Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.

@10 - this is correct. If you don't want the police scoping out your house, don't go into your house during an arrest.

Also, the ability to import my 7 years worth of Quicken transactions would be a big seller in getting me to convert to an online system. Pear doesn't seem to do this.

$3/month? Yikes.

I've been using the same edition of quicken for 7 years. That would have cost me hundreds of dollars for this Pear thing. Don't they know web services have to be free?

One problem with Mint, for the person who asked above, is that you can't enter Cash transactions.

I'm actually curious if there's a service like Pear that doesn't charge you $36/year to use it?

The trick is to make your password "I killed Evan Chan", then the revelation of the password will always be problematic under the 5th Amendment. You'll have had to have killed Even Chan first, of course...

It's our ranch, it's our home.

Got real weird at the end.

Regular Constitutional rights haven't existed at the border for a long time. This is not a surprising result.

Read some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

I don't like that they dip the sandwich for you. I don't want my french dip to be pre-dipped! I want to dip it myself between each and every bite. I know it's a classic, but I just wish they'd hand me some of their dip to take back to the table with me.

I long ago wore off the lettering on those two keys, and only those two keys. It seems odd as they're not the most used. What makes N and M so special? All the keys on the home row, for example, look fine.

That was fantastic.

The front fell off!

I wish more lawyers like those commenting above realized that the legal profession has sadly failed in its obligations to the public at large and many more lawyers need to think more about public service and less about their own personal bottom line.

My above comments (as well as those of others) were only related to the usefulness of this project to us directly. I acknowledged that this was a nice first step, but the project has not yet reached a point where it would be helpful to most people in most situations. In the future, hopefully, this will change, but it hasn't yet.

Your seemingly accusatory response is a little bit unsettling. Who exactly are you angry at here? Me? And what does the fact that I don't see the immediate use in this repository have to do with my commitment to "public service" and my "obligations to the public at large"?

I recognize that this is just one step in a larger process, but it's not, without more, particularly useful. The services that Westlaw and LexisNexis provide are not merely access to this information, but the ability to easily search and cross-check the information in a variety of ways. When looking at old case law, it's rare that the object is to find a single, known case. It's more likely that you're looking for a concept and will need to be able to relatively quickly dig through tens or hundreds or even thousands of cases to find it. Giant PDFs of hundreds of cases isn't going to make that process any easier than just going to the library and reading the paper versions.

Releasing this data is good, but someone needs to go in there and organize it for easy, searchable access in a manner at least as usable as Westlaw or LexisNexis do for this to be big boon to anybody doing real legal research.

I disagree with you about hotlinking images. Otherwise, all good.

I liked the similar Nobody Sings in the Library/Reading on a Dream better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mUyvaPtsJw

Other lands is clickable, it brings you here:

http://azeroth.metblogs.com/

Seriously, why would you keep your mouth open?

Ugh, the Turtles are annoying.

Ok, I think the second "exercise" on page 9 is a little bit, uh, unusual:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wardomatic/2233323233/in/photostream/

Trademark law is a tough nut to deal with. It deals with the public perception of what rights a company can control with respect to their mark, so, basically, as long as people believe that Ford has the right to prevent a calendar like this, they do in fact have the right to do it.

Mind bending.

Don't the shoe scanners look for plastic explosives? I thought that's what they were doing.

When they start delivering ads this way it will be a problem. Warnings that you're going over your bandwidth quota seem somewhat reasonable.

ACB: I was going to say that I wish it were based on American McGee's Alice. They started that one time (starring Sarah Michelle Gellar!) and gave up. The story and tone are dead on for Burton's sensibilities.

Dig it: http://digg.com/tech_news/No_Swiss_DMCA_Help_me_fight_this_law

FYI - Patents are required to always be filed in the name of the individual human inventor or inventors (not an organization or corporation).

The Amusing Anecdote joke is similar in concept to Tribute.

What? A 12 mile long string of firecrackers sounds great! It's like a parade without any people. I would have gone to watch that.

What!? You don't think this one is funny?

http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cimages/ckenyon18.jpg

Come on.

If only we knew who the guy was, I bet it would be hilarious.

How does the number of gold farmers factor into this equation?

It doesn't appear to come out in the US until February.

I think Ablestmage is right, although I can't explain why. There's something very Maxx-esque about it for reasons that I can't pinpoint.

"If you can afford to live in a balloon, you can afford a clockwork magician." - Mark Twain

I'd imagine if they're bouncing off the walls, it's probably not the worst idea.

The chick in The Crying Game is really a man.

I mean, man, is that a good movie.

I can't believe a TV station thought this was news

It is news, and it's very embarrassing.

You shoot in the air.

At any point in the shootout, the person who's shooting is probably going to shoot at the person who's the best remaining shot. If you shoot and kill the 100% marksman, then the 50% marksman is going to take a shot at you (obviously if you shoot at and kill the 50% marksman, you're dead on the next shot). If you shoot nobody, then either the 50% marksman kills the 100% marksman (half the time) or the 100% marksman kills the 50% marksman.

But you really want the first outcome, so you're going up against the 50% marksman one on one but at least you'll get the first shot. Every other outcome has you going up against someone and taking the second shot, which puts you in an awful position.