There has also been some research with using stem cells from various sources to treat the particular ailment I have somehow acquired, age-related dry macular degeneration. There have been some clinical trials that show improvements in vision capability for those who had severe degradations, and I personally hope this avenue is developed successfully before I can qualify for one of the 'severely impaired' studies. Of course, if there's no big profit potential in it, it doesn't seem too likely the new Pfizer will be pushing it.
It seems clear that the Court is basically going to reinforce what has been a truth about the United States justice system for many years. You are entitled to the best justice money can buy, unless the justice system seizes all your money, in which case good luck. Clearly this is designed to encourage criminals to either spend all their money or hide it in offshore havens where the government can't identify it and seize it, even when the money is the result of legal activities. Is this a program by the government to encourage the use of offshore secret bank accounts by anyone with money at all...?
Ok, so I left my laptop on the seat, and the cops opened up the car and 'saved' if from being stolen. But while they were in there without a warrant "caretaking", they saw my stash sticking out from under the seat... what happens? I was sitting in my living room when the cops walked in the door, "caretaking" without a warrant... I was watching Fox "News" and cleaning my guns, which I happen to have a machine gun, not registered of course. The cops saw my gun collection and expressed interest... What happens now?
I can see a lot of problems with the proposed ordinance besides just "attracting a lot of unanticipated press coverage." Like voiding a big part of the Constitution. How long before some police agency somewhere tries this again?
You're not being quite fair to Comcast. They truly are competing. In my area, Silicon Valley, they are offering gigabyte and faster speeds. They are quite competitive, you only have to pay about 3x as much as Google Fiber for installation and the monthly cost is only about $300. What's not competitive about that? Surely there's no need for intrusive government regulation in this 'free' market. Relying on competition or corporate shame for internet access speed improvements is just not going to work. Because there's essentially no competition nor does a corporation like Comcast even know what 'shame' is.
"AT&T insists there's no way it could possibly impose aggressive caps because customers would leave AT&T". They're right, of course. I have the Uverse and while I haven't hit the 250GB cap, I am just hanging on waiting for Google Fiber to come, then I will be out of AT&T as fast as I can. Sure, I could go to the 'competition' right now... unfortunately 'the competition' is Comcast - need I say more?
I'm sure Sen. Corker has nothing to hide... so he should have no problem with the government and the rest of the country learning all about him. After all, privacy is overrated when it comes in the way of fighting "Terrorists". So perhaps we should let all of Sen. Corker's most personal information, financial, personal, health, employment, everything get out in public as well as in the hands of the government. After all, once the government has all our data its just one breach away from that kind of 'freedom and safety' for all of us.
No No No No No. I'm not wearing ID on my forehead, and I don't want the government tracking my license plate and my travels constantly either. With probable cause, with a duly authorized warrant, OK, track away, just that person. Scan and discard for everyone else. We're going to end up all wearing masks because that's the only way to preserve privacy in the age of face-recognition programs. I don't feel safer knowing that the government is tracking my every move, and the travels of everyone else. No No No No No.
Speaking for myself personally, Google Fiber can't get to my neighborhood fast enough (and it actually should, Santa Clara, CA is 'on the list' supposedly). My alternatives are AT&T or Comcast (see FCC?! There really -is- "competition" in broadband... not!). A Comcast not-nearly 1GB connection would be three or four times the cost Google is charging... clearly Google must be dumping, it couldn't possibly a case of Comcast or AT&T overcharging. Look at that competition! The broadband internet industry in this country is shameful, and the way the big players have treated consumers is classically monopolistic/oligopolistic, they deserve everything the FCC will do to them and more.
Here's a TSA supervisor who isn't satisfied with having a job where he literally just has to go through the motions. This guy has a little authority complex, he's pretty full of himself and his sacred mission to protect the public through wasting their time and mild harrassment. He over-reacts, probably because he's only marginally qualified to do his job in the first place. Now, after he's harrassed and annoyed a law-abiding citizen, and been found wrong, the agencies involved, who hired this unqualified person, are getting sued. The agencies will settle, they can't risk a full loss in a court, and the cost of operating the agencies will be a little higher, with our taxes paying. The moron who cost all of us the settlement, like so many other 'officers of the law' who behave this way, may or may not be fired, but either way -he- won't be paying the settlement, we will. I don't begrudge Vanderklok his settlement, he should never have been harrassed and delayed as he was by this idiot abusing his authority. But I do think that Kieser should be paying the settlement, for as long as it takes, he should be paying back the government and we taxpayers for his stupidity.
Since Snowden, the NSA has been very open and cooperative. Of course, they haven't actually *changed* anything they were doing, nor do they plan to... they just figure that now everyone knows about it, even though they can't do anything about it anyway. Of course, if directly instructed to quit doing something, the NSA would be very responsive and cooperative, say "Of course, we'll stop right away!". And then they would just keep right on doing whatever they want to. What better secrecy is there than doing everything in plain sight, and just ignoring any contrary instructions...? It may or may not affect the efficacy or value of these invasive illegal programs, but the NSA doesn't care. They get the money to keep their bureaucracy growing and feeding whether the output of all their programs has any usefulness or not... and that's what is most important to any bureaucracy. The NSA is a force unto itself, and not subject to the control of the civilian authorities. Witness the ability of its head to outright lie to Congress, its ostensible civilian leadership, without penalty or censure. Since everything is secret, anything and nothing is being done, and whatever may or may not be being done is legal, whether it is or not. Kafka would appreciate it...
Because I live right here, I could just go over to Google HQ and throw the money in the front door... unfortunately, my choices are Comcast (need I say more) or even slower, maybe slightly better service AT&T. No monopoly there, eh? For $60 a month I get 'up to' 12Mbps downstream DSL. Google can't come to San Jose fast enough for me!
Sure wireless is competitive! There's more than one seller, more than one company, so by definition its competition. Of course, they don't compete on price, service, quality, coverage, geography, or innovation. But they do compete a lot, really. Not a day goes by that I don't get a mailing from AT&T or Verizon, asking me to switch to them or upgrade. All the services, coverage, and prices are more or less identical, crappy, and much too expensive, but hey, they're fighting for my business every day.
If I were a terrorist, I'd sure be interested in signing on with this department. What better cover than a badge - and 'legal' approval to carry a gun (maybe I should keep and AK in my trunk, in case I need more firepower...). So, this expanded "police" force is a perfect cover to terrorists looking to infiltrate and covertly get into position to cause major attacks. What kind of background checks are done, other than checking to make sure the $1200 check doesn't bounce? After all, if they let a lawyer sign up, they apparently will accept almost anyone. Maybe we should let the FBI or NSA know about these guys, they look a lot like a 'home-grown' terrorist organization to me.
They brought this on themselves. I'm for it, how about it, programmers? Get on it... and make sure the code is public, so it can be vetted for NSA backdoors. Make them work a little, go back to basic 'tradecraft' instead of electronic haystack building and sifting.
You're just upset because -you- don't make the laws. When you can afford a few legislators, and can tailor the laws to your own personal benefit, then this isn't a problem. So clearly, the problem isn't erosion of human rights directly, its erosion of -your- human rights because you aren't wealthy enough or gifted enough (meaning 'gifted' literally) to have laws tilt in your favor. Were you employed in the security-industrial complex, you'd clearly feel that you can never be too safe, and that a frightened population is an easily managed population. Enough of freedom, keep the public scared and you keep yourself in power.
"Warrantless seizures are only permitted if an officer has probable cause to believe that the property “holds contraband or evidence of a crime” and “the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present.”
Well, there you go then. Clearly the police on the scene, having just been participants in a crime, abuse of authority at the least, are seizing the "evidence of [that] a crime" and are in the clear on this. After all, what's the point of being a cop, abusing your authority, and not being able to deny the public the ability to review your conduct. The badge in these cases becomes more like an invisibility cloak, because if there's no solid evidence some official abuse happened, its very near the same as if the event never happened. No proof, no case, and cops are very well aware of that fact.
The only thing left are words like "the" and "are". And, of course, "terrorists". Because along with everything that could possible give "the terrorists" any clue at all to what we know about what they are doing (hint, little enough that isn't already obvious) both parties needed to redact everything that might lead to the embarrasing conclusion that neither the CIA nor the White House has a clue what they are doing about "the terrorists" besides blowing up everything that sort of looks like "a terrorist" from a drone. Political expediency and preventing political embarassment are the primary factors at work guiding this redaction exercise. Perhaps Feinstein will find (with both hands...?) the political courage to 'leak' the unredacted version. A shame it doesn't slip out somehow, anyway.