BTW, is driving with tinted like that windows legal in Frisco?
I am not that familiar with Texas motor vehicle laws, but I suspect like other states, it is only illegal for commoners. Police officers, commercial vehicle operators (taxi/private transportation,) and government officials are likely exempt either by the law or by professional courtesy.
Someone holding up a sign warning of a speed trap, or a person who has purchased a radar detector?
Radar Detectors are legal in most states (Washington DC and Vermont being the two exceptions.) Radar Jammers are illegal federally and Laser Jammers in quite a few states.
If your radar detector only receives signals and alerts you, it is perfectly safe to have except in those two places. The problem is that some of the devices out there called radar detectors do some sort of jamming, where they send signals back to the radar device that attempt to confuse it.
yep, there are always idiotic cowards willing to give away my freedoms and security
FTFY. There is absolutely no security value to stopping these things, even if they are real bullets (with powder and priming cap, which is highly doubtful since I am quite sure the manufacturer who applies the acrylic doesn't want anything to do with live bullets when subjected to hot acrylic,) and the only security danger posed by stopping a whole line of travelers at the TSA checkpoint over this is the added risk of having a large number of people in a kill-zone for an extended period of time.
If you really have a problem with them in luggage, treat them like full water bottles and snow-globes (or cupcakes) and have the traveler leave the line to find a post office to send the item, or throw it away.
Logic and reason...the TSA has proven time and time again they have neither of these skills.
I wonder if any of the 22 people formerly known as "defendant" have recourse to punishing Prince for the suits.
IANAL, but from what I understand listening to Ken @ PopeHat / DTD / FCT all these years, they only could if they already responded to the complaint. I am pretty sure most of them were still looking for lawyers or may not have even been aware yet that they were being sued.
I think this is the key. If you're starting new OR you have an older phone, T-Mobile is more expensive.
I bought my phone from Amazon, at a significantly cheaper price than what T-Mobile or Best Buy wanted for the phone, and had no problem bringing it in to T-Mobile. I already was using them for a data card so I already had an account. The only problem is that AT&T phones and T-Mobile phones aren't entirely compatible, so you have to be real careful to buy a phone that is compatible with T-Mobile (they use different frequencies for their high speed data, but the phone and 2G frequencies are shared.)
If the phone you acquire is decent enough, it probably makes sense to switch to T-Mobile at the end of the subsidy.
It is NEVER cheaper to buy the phone, either on subsidy or otherwise, directly from the vendor. This is basic capitalism. When dealing with a monopoly, you will lose every time.
The economics clearly don't work out to start with T-Mobile.
I disagree. The cost of their service is half of what I paid for AT&T. I had a bill for one phone, discounted through my employer, for $130 a month (for 4GB of data, voice and text.) I am now paying exactly the same for a cell phone (unlimited everything* - but they do cap high speed, though I've never seen it) AND a data device (4.5GB per month.) Several surveys have shown that the average price for T-Mobile is below AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint.
I don't have anything to do with T-Mobile other than being their customer (and I have contracts with their competitors too,) and I've been quite happy with them.
The only reason the NSA found out was because of whistleblowers.
The only way the DoJ found out was because of whistleblowers. Again, the NSA has nothing to do with this story other than they had a contractor who was reviewed by USIS and then allegedly blew the whistle on NSA (we all know he did, the allegedly is clearly here for legal reasons.)
That and also clearing the Navy Yards shooter, who was clearly having mental issues, and the dozen or so Federal employees with financial conflicts such as not paying their taxes for a number of years.
the article doesn't say whether the whistle was blown or whether it was a result of a subpoena.
Oops...missed that part. From the article:
The civil lawsuit was filed by the Justice Department under the False Claims Act. The department adopted claims previously made under seal by Blake Percival, identified as the director of Fieldwork Services at USIS between 2001 and 2011. The suit accuses the company of filing false claims, making false statements and breach of contract.
Percival originally filed a whistleblower lawsuit in 2011 alleging that the Northern Virginia-based firm expedited checks in bulk using the “Blue Zone” software on checks that were never actually performed, according to the DOJ complaint.
I was thinking something along those same lines. How exactly did they get the "internal USIS documents"?
I suspect, based on my very limited experience here, the DoJ discovered a bunch of questionable background investigations and decided to subpoena the company for any internal documents relating to the process of performing background checks. The company, instead of pulling a Enron (shredding the documents,) decided it was in their best interest to come clean and cooperate (especially, since, they say that all of the employees involved have been fired or no longer work for the company.) It is entirely possible that someone within the company blew the whistle, but not necessarily so (the article doesn't say whether the whistle was blown or whether it was a result of a subpoena.)
So taking internal documents that show impropriety from an entity and then releasing them to expose that impropriety is okay when the entity is someone else but when someone takes their documents to prove their impropriety, then they get pissed and want him murdered for it.
I see where you are coming from, but at least in this place it can be that they didn't actually release them, but they were attached to a subpoena which is public records as part of a court case. The civil lawsuit was already filed against the USIS by the DoJ in Alabama, and except in certain cases, most lawsuits and their associated documentation are available to the public.
NSA never heard of the old saying "Trust, but verify?"
Sadly, the NSA has nothing to do with this, other than having one known contractor who was vetted by USIS (as well as the Navy Yards shooter.)
USIS was a contractor for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which performs background checks required for security clearances for *ALL* Federal employees (including those who work at the NSA.) [Source NBC Article linked to above.]
I do admit there will be an increase in accidents - due to lack of training and inconsistent implementation.
Actually, the increase of accidents are more likely caused by greed than training or implementation. If red-light cameras were designed to make T-Bone accidents a thing of the past, then the predominant use of Red-Light cameras on Left and Right turn lanes, where a T-Bone accident is nearly impossible (accidents may occur in both cases, but T-Bone accidents are far less likely,) kinda blows out that argument. Red-light cameras on left/right turn lanes are about getting as much money as possible, not preventing T-Bone accidents.
The 'conflict of interest' goes away when it's run by the local gov't or are you saying there's a conflict of interest in cops doing their jobs too?
There was very much a conflict of interest when the companies ran the cameras themselves. If the goal was to reduce accidents, and get paid enough to continue to operate the cameras, then one of the two goals must take priority over the other since the two are mutually exclusive. You can't continue to make money if you reduce accidents.
Which is also why they forced (through contract) cities to reduce the yellow light times, increase the fines, and prohibited other life-saving mechanisms from being used which competed with the red-light cameras.
It is also why they implemented snitch tickets and worded the letter sent to violators in such a way as to reduce fighting of the ticket ("we have you on camera, now pay up!" "If you go to court and fight this ticket, it will end up costing you far more than the low low cost of $1000 per violation we are charging you now...") Most of the letters were sent from the company in question, and there were, for some time, questions as to whether a police officer actually reviewed the evidence (and in some cases, tickets were actually dismissed because the judge felt it was obvious that a police officer hadn't reviewed the evidence first.)
There are so many better ways of stopping accidents, such as spot enforcement, redesigning intersections or fixing timing on the lights, all-red, and even simple stuff like putting a sign or a police car (with nobody in it,) at an intersection.
I have several R/C copters, and as much as I joke around about them being my drone army -- you both are right -- these aren't drones. These R/C copters can go maybe 300-400 feet before they lose signal and become ballistic (some of the more expensive ones can go far longer distances.) They are fun to play with at our 2600 meets, but don't have much usage for surveillance (even the ones with cameras.) We used them to look into windows of businesses in the area during one of our meets, but the biggest difficulty was flying them around cell towers (which would interrupt their signal,) and they would plummet to the Earth rather violently.
No, falsely pretending to be a cop or city official does not confer federal jurisdiction over the case.
I didn't mean that (and the justice.gov website I pointed to pretty much says the same thing that I said.) What I meant was that a cop or city official pretending to act in an official capacity, would meet the nexus. If I, as a government official (if I was one,) knew that I didn't have the authority, but used my position as a government authority to deprive you of your civil rights, I'd be pretending to act in an official capacity. A person off the street pretending to be a cop would not be acting under the color of the law, and would be in serious trouble for impersonating a government official in most jurisdictions.
I'd think the lawyer, at a minimum, would know how to get out of jury duty if he wanted to. And it's not like stupid people are known for being able to get through med school.
A lawyer -- actually, a federal prosecutor -- once told me, "A lawyer on the jury leads to a quick victory or defeat. Two lawyers on the jury leads to a mistrial."
Whether or not that is true, I don't know, but considering this lawyer had about 35 years of experience as a federal prosecutor, I am willing to believe it. She explained that most jurors will defer to the lawyer's opinion, just because of their experience with the law, and will end up siding with them quickly to get the process over (because hell, a lawyer should know the law.) I am not entirely why two lawyers would lead to a mistrial, but I suspect it had something to do with playing the devil's advocate or the chance that at least one of them would be a defense lawyer.
Now whether or not that occurred in this case, I have no idea, since I wasn't there.
No, what Google was doing was capturing data that was knowingly and willingly being broadcast.
The Federal Appeals Court specifically said (in a stupid and completely devoid of reality ruling, I might add,) that Google was liable because unsecure wifi hotspots are not radio communications which are readily accessible to the general public and thus listening to the broadcasted signal was wiretapping.