On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Isn't Jim Choate Prime against this ruling, on the
> basis that it discriminates against certain
> radiating frequencies?
>
> He has posted to that affect before.
Bullshit. What I said was that basing a 'search' on the frequency of the
radiation o
At 08:51 AM 6/12/2001 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Real-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Isn't Jim Choate Prime against this ruling, on the
>basis that it discriminates against certain
>radiating frequencies?
>
>He has posted to that affect before.
No, no, this is a copyright problem in Choate Prime
OTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:30 PM
Subject: CDR: SCOTUS rulz! (fwd)
>
> Where did that scum bag Scalia get the 'in general public use' test?
>
> Geez, these guys make it up as they go along...
>
> -- Forwarded message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Yes, there's that Scalia, the well-known pinko commie.
Actually he's a fascist, government management of private activity.
In economic terms he's a 'strong centraly regulated market' afficianado.
An commie doesn't believe in a 'market' per se, it
bject: CDR: SCOTUS rulz!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Heat-Detector.html
#
#June 11, 2001
#
#Court Rules Against Heat-Sensor Searches
#
#Filed at 11:03 a.m. ET
#
#WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police violate the Constitution if they use
#a heat-sensing devi
