very moot.
Kill radius works on the ground, not so much airplanes. As a gross example, suppose an explosive charge blows the tail off the plane: that the passengers were outside the kill radius and therefore survived the explosion won't earn may brownie points after the subsequent 400 MPH vertical impact with the terrain.
It also isn't always explosion and fire that are direct causes of death. UPS Flight 6 was brought down by smoke from the cargo fire--no one died from the fire itself. In addition to toxic components of smoke (which can kill) airplanes operate in a hostile environment. Unplanned events (fire) can result in damage, which in turn results in death. Nine passengers of United Airlines Flight 811 died because a cargo door opened during flight. Hydraulics and electrical systems pass near the cargo area and can be damaged as well.
Removing a bomb or incendiary device to the cargo hold does not assure passenger safety, as it might in a building on the ground.
After watching DHS try to explain this, combined with it's likely meaninglessness as an anti-terrorism measure, I have concluded it has nothing to do with terrorism.
This measure is about checked bags.
A carry-on bag is free and checked bags cost $$$$. As a result, the travelling public saved money by stuffing their carry-on and forgoing checked bags.
(The last time I traveled, I shipped the stuff that wouldn't fit my carry-on by UPS...it was cheaper than a checked bag.)
This has hit the airline bottom line in two respects. First, they still have to have baggage handlers, even though fewer bags means less money to cover the cost. Second, the carry-on bags are now heavier: more fuel for free carriage.
What can the airlines do to counter this? Perhaps a law that a checked bag must be purchased? Such a law would be unlikely to pass Congress (unpopular).
So they asked big daddy DHS to make a rule. How to justify such a rule? What should it say? The first answer comes easy these days: "terrorism" justifies any rule whatsoever.
The second answer is tougher, because how do you justify forcing a traveler to pay for a checked bag--even with terrorism as your excuse? Electronics is the answer: almost every traveler carries a laptop, pad, camera, perhaps other devices. Call these devices weapons of terror...and then make a rule that any device bigger than a cellphone must be checked.
That is what DHS has done.
I have seen no reason to think there is any other meaningful justification for this rule. Watching DHS boss John Kelly stammer around, pretending this has a justification, other than airline greed, has only firmed my belief.
On the post: There Is Simply No Scientific Backing For TSA's Behavioral Detection Program
Snake oil
On the post: Terrible Ruling Allows Untied To Keep Its Domain But Not Its Soul
Re: Awesome ruling! ... for big business.
"My site doesn't handle complaints. It handles criticism."
On the post: $89 Billion AT&T, Time Warner Merger Approval Looking Likely Despite Trump Pledge To Block Deal
What conditions?
...AT&T's conversations with antitrust officials have shifted from whether the deal will be approved to finalizing what, if any conditions...
...AT&T will have to ignore after the deal is completed.
On the post: DOJ Forfeiture Directive Gives Local Law Enforcement A Chance To Dodge State Reform Efforts
(3) at the same time as a seizure of contraband relevant to the forfeiture,
The theory behind this type of forfeiture is that the money is an instrument of a crime and therefore contraband. Therefore this amounts to a self-justifying statement.
On the post: San Diego Comic Con Gets Gag Order On Salt Lake Comic Con
Why not Google?
It appears the vast majority of those 200,000 are... because the Associated Press wrote about the case and it has 160,000 distribution partners.
I have a tip for them: if they had just searched Google for "SDCC lawsuit", the 607,000 matches would have been much more impressive and and also made just about as much sense.
On the post: De-Escalation Works, But US Law Enforcement Hasn't Show Much Interest In Trying It
Re: While tragic, Minnesota was not really a case about escalation...
No, the case is about absence of de-escalation.
On the post: De-Escalation Works, But US Law Enforcement Hasn't Show Much Interest In Trying It
Now THAT'S fear
Generally speaking, there's less crime in America than there has been for decades, but cops are "fearing for their safety" like it's 30 years ago.
No, not really. They are fearing for their life more like they're living in Grand Theft Auto, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and the society of Judge Dredd... all rolled into one.
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Re: Re: Seems like a problem
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Seems like a problem
Wagner says the agency has no plans to retain the biometric data of U.S. citizens and will delete all scans of them within 14 days.
So Mr. Wagner answer me this: who's going to go through all those pictures and decide who is a US citizen and who isn't? In 14 days?
Right. So it looks like you be keeping those bit longer, huh?
On the post: Private Data Of 6 Million Verizon Users Left Openly Accessible On The Internet
Satisfied customers
Verizon: But now they should be satisfied.
On the post: 'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality
Conclusions
I bet they rated all the comments pro and con...and then just threw out the pros.
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re: Pot and kettle
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re: Look at it this way
Obviously that justifies the on-the-spot execution of anyone who has a permit and a joint!
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Let's put it into the context of electricity, which was discovered well before 1600 and commercialized by men such as Edison and Tesla. By 1936, when the Rural Electrification Administration was formed, most cities were already well electrified. This is a matter of historic record.
Now let's suppose an inventor was born in 1996 and in 2016 stuck iron and aluminum plates in a solution and showed that it produces electricity, inventing the iron-aluminum battery. Let's say it even has advantages and so he gets a well-deserved patent for it.
That patent would entitle him to exclusive manufacture and sale of any iron-aluminum battery.
But suppose the inventor goes beyond that and asserts that his patent covers all electricity. He demands that everyone must pay him who makes/sells electricity (Con Edison, Duke Energy); anyone who makes an electrical device (light bulbs, toasters); and anyone who uses electricity (the SuperDome, you). Well the breadth of that claim would be obvious bullshit, wouldn't it? And that inventor would be like Shiva..
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Pot and kettle
But, by Murray's own standards, isn't this defamation of the MSHA inspectors?
Peter Thiel put his billions behind a lawsuit against Gawker on behalf of a third party. Seems to me that he set an example that Oliver might imitate: By filing a defamation lawsuit against Murray on behalf of the MSHA inspectors.
That would make at least as much sense as Murray's lawsit against Oliver. Very fine irony, too.
On the post: Proposed DHS Rules May Cause The Deaths They Claim To Prevent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Checked luggage is put in containers
And if the plane does crash, the fact that the explosion might not itself have directly harmed the passengers, is very moot.
On the post: Proposed DHS Rules May Cause The Deaths They Claim To Prevent
Re: Re: Checked luggage is put in containers
It also isn't always explosion and fire that are direct causes of death. UPS Flight 6 was brought down by smoke from the cargo fire--no one died from the fire itself. In addition to toxic components of smoke (which can kill) airplanes operate in a hostile environment. Unplanned events (fire) can result in damage, which in turn results in death. Nine passengers of United Airlines Flight 811 died because a cargo door opened during flight. Hydraulics and electrical systems pass near the cargo area and can be damaged as well.
Removing a bomb or incendiary device to the cargo hold does not assure passenger safety, as it might in a building on the ground.
On the post: Proposed DHS Rules May Cause The Deaths They Claim To Prevent
DHS: Checked bags now MANDATORY
This measure is about checked bags.
A carry-on bag is free and checked bags cost $$$$. As a result, the travelling public saved money by stuffing their carry-on and forgoing checked bags.
(The last time I traveled, I shipped the stuff that wouldn't fit my carry-on by UPS...it was cheaper than a checked bag.)
This has hit the airline bottom line in two respects. First, they still have to have baggage handlers, even though fewer bags means less money to cover the cost. Second, the carry-on bags are now heavier: more fuel for free carriage.
What can the airlines do to counter this? Perhaps a law that a checked bag must be purchased? Such a law would be unlikely to pass Congress (unpopular).
So they asked big daddy DHS to make a rule. How to justify such a rule? What should it say? The first answer comes easy these days: "terrorism" justifies any rule whatsoever.
The second answer is tougher, because how do you justify forcing a traveler to pay for a checked bag--even with terrorism as your excuse? Electronics is the answer: almost every traveler carries a laptop, pad, camera, perhaps other devices. Call these devices weapons of terror...and then make a rule that any device bigger than a cellphone must be checked.
That is what DHS has done.
I have seen no reason to think there is any other meaningful justification for this rule. Watching DHS boss John Kelly stammer around, pretending this has a justification, other than airline greed, has only firmed my belief.
On the post: Strike Three: Lexmark Can't Use Patents, Trademarks Or Copyright To Block Third Party Ink Cartridges
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>