It doesn't matter. The ruling came down. "We the people" won. This should put us a step closer back to the "right" way of things--the government afraid of it's people, instead of the other way around.
The argument that was being made by pro-gun-elimination advocates was that the Constitution supposedly meant that a militia had the right to bear arms, but "the people" didn't. The problem there is that militias are usually controlled by the local governments (or they're declared terrorists and infiltrated and destroyed), which are controlled by the etc etc. Being that this section was put in there specifically because we'd just shed the British from our soil--and needed a lot of guns to do it--their "people shouldn't have guns" viewpoint would make the 2nd Amendment less than useless.
The Supreme Court very rightly decided that the only sane interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was that it was there to make sure that individuals could bear arms in order to be able to fight back against their government, should circumstances make this necessary.
This is especially important stuff since we've got King George in the White House. I'm still not wholly convinced he's actually letting go in November. I certainly don't want to see anyone get shot, but a few hundred thousand people showing up in DC asking politely with guns for him to leave office would probably not be such a bad thing.
Gosh, guess which area has a strict "you can't have a gun" policy.
"Business Tries Debit Cards Instead of Pay Checks" says the title.
The problem here is that the majority of places using them are doing so because their employees can't get a bank account that they can deposit checks into. (...and let's try not to think about the privacy issues involved)
This happens for a few reasons, bad credit being one, bouncing a lot of checks being another, and a big new one... no legal residence because they're illegal aliens. (It's not real hard to have one bank refuse to give you a checking account, and if they won't give you a checking account you're not getting a debit card account either, as at least one user here I know of has found out in the past. Once one bank hits this point, none of them will touch you.)
These pay card arrangements let banks cash in on the easy money that the financially disadvantaged would otherwise have been giving to those shifty check cashing shops which charge pretty sizable percentages. ...because if you use these cards at an ATM, well, you're probably not really a member of any bank, so you're going to be paying that two-dollar-and-higher fee to the ATM vendor every time. This can easily be as much as 10-15% of someone's income getting eaten in fees trying to get the money back out of that card.
One can argue that they don't have to use an ATM, but the fact of the matter is that they do use them just like most them don't have to use the pay-day advance services and check into cash shops, but they still do. Bad decision-making (and it doesn't even have to be seriously bad decisions, just mildly bad ones will do) coupled with unrealistic depictions of how things should work by amoral businesses is how many of these people got the low financial tier in the first place. That people use them not knowing exactly what kind of mess they're getting themselves into is how these places have been consistently coming up with 700% and higher returns on their investments.
Another big plus for the businesses is that if they write a check, the moment the employee deposits it the money leaves the bank the employer is using and probably doesn't come back. Giving employees a debit card allows the financial institution to just hang onto that money for that much longer--especially in the case of people who can't get a "real" bank account.
But hey, I guess it should be considered progressive that now large financial institutions can tap into the same heady revenue sources that were previously only the domain of sleazebags and loan sharks. The poor may not have much money, but they are the overwhelming majority case, and they're a lot easier to bilk than the rich.
Jack Thompson Walks Out on His Own Disbarment Hearing
Topic: Video Games
9:20 pm EDT, Jun 4, 2008
Wow! Even more lunacy.
Today (June 4th) Jack Thompson--Asshat Lawyer Extraordinaire--actually walked out on his own disbarment hearing, after discovering that the overseer in the case was aiming for "enhanced disbarment" meaning not only were they planning on stripping him of his legal credentals, they were planning on banning him from even trying to regain them for ten years. Well, looks like at the rate he's going they're going to wind up giving him jail time as well. I recommend they use the wing reserved for compulsive anal rapists.
Thompson, much in the fashion of how we got to this point in the first place has filed what he calls "Thompson's Formal Objection to June 4 Sanctions Hearing", which is of course, filled with just loads of things that have almost nothing to do with why he's being disbarred.
It seems that not even the Florida Bar will tolerate Thompson's form of unending legal trollery.
* For those who haven't caught on yet, the trolling technique in question is rather close to Argumentum ad lapidem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem in that Thompson, rather than talk about why he shouldn't be disbarred for (just one example) filing gay porn and literally thousands of irrelevant documents in his case against Rock Star Productions, chooses instead to argue that he's being persecuted for just dozens of things completely unrelated to anything going on at the moment. The general idea being that the troll can sucker someone into arguing each and every one of these irrelevant points until they are either completely confused, get frustrated and give up, or just die from old age. Trolls using this technique generally consider Argument from silence the winning condition.
This article is mainly all about the picture. It's not gory, but it is rather gruesome. You have been warned.
Apparently, a 28-year-old American was drunk and passed out at the wheel and drove right into the middle of a bunch of cyclists.
It seems the American Consulate is handling this about as diligently as the Mexican Consulate does when an illegal alien kills a family of four in a DUI. Oh well.
Really, seriously. The people at Time Warner have lost their minds. They're rolling out a new metered Internet service in Beaumont Texas that gives customers a 768K/s for $30/month with a 5Gb/month limit (and a $55/month service that about in proportion to that, with a 40Gb/month limit). Costs for going over these limits will be $1/Gb.
They have truly lost their minds. I can find semi-professional co-location services better prices than that.
Hey, here's a nice story that really makes you wonder if the FBI are actually serious about prosecuting criminal behaviour, or do they just like to go after teenage kids. I mean, we know they're going to bring the hammer down on the two kids who social-engineered Comcast's domain for giggles, regardless of how little the actual cost was, but 700Mb of email which was mostly dirty laundry getting leaked never did result in anything that I could see happening to MediaDefender.
Now we've got a news story about how MediaDefender apparently just launched a large denial of service attack against a company for having been kicked off their torrent servers for filling them with bogus torrents, when said torrent servers were only for the companies own content in the first place (like, this apparently wasn't a place you could push up bootlegs, or even home movies to).
The article does mention that the FBI is "looking into the matter" but if 700Mb of admissions of guilt didn't do it, I don't see how this is going to affect much.
