Not only would 'live' ammunition violate the rules of the convention they're being sold at*, it also complicates immensely the various stricture around buying, selling, transporting, etc.
Plus, it could lead to liability if someone fiddled around with it and managed to drill in and set off the charge.
NO personal firearms or ammunition allowed. Only firearms on display by exhibitors whose firing pins have been removed (and have been inspected by SHOT Show Safety Advisors) will be permitted on the show floor.
Snowden keeping company with Ellsberg is a cheering thought; if anyone can give him advice on his situation, it's probably Ellsberg. In addition, as someone in the same situation and having been thoroughly vindicated, his voice could have a louder effect.
Perhaps some principle-minded New Mexicans might hold a good old-fashioned sign-holding stint outside the hospital in question.
"Is willing to repeatedly anally violate patients based on bogus law enforcement requests" might be a good start.
Might hit the hospital administration a bit - probably not enough to get them to deal appropriately with the doctors in question and ensure a lack of a repeat, but it might help.
Do it enough and other hospitals in the area might also take note.
Particularly as the warrant was actually not valid for the time and location of the hospital that did the procedure (was in a different county, I think?).
Actually, that *may* open the officers up to false arrest charges once he expressed his unwillingness to undergo the "medical" procedures... as it was under authority that was not being exercised in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Federal agents are probably a wash... but suing the specific theatre employees (almost certainly a manager or owner) for false arrest is almost certainly an option (uncertain if the local prosecutor would go through with criminal charges of false arrest).
If the answer is yes, skip down to third question.
If the answer is no, then second question - "Am I free to go?"
If the answer is yes, then get up and leave; ignore whatever "... but BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU" is going to be added on. If those bad things can legitimately be done to you, they will be regardless of what you do; if they are law enforcement, they are indeed quite free to make empty promises to get some kind of confession.
If the answer is no, then third question - "Under what authority are you detaining me?" or "Specifically what agency are you working for?"
If the answer is not an agency with law enforcement powers, attempt to leave. If barred, note that preventing you from leaving constitutes false imprisonment. In some jurisdictions, if they forcibly move you to a different location (such as an office), then that can technically count as kidnapping*. False imprisonment can generally result in both criminal and civil complaints.
*I am not a lawyer, so this is my layman's understanding.
... from the members of the lobbying organizations, please; I know of a number of artists who hawk CDs and mp3s of their work directly on their youtube channels, for example.
Mission Impossible was on last night, so I will use that as a simple example.
the budget for that movie was $80 million dollars, the only way that money would be made available to make that movie is with the expectation that they will be able to earn AT LEAST THAT, and then some on the cost of making the movie.
if Paramount Pictures did not have some protection on that investment in the form of copyright, to help ensure at lest the cost of the movie is covered, then IT WOULD NOT GET MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE....
simple as that, reduce copyright to 30 minutes and see what happens, it would be the day all quality content ceased to be created.
A quick search couldn't get the box office returns for Mission Impossible, so I'll settle for #3's wikipedia entry.
"As of February 11, 2007, M:I-III's international box office gross has reached $263.8 million, for a combined worldwide gross of $397.9 million, the lowest so far of the series."
... so MI therefore made over 400 million in theatres. With a cost of 80 million, that's a 500% return on investment. *Clearly*, a single-year copyright period is sufficient for movies (/sarcasm).
Bullshit, no they are not, Mr Masnick what have you created in terms of content ? Made any movies recently? anything... (did not think so). false premise as usual.
... considering that you're commenting on an article written by the man... ummm.... I hate to break it to you...
That's content. The stuff I wrote this morning in a collaborative story? That's content. The rather mediocre teenage poetry I wrote a decade and a half ago? That's content (not very *good* content, of course, but it is content).
Your post, even, is content. It's not very *much* content, so as a practical matter it's as if it wasn't covered by copyright, but conceptually it is. John Cage's 4'33" (four and a half minutes of silence) is content... although that one I really find somewhat silly (it resulted in a successful copyright lawsuit).
BTW, the FISC membership is comprised of practicing federal judges who, in addition to their regular duties as judges presiding at locations all over the United States, are required on a rotating basis to travel to DC to preside over requests that a warrant issue. I mention this only because it seems many appear to believe in error that these judges sit only of the FISC.
... all appointed by the same guy (the Chief Justice), and the recent statements rubbishing the possibility of an adversarial role in the court, a broader source of members etc is somewhat dismaying.
Will Snowden meet the age requirement for President next election cycle? If so, I'm requesting a write in ballot.
Nope: he's 30 (Now I'm feeling old...), so you'll have to wait until 2020.
And, hell, unless he does something massively inappropriate within the next six years or a really remarkably candidate arises... I'm seriously thinking I might write him in for that election. To my mind he's demonstrated an attachment to principles and a willingness to sacrifice from himself that I appreciate in a chief executive.
That it would make heads explode all up and down the NSA's ranks would be a nice bonus, too...
On the post: TSA To Gun Show Attendees: Don't Think You're Getting On Board With Your Bullet-Encased-In-Acrylic Keychains
Re: Re:
Not only would 'live' ammunition violate the rules of the convention they're being sold at*, it also complicates immensely the various stricture around buying, selling, transporting, etc.
Plus, it could lead to liability if someone fiddled around with it and managed to drill in and set off the charge.
So I would genuinely take that bet.
*from http://www.shotshow.org/attendees/policies/
On the post: Police Officers' Lawyer Claims Being Tased Is Hilarious
Re: Re:
That doesn't seem to be an obstacle for it lowering though...
On the post: Dianne Feinstein Won't Let Declassified Facts Get In The Way Of Defending 'Professional' NSA Personnel
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why are we talking about Feinstein and Rogers again? :-p
On the post: Before Snowden, Nixon Admin Pioneered Evidence-Free 'Russian Spy' Smears Against Daniel Ellsberg
On the post: Man Subjected To Multiple Rectal Searches And Enemas By Police Officers Receives $1.6 Million Settlement
"Is willing to repeatedly anally violate patients based on bogus law enforcement requests" might be a good start.
Might hit the hospital administration a bit - probably not enough to get them to deal appropriately with the doctors in question and ensure a lack of a repeat, but it might help.
Do it enough and other hospitals in the area might also take note.
On the post: Man Subjected To Multiple Rectal Searches And Enemas By Police Officers Receives $1.6 Million Settlement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that *may* open the officers up to false arrest charges once he expressed his unwillingness to undergo the "medical" procedures... as it was under authority that was not being exercised in the appropriate jurisdiction.
On the post: MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie
Re: "Briefly Interviewed"
On the post: MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie
Re: ICE
Think of the safety of our hard-working patriotic men and women in the ICE...
On the post: MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie
Re:
On the post: MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie
Re: Re: Re:
And as soon as they detained, then they *personally* are vulnerable to criminal and civil charges of false detainment/false arrest.
Hell, if they claim to be making a citizen's arrest, that doesn't protect them *personally* from the aforementioned charges.
On the post: Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Papers please.
On the post: Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]
Re: Papers please.
First question - "Am I being detained?"
If the answer is yes, skip down to third question.
If the answer is no, then second question - "Am I free to go?"
If the answer is yes, then get up and leave; ignore whatever "... but BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU" is going to be added on. If those bad things can legitimately be done to you, they will be regardless of what you do; if they are law enforcement, they are indeed quite free to make empty promises to get some kind of confession.
If the answer is no, then third question - "Under what authority are you detaining me?" or "Specifically what agency are you working for?"
If the answer is not an agency with law enforcement powers, attempt to leave. If barred, note that preventing you from leaving constitutes false imprisonment. In some jurisdictions, if they forcibly move you to a different location (such as an office), then that can technically count as kidnapping*. False imprisonment can generally result in both criminal and civil complaints.
*I am not a lawyer, so this is my layman's understanding.
On the post: Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]
Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E
And draw your attention to 1:57 :-p
On the post: Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]
Re: Simple solution:
... from the members of the lobbying organizations, please; I know of a number of artists who hawk CDs and mp3s of their work directly on their youtube channels, for example.
On the post: 2014 Federal Spending Bill Contains Demands For Transparency On NSA Surveillance Programs
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, and...
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re: #27
A quick search couldn't get the box office returns for Mission Impossible, so I'll settle for #3's wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission:_Impossible_III#Box_office
... so MI therefore made over 400 million in theatres. With a cost of 80 million, that's a 500% return on investment. *Clearly*, a single-year copyright period is sufficient for movies (/sarcasm).
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re: #24
... considering that you're commenting on an article written by the man... ummm.... I hate to break it to you...
That's content. The stuff I wrote this morning in a collaborative story? That's content. The rather mediocre teenage poetry I wrote a decade and a half ago? That's content (not very *good* content, of course, but it is content).
Your post, even, is content. It's not very *much* content, so as a practical matter it's as if it wasn't covered by copyright, but conceptually it is. John Cage's 4'33" (four and a half minutes of silence) is content... although that one I really find somewhat silly (it resulted in a successful copyright lawsuit).
On the post: Growing Number Of People Agree That Ed Snowden Is A Whistleblower
Re: Re: Re:
... all appointed by the same guy (the Chief Justice), and the recent statements rubbishing the possibility of an adversarial role in the court, a broader source of members etc is somewhat dismaying.
On the post: 53 Years To The Day That Eisenhower Warned Of The Military-Industrial Complex, Obama Will Further Its Cause
Re:
Snowden 2020? :-p
On the post: The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted
Re:
Nope: he's 30 (Now I'm feeling old...), so you'll have to wait until 2020.
And, hell, unless he does something massively inappropriate within the next six years or a really remarkably candidate arises... I'm seriously thinking I might write him in for that election. To my mind he's demonstrated an attachment to principles and a willingness to sacrifice from himself that I appreciate in a chief executive.
That it would make heads explode all up and down the NSA's ranks would be a nice bonus, too...
Next >>