関連blog検索
entry.1 第１０４回 既存投資家との違いを認識されるべき「ハイフリクエンシー・トレーダー(HFT)」：情報技術研究所 IT TIME
発表元：大和総研 − 掲載日：2010-03-20
第１０４回 既存投資家との違いを認識されるべき「ハイフリクエンシー・トレーダー(HFT)」：情報技術研究所 IT TIME
entry.2 Kiss me PLEASE！＠少クラ
こんばんは(*´∀｀)革命DVDを観たら、号泣してしまったむっちゃんです昨日の夜に観ようと思ったんだけど、観たら寝れないからね〜。午前中からずっと革命観ちゃったよ〜。スッピンで観れなくって、ちゃんとお化粧して正座したし。←えちょっ…タイスケが悪いお顔してるんだもん.+:｡(〃∀〃)ﾟ.+:｡そしてやっぱりワンナイを聴くと、涙が止まらなくなる。笑悪いタイスケが歌ってるから、余計に泣けるもんSHOW TIMEの太輔はすっごくガシガ
Kiss me PLEASE！＠少クラ
entry.3 Help with laptop decision?
Dell: XPS M1530 Price: ,649 (after rebates)Intel!) Core!) 2 Duo Processor T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache)Genuine Windows Vista!) Ultimate EditionHigh Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440×900) & 2MP Camera3GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)Speed: 200GB 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive Free Fall SensorSlot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write)256MB NVIDIA!) GeForce!) 8600M GTIntel Next-Gen [...]Help with laptop decision? is a post from: iTouch Biometrics | Biometric Access Controls | Biometric Time Clocks | Biometric Door Locks |Biometric Safes
Help with laptop decision?
entry.4 official 10 Sexiest Arab Women of ALL Time !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !) !)!)!)!)
http://AffiliateCons.com http://ArabsChannel.comMost Sexy Arabs Award 2009!)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) 14-02-2010 !)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!),!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!) (1200$ !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!)) !)!)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) (!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!),!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!)) !) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) ,!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!), !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!)!)!),!)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!)!)!)!) !) !)!)!)!) !)!)!) !)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)!) Nabila Obeid, Haifa Wehbe ,Nahed Sherif,Alissa ,Marwa,Mirvat Amine,Dina, !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!) Vs !)!)!)!)!) !)!)!)!) Vs !)!)!)!)!)!) Vs !)!)!)!) Vs !)!)!)!) Vs !)!)!)!) !)!)!)!)!)
official 10 Sexiest Arab Women of ALL Time !)!)!) !)!)!)!)!) !) !)!)!)!)
entry.5 It's still my dream,never change.
ということで、みなさんいつもありがとうございます。コメント欲しさにmixiに記事あげたりすることもあったりなかったり。←ですが最近はそんなことはなくなり寧ろあっちは週に１回あれば多いくらいで(笑)わりと閲覧者さまが安定してきてるので移転とかも考えずにこのままやって行きます。なので今後ともどうぞご贔屓に。←…てか1日の更新が多いほどカウンターもまわるのでこれは更新通知受け取ってくれてる人が結構いると解釈して良いのかしら(。・_・。)そうそう、先月の23日でこのブログ『It's time to make or break.』、１周年を迎えました！パチパチパチパチ！／パフパフドンドン＼ねー、その日に言えよってｗ2月いっぱいの記事見てみたら28日の記事のテンションがはんぱなかった(笑)抱き枕なつかしいｗｗｗてゆーかそうか明希ちゃんは髪長い女の子が好きなのね。(過去の自分の記事で学習する人間)しんぢちゃんは「その人に似合う髪型」だっけね。要するに顔なんですね(´゜Д゜｀)←2/23が始まりな理由はアレですよホラ、ね。
It's still my dream,never change.
entry.6 Time Goes By
ども、ちっきぃです。今日は早速好きな音楽を紹介しますよ（＾ω＾）re:plusというアーティストを去年知りまして。今月はじめに1stアルバムが発売されました(>_
Time Goes By
entry.7 Jennifer Aniston’s Dream Is To Start A Family With A Great Man
Jennifer Aniston’s “dream” is to start a family with a “great man”. The 41-year-old actress has admitted her main goal in life now is to settle down and become a mother.“I’ve had some wonderful experiences. I hope I’ve reached a point where I’m ready to enjoy being with a great man and having a family together. That’s always been my dream.”While speaking with the Daily Mirror newspaper, Jen admitted that high expectations sometimes get in the way: “We're all a lot more complicated. We've also become more wary and more demanding, maybe. Men and women are developing higher expectations and sometimes that creates too much pressure because your partner is not always going to be everything you want.“We have to learn to appreciate our differences and enjoy the fact that we all evolve differently over time. If you're open to that, it can be interesting and you can make that part of your journey together. Relationships are not static things. You have to keep communicating and trying to understand your partner.”For Jennifer, a successful relationship relies heavily on the ability to work through problems together.“Love is the beginning of the process that draws you together, but the intensity and the nature of love is something that evolves as well. We all know that things change over time and you're constantly dealing with different issues and conflicts. You have to be willing to work things out and try to do it as harmoniously as possible. That's the tough part.“We all come across obstacles and it's how you deal with conflicts that is probably the most critical part of staying together and focusing on all the things you love about the other person. The biggest thing is being able to face up to all the changes and challenges. It's hard.”
Jennifer Aniston’s Dream Is To Start A Family With A Great Man
entry.8 Lying For Jesus - Richard Dawkins @ American Atheist Conference (2)
Richard Dawkins videos:!) http://tinyurl.com/DawkinsVideosBest Atheist Experience clips ＆ chat:!) http://tinyurl.com/AtheistExperienceChatLying For Jesus - Richard Dawkins @ American Atheist (AA) Conference 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia (Part 2)Filmed and edited by Josh Timonen.Subscribe to Science ＆ Reason:!) http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker!) http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience!) http://www.youtube.com/AtheistExperience!) http://www.youtube.com/TheAtheistExperience!) http://www.youtube.com/BestOfAtheism!) http://www.youtube.com/SagansCosmos!) http://www.youtube.com/FilmRookie1Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain's leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" for 2007.Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene", which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term "meme". He is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker", he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics.Dawkins is an atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement. In his 2006 book "The God Delusion", he contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief.!) http://www.atheists.org!) http://www.richarddawkins.net!) http://www.youtube.com/richarddawkinsdotnet!) http://www.atheism-magazine.com/people/Richard_Dawkins.htmlIf you enjoy the video and would like to support the work of The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, please purchase the program on DVD at http://richarddawkins.net/store/.
Lying For Jesus - Richard Dawkins @ American Atheist Conference (2)
entry.9 Creative Christmas Gift Ideas
It!)!)!)s that time of the year!Are you ready? If not, get ready now!!!Christmas comes the same time every year and every year your Christmas gift list gets longer and longer. Christmas gifts for her, gifts for him, gifts for girls and gifts for boys and Christmas gift ideas for family and friends !)!)!) coming up [...]
Creative Christmas Gift Ideas
entry.10 NBC's Evening Line-Up&“Poker After Dark”|Online Casino US…
Had some extra time last week and so ended up filling some of it watching “Poker after Dark” here on the computer. the show has been around almost exactly three years now, although last week marked the debut of what they are calling season six. The theme for the week was “Commentators III,” meaning the [...]NBC's Evening Line-Up & “Poker After Dark” | Online Casino US … is a post from: Hold'em Poker
NBC's Evening Line-Up&“Poker After Dark”|Online Casino US…
entry.11 We Don’t Need to‘Get Over the Sanctions Delusion’—By: NRO Staff
Over at Foreign Policy , Lara Friedman recommends !)“getting over the sanctions delusion” and predicts that the Iran Refined Petroleum Act now making its way through Congress -- a set of unilateral sanctions targeted at Iran’s refined gasoline imports from across the Persian Gulf -- will probably fail. Her argument is worth examining; in addition to being both novel and deeply misguided, it raises an important point. Noting that supporters of stiffer Iran sanctions “triumphantly” raise the success of sanctions against South Africa as an example in their favor, Lara sees a crucial difference, because South Africa is the one case where sanctions were about supporting the self-identified interests of a large portion of that country’s population. In every other case, sanctions have been about promoting US interests, not the interests of the people bearing their brunt. We sanctioned the Castro regime because we refused to tolerate Communism so close to home. We sanctioned Gaza because we rejected any dealings with Hamas. We sanctioned Iraq because we decided that Saddam Hussein had become an irredeemable enemy of the US. We started sanctioning Iran because we decided that the Iranian regime was beyond the pale. And -- no surprise -- in every case except South Africa, the populations that were expected to rise up and act as tools of US foreign policy obstinately refused to cooperate. Lara is right to distinguish South Africa from these other cases, but she draws entirely the wrong distinction. Her point is a variation on “blame America first” and may be paraphrased as follows: In South Africa sanctions had a humanitarian purpose, in solidarity with the wishes of the South African people, whereas in the other cases sanctions were motivated by U.S. interests in an exercise of imperialist realpolitik. But those who have supported sanctions against Cuba, Gaza, Iraq, and Iran were also motivated by humanitarian concerns, in many cases quite centrally and passionately. Conservatives tend to see humanitarianism and the pursuit of U.S. interests abroad -- properly understood -- as generally consonant aims. In Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq, and Iran (and perhaps even Gaza) people have been unable “to rise up and act as tools of US foreign policy” (i.e., liberate themselves) not because they didn’t want to, but because they were and are terrified. Actually, in Iraq, they did rise up, and they were crushed. In Cuba, hundreds of thousands decided that their chances were better if they risked probable death on inner tubes and rickety boats trying to cross the Florida Straits -- arriving with stories of terror and a loathing of Castro that easily match what the victims of apartheid felt towards that regime. The people of Cuba and Iraq might well have had “self-expressed” widespread opposition to their regimes -- and solidarity with U.S. policy -- if their countries’ respective terror police had not been so effective in silencing them. The difference in the case of South Africa was not in the motivations of the U.S. government, but rather in the motivations of the South African government. What South Africa had by way of a repressive apparatus came apart in the course of the 1980s, increasingly assailed and isolated by anti-apartheid forces within the government as well outside it. By the time U.S. and Europeans imposed sanctions in 1986-87, Nelson Mandela was still in prison and the African National Congress was still banned; on the other hand, official apartheid had largely disappeared from most workplaces, black trade unions had been legalized, the Mixed Marriages Act had been repealed, the Separate Amenities Act soon would be, and the pass laws and forced removals of blacks had ended. As Margaret Thatcher related in Downing Street Years , “In all these ways ‘apartheid,’ as the Left continued to describe it, was if not dead at least rapidly dying.” Soon after sanctions were imposed, Mandela was released and the ANC legalized; within a few years the last white governments of South Africa had dismantled apartheid entirely and ushered in the 1994 mixed-race elections which ended white rule in South Africa forever. In the end, the sanctions proved useful mostly as a political lever within a South African regime that was in the midst of transforming itself. By contrast, the regimes of Cuba and Saddam’s Iraq were (and in the case of Cuba, still is) unified and largely unconcerned with the isolation and poverty that their peoples have had to endure. The Cuban government for example has no interest in ending U.S. sanctions (otherwise they would be offering something in return, such as limited freedom of speech, or the release of a few political prisoners). The government’s protests against the U.S. embargo are designed only to justify the dictatorship at home and increase its standing abroad. Its political monopoly would be more endangered by an end to the country’s isolation than it ever has been by the absence of U.S. economic ties -- it is the same reason that Kim Jong Il decided in the 1990s that starving several million fellow North Koreans was better than embracing the West. But if significant elements of the Cuban government were to start seeking political authority on the basis of popular legitimacy, the desire to improve the lives of their people would give Cuban officials a real interest in ending both the U.S. embargo and the repressive policies of the current regime. Communism in Eastern Europe came to an end as a result of many factors -- but most primordially because the Communists themselves initiated and steered the process that ended it, as recounted in Tony Judt’s Postwar . So, into which basket should we place Iran now? Is the regime unified and unconcerned with popular support and international isolation, thinking itself able to maintain power indefinitely on the basis of a terror police? Does the regime still believe that the Islamic Revolution can survive in the long run, with the will of Allah plus a few nukes? That is entirely possible. In that case, sanctions by themselves have little chance of working, and stronger inducements may have to be considered. But if the regime in Tehran is increasingly riven by faction, coming apart along political lines, cracking under the pressure of international ostracism, then a policy of piling up all feasible sanctions will have a chance of working. Perhaps there are elements of the Iranian elite who don’t think they can survive without popular support, who secretly want the U.S. to impose stiffer sanctions, to start cutting off gasoline imports, hoping to push the Ahmadinejad-Iranian Revolutionary Guard regime to its final end (his primary purview is the budget, with its massive gasoline subsidies). Maybe they are willing to pay a price in terms of the Iranian people suffering economic deprivation in the short run. Hillary Clinton has from time to time made comments aimed at Ahmadinejad and the IRG as distinct from the Iranian state generally, which suggests that a South Africa model may well be what the Obama administration is thinking. That would be not so much a question of isolating the Iranian government as of isolating particular factions within the government -- much the direction in which Margaret Thatcher tried to steer the push for sanctions against South Africa. Such a policy would have at least one hopeful precedent: In the heat of apartheid’s crisis, South Africa gave up an indigenously-developed nuclear-weapon program and willingly joined the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. It did so in the midst of self-effectuated regime change in which, helped along by a U.S.-European policy of “constructive engagement” and sanctions, the government began to reflect the will of its people. If the government of South Africa had not first begun to change its attitude towards its own people, embracing a desire for international legitimacy based on domestic justice and popular support, sanctions would likely not have worked there either -- whatever the will of the people or the motivations of the U.S. government. -- Mario Loyola is a former foreign policy counsel at the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee.
We Don’t Need to‘Get Over the Sanctions Delusion’—By: NRO Staff
entry.12 Aicc: Still A Viable Course Standard?
A Peek Into the StandardMany in the e-Learning industry know that !)??AICC!)?!) is not only a standard!)?!) but also the committee that defines it. The AICC, Aviation Industry Computer-based training (CBT) Committee, was formed in 1988 by aviation manufacturers such as Boeing, Airbus, and McDonnell-Douglas to standardize the delivery of CBT at a time when [...]
Aicc: Still A Viable Course Standard?
entry.13 Betsy ＆ Chris White color is lover's 白い色は恋人の色
" Betsy and Chris" produced their first golden hit "Shiroi Iro Wa Koi Bito No Iro (White color is lover's)", written by Kazuhiko Kato, in 1970, and they spent the next five years recording, touring, and promoting in Japan as major recording stars. During that time they appeared and performed on TV, radio and stage.白い色は恋人の色 フォーク 北山 修 加藤 和彦 ベッティ ＆ クリス
Betsy ＆ Chris White color is lover's 白い色は恋人の色
entry.14 時は金なり〜Time is money
時間にはお金と同じような価値があり、無駄にしてはならないこの諺、ギリシャの「時は高い出費である」が語源になっているそうです。。。本日は 風俗未経験の方、経験者の方、まだ見ぬ女性の方々に求人のお話を・・・時間は使い方次第です。短時間でも 空いたお時間を上手に利用して 高収入を手に入れませんか？家事の合間、学校や会社帰りなど 一日３時間程度の勤務でも構いません。当店は 在籍女性のことを大切に致します。未
時は金なり〜Time is money
entry.15 The Good Faith Exception and Changing Law: Misunderstanding “Good Faith”
This is my 6th post in series of posts on why the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not apply when a police officer conducts a search that is lawful when it occurs that is later ruled unlawful before the conviction is final. This issue is being litigated all over the country right now thanks to a clash of two recent Fourth Amendment cases, Herring v. United States , — U.S. — (2009) and Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. ___ (2009). Herring has language suggesting a broad approach to the good faith exception, while Gant ruled a common and widely-accepted law enforcement practice unconstitutional. The combination of the two cases raises a question: Should the exclusionary rule apply for the many violations that occurred before Gant was handed down, or does the good faith exception apply so the evidence is admitted? The prior posts are here . Now on to Post #6: Misunderstanding “Good Faith.” **** In this post, I wanted to address a very natural response to my arguments: Isn’t a police officer who relies on then-current law acting in good faith? After all, a police officer who simply does what the law says he can do isn’t morally culpable or a bad-faith actor. Isn’t he pretty much the poster-child of good faith, and thus worthy of the good-faith exception? This is a natural reaction, but also a wrong one. The error is one of labels: “good faith.” Although the doctrine is called the “good faith exception,” that is a confusing label: The subjective good faith of the officer is actually irrelevant, as decisions from Leon to Herring have all emphasized. It’s more accurate to think of the so-called “good faith” exception as the “technicality” exception. The exception applies when the police violate the Fourth Amendment but the violation is a sort of technicality — the kind of violation for which exclusion would be an extravagant remedy. Examples of such technical violations are minor defects in a warrant ( Leon ), knock-and-announce violations ( Hudson ), and reliance on negligent errors in a police database ( Herring ). These are minor, technical sorts of violations: Imposing the remedy of suppression is just too much given that the violation isn’t such a huge deal in the overall scheme of things. But the key is the nature of the violation, not the officer’s subjective state of mind. Whether a police officer thinks he is violating the law or not has no relevance to the good faith exception. See, e.g., Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 335 (1987) (“The standard of reasonableness we adopt is an objective one; the standard does not turn on the subjective good faith of individual officers.”) See also Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment’s concern with “reasonableness” allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.”) (emphasis in original). To see why this matters, let’s consider a few scenarios and think about whether the exclusionary rule should apply. For the first set of scenarios, assume that the officer is an evil officer determined to violate the Constitution. I’ll call him “Officer Bad.” Now consider four different scenarios, with the only differences being the state of the law at various times: 1) Officer Bad wants to violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, and he searches the suspect thinking the search is illegal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is legal. During the direct appeal, the Supreme Court hears a case on the issue and agrees that the search is legal. 2) Officer Bad wants to violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, and he searches the suspect thinking the search is illegal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is legal. During the direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court hears a case on the issue and concludes that the search is illegal. 3) Officer Bad wants to violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, and he searches the suspect thinking the search is illegal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is illegal. While the case is on direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court disagrees with the circuit precedent and rules that the search is legal. 4) Officer Bad wants to violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, and he searches the suspect thinking the search is illegal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is illegal. While the case is on direct appeal, the Supreme Court hears the case and agrees with the circuit court that the search is illegal. Now ask yourself, in which of these cases will the evidence be suppressed? In every case, the officer was acting in bad faith: In every case, he was trying to violate the Constitution. Under current law, however, the evidence would be suppressed only in scenarios (2) and (4). The officer’s subjective beliefs about the law are irrelevant, as is the lawfulness of the search when it occurs. The only relevant question is the state of the law at the end of the direct appeal: Whatever law exists at that time determines the admissibility of the evidence. Now let’s look at four more scenarios, this time imagining a search by an officer acting in good faith who is committed to following the Constitution. I’ll call him “Officer Good.” Here are the four scenarios which are identical to the four scenarios above except that the officer’s subjective belief is different: 1) Officer Good wants to follow the Fourth Amendment, and he searches the suspect based on his belief that the search is legal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is legal. During the direct appeal, the Supreme Court hears a case on the issue and agrees that the search is legal. 2) Officer Good wants to follow the Fourth Amendment, and he searches the suspect based on his belief that the search is legal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is legal. During the direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court hears a case on the issue and concludes that the search is illegal. 3) Officer Good wants to follow the Fourth Amendment, and he searches the suspect based on his belief that the search is legal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is illegal. While the case is on direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court disagrees with the circuit precedent and rules that the search is legal. 4) Officer Good wants to follow the Fourth Amendment, and he searches the suspect based on his belief that the search is legal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is illegal. While the case is on direct appeal, the Supreme Court hears the case and agrees with the circuit court that the search is illegal. Now ask again, in which of these cases will the evidence be suppressed? Because the officer’s subjective belief about the lawfulness of his conduct is constitutionally irrelevant, the answers have to be the same as the answers to the first set of scenarios. Once again, I think the evidence should be suppressed in scenarios (2) and (4) but admitted in scenarios (1) and (3). The argument in favor of the good faith exception focuses on Scenario (2) with Officer Good: Officer Good wants to follow the Fourth Amendment, and he searches the suspect based on his belief that the search is legal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is legal. During the direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court hears a case on the issue and concludes that the search is illegal. Well geez, the argument runs, isn’t that officer acting in good faith? He is trying to follow the law, and he’s following the law as then understood. Surely it’s not fair to punish him just because the Supreme Court changed the law. But if you take that view, I’d ask you to answer whether the exclusionary rule should apply to Officer Bad in Scenarios 1 and 3 and Officer Good in Scenario 2. Just to avoid confusion, let me relabel these scenarios A, B, and C. A) Officer Bad wants to violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, and he searches the suspect thinking the search is illegal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is legal. During the direct appeal, the Supreme Court hears a case on the issue and agrees that the search is legal. B) Officer Bad wants to violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, and he searches the suspect thinking the search is illegal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is illegal. While the case is on direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court disagrees with the circuit precedent and rules that the search is legal. C) Officer Good wants to follow the Fourth Amendment, and he searches the suspect based on his belief that the search is legal. In fact, circuit precedent at the time of the search indicates that the search is illegal. While the case is on direct appeal, however, the Supreme Court disagrees with the circuit precedent and rules that the search is legal. If you believe in a good faith exception for changing law, would you favor suppression in any of these cases? In each of these scenarios, the cop violates the law as it stood at the time. In two of the scenarios, the officer’s violation was entirely intentional: He’s the evil Officer Bad, scheming to violate the suspect’s rights. Right now, though, we don’t suppress in any of these scenarios. The government gets the benefit of the new rule and the evidence is admitted. And the officer is not only not punished, but he is held to have done nothing wrong: He followed the law. If you disagree with that view, I think it might be because you’re taking more of a subjective approach to good faith than the doctrine allows. The good faith doctrine isn’t about retribution, however. Rather, it requires a utilitarian, objective, cost-benefit analysis of whether the costs of exclusion for that type of constitutional violation outweigh the benefits. In short, once you realize the label “good faith” is a bit misleading, you can see why the easy argument focused on subjective good faith misses the mark. Copyright !) 2010 This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. (Digital Fingerprint: )
The Good Faith Exception and Changing Law: Misunderstanding “Good Faith”
entry.16 Gaining a Better Understanding of Menopause
“I wouldn’t say it’s such a pleasant period in a women’s life,” explains a women who had just passed through memopause, “but I think you can learn from it.” Menopause is a time period with a process of change in hormonal levels and ovarian function, which leads to the natural cessation of menstruation. The book [...]
Gaining a Better Understanding of Menopause
entry.17 _______________!)!)!) [ [ Adorable ] ] !)!)!)______________!)w4m (Waikiki)
(!)`’!).!)★!).!)’´!))L U C K Y(!)`’!).!)★!).!)’´!)) I truly enjoy spending time with respectful gentlemen,I am super sweet and full of excitment!!!Give me a call, I am available 24/7, late nights and early mornings… °520° -:!):- °437° -:!):- °7445°Copyright © 2010 VolcanoEscorts.com. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material [...]
_______________!)!)!) [ [ Adorable ] ] !)!)!)______________!)w4m (Waikiki)
entry.18 Download !) Van Halen !) Balance
Faixas:01. The Seventh Seal02. Can´t Stop Lovin´ You03. Don´t Tell Me (What Love Can Do)04. Amsterdam05. Big Fat Money06. Strung Out (instrumental)07. Not Enough08. Aftershock09. Doin´ Time (instrumental)10. Baluchitherium (instrumental)11. Take Me Back (D!)j!) Vu)12. Feelin´Nome do !)lbum: Van Halen !) BalanceG!)nero: RockQualidade: 320 KbpsAno de Lan!)amento: 1995Tamanho: 104 MbFormato: Rar | MP3» DownloadVeja [...]
Download !) Van Halen !) Balance
entry.19 （シン・グ）ドライブ
壁紙をご紹介♪ 韓国映画 「モダンボーイ」出演者 パク・ヘイル キム・ヘス キム・ナムギル キム・ジュンベ シン・グ イ・ヘミョン チョ・ナンシル shinsuke パク・サンホ キム・ヨンジュ ムン・ウォンジュ チュ・ソクテ ランキング第1弾はエイベックス盤で、エブリ・リトル・シングの「Time goes by」やDEENの「このまま君だけを奪い去りたい」などを収めた。第2弾のポニーキャニオン盤が12月17日、第3弾のユニバーサルミュージッ
（シン・グ）ドライブ
entry.20 GameStop: Used game buyers uninterested in free DLC
We're usually pretty competent parsers of corporate quotes, but we may need some help on this one. Referencing the publisher practice of putting free DLC in new copies of games, GameStop boss Dan DeMatteo said on an investor call today that "we have learned that the second-hand user is a value-oriented consumer ... we don't believe that a $10 add-on piece of DLC is compelling to a used game buyer." So, they care about getting the biggest bang for their buck, but they just don't care about missing out on free things?Here's another one: "Publishers can participate in our used business by offering add-on content for the most popular used titles, creating a win-win situation for publishers, retailers and consumers," he said, according to Gamasutra. Wouldn't the win for publishers and developers be to make money every time someone bought the game they made?It may be that the statements are unclear, but it's also possible that we're just so unfamiliar with GameStop trying to be a team player that our primitive minds can't process it. Hard to say.GameStop: Used game buyers uninterested in free DLC originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Read!)|!)Permalink!)|!)Email this!)|!)Comments
GameStop: Used game buyers uninterested in free DLC
Yahoo!ニュース・トピックス - エンターテインメント
1億円のS-1王者にNON STYLE
中村容疑者 交際タレント会見
広末涼子が接触事故 けがなし
小田茜 2月に第1子男児を出産
IMALU 父に内緒で鶴瓶と司会
NHK朝の連ドラ バトンタッチ
ガガの元恋人 27億円求め訴訟
実物大ガンダム「武器持ち」に