|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 16 2013 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
| "Stranded passengers wait Tuesday afternoon in the
ticketing area of D/FW
International Airport Terminal A. The
airline announced shortly after 2 p.m.
Tuesday that all its
flights nationwide were grounded till at least 4 p.m. CDT
due
to computer problems."
link
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 16 2013 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
| "If this error turns out to be an actual mistake Reinhart-
Rogoff made, well,
all I can hope is that future historians
note that one of the core empirical
points providing the
intellectual foundation for the global move to austerity
in
the early 2010s was based on someone accidentally not
updating a row
formula in Excel"
link [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
|
http://i.imgur.com/dmVCBZe.jpg [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
| .PDF / 48 pages
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and
crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test
to measure his
blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested
and taken to a nearby
hospital for blood testing.
The officer never attempted to secure a search
warrant. McNeely refused to consent to
the blood test, but the officer directed
a lab technician to take a sample. McNeely’s BAC tested well above the legal
limit, and he was
charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).
He moved to
suppress
the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a
warrant
violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court agreed, concluding
that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did
not apply because,
apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood alcohol
was dissipating, no
circumstances suggested that the officer faced an
emergency. The State Supreme
Court affirmed, relying on
Schmerber
v.
California
, 384 U. S. 757, in
which this Court upheld a
DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer
“might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency,
in
which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances,
threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’
”
id.,
at 770.
This
case,
the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation
where no factors
other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol
suggested that there was an
emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless test violated McNeely’s
right to be free from unreasonable searches of his
person.
---
Schmerber v.
California , 384 U. S. 757 (1966) Wikipedia [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
