The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the citizens of the US. To an extent it recognizes rights all people are considered to have (insert caveats about the time of the founding fathers), but primarily it specifies and limits the powers of the federal government. For example, the 1st doesn't say that US citizens have the right to freedom of religion, speech and assembly, it says the government may not make any laws abridging such rights.
the guy is a Canadian citizen. The CBP of America has no oath or obligation to observe his rights.
The Bill of Rights does not apply only to US citizens. Since the fourth is most relevant to this discussion:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You could argue that "the people" means the citizens of this country, but I think that's misguided.
If we expect aliens to obey our laws, aliens should be able to expect that we will obey our Constitution when we investigate, prosecute, and punish them.
I'm sure you wouldn't say a foreign national visiting the US has no obligation to obey US law while here. Why, then, do we not have an obligation to obey US law when dealing with him or her?
I'm amused to learn this automatically means I work in the field
That's a logic fail. He said "Understand [sic] how microphones... works, is very much part of being an Audio Technician". So if p (one is an audio technician) then q (one understands microphones). This does not imply that if q then p.
Hell, I've wondered if the Republicans would have been semi-ok with ACA if the damn thing was designed to actually work.
The main idea of the ACA originated from conservatives (specifically the Heritage Foundation). If it had been proposed under a Republican president presumably the Republicans would have been all over it. Literally the reason the Republicans hate it so much is because it was put forward by Democrats.
instead they'll be able to focus entirely on 'How can we squeeze the most money from the saps we've got signed up with us, for the least amount of effort on our part?'
That's step 1. If that goes well, step 2 is figuring out if they can get the state to just pay them and not bother with actually serving customers at all. Not sure if they could actually get that done but I wouldn't put it past them to try.
For all their talk of how much they hate Obama and won't go along with anything he does, this kind of thing would seem like a prime candidate for somewhere to take a stand. No Mr. President, you cannot decide for us what our use of force authorization means and if you keep doing it we will hold impeachment hearings.
I guess they're afraid of being painted as "soft on terrorism"?
In short, heavy compression is the same as reducing resolution, because it throws away details.
That's lossy compression. There is lossless compression which results in (as the name suggests) no loss of detail. Now whether a particular video can be compressed enough for a particular use case with a lossless encoder is a different question.
Yeah, I mean corporations with little to no competition and no regulation generally are super favorable to their customers, with low prices, great customer service and high quality products and services. Let's take away all the rules, I'm sure it will turn out great. "Monopoly" is Latin for "good for customers" right?