I'm pretty sure in other countries they allow the evidence, but (are supposed to) prosecute the officer who broke the law. I don't recall though exactly how it works - our "fruit of the poisonous tree" idea means anything gathered afterwords gets thrown out, it is possible some countries just allow this additional evidence.
If I trusted our justice system to prosecute law enforcement for breaking the law, I would favor admitting some/all of the evidence, as it is hard to see a guilty criminal walk free due to an incompetant investigator, but so long as law enforcement tends to be above the law I like our "throw it all out" method more.
That depends... if your house has a furnace and an air conditioning unit, your main concerns are having a well insulated house, and having some means of reducing the impact of solar heat load (the sun generally hurts more in the summer that it helps in the winter). If you have heating and no air conditioning, you'll have a warm house in the winter, but your house might not cool down very well in the evenings during the summer.
I see this mission as a stepping stone. We've recently proven that Mars once had flowing water, so there could be a lot to learn if we can look into the planet's history. Mars has ice caps - I am curious what we could glean from ice cores (and core samples of Martian soil). Such samples would be much harder to extract and transport back to Earth, so retrieving rocks first would help us work towards that.
They are just trying to measure public opinion by sorting comments into "positive" and "negative". They can already sort out most of the negative comments, their shortfalling is false positives due to sarcsm. If their purpose was to censor negative opinion, then they would already be censoring all those non-sarcastic posts they don't like.
In other words, I have no clue how you got modded up because your argument makes no sense.
Your force balance is off- work = force x distance, and at the point of contact with the ground, the wheels are moving at 0 relative velocity. This means any friction between the ground and the wheels does 0 work (aka it is not a factor in your force balance). Instead, the balancing going on is the forward push generated by the propeller and the backwards drag from the air on the vehicle (this drag is 0 when the vehicle is moving the same speed as the wind, and increases as it gains speed from there).
Without a percieved benefit, I agree that the school should not be taking iris scans of the students, but I have to ask: what is the threat posed by the school doing this? What freedom is being given up here?
I could try to piece together an argument, but I would rather hear from someone that feels strongly about this.
Most users of this will probably fall in one of three categories: those who actually stick close to what they would actually spend, those who pay more or more frequently than if using real money, and those who wouldn't spend any real money. Given this is on a voluntary basis, I doubt that many users would be erratic about using it, or otherwise substantially from one of the three profiles I'm expecting (if you were forced to use it, or using it only for a reward at the end, you might be more inclined to abuse the service).
While it would be silly to treat these numbers as directly representative of what you would see with actual money, it should provide some useful information if you take it with a grain of salt as there should be some correlation with real usage. It would be especially useful if later a limited test is done with real money and compared with these results, as it would be hard as-is to guess how much less would be donated with real money.
Bakker was trying to disprove the idea that science would be better off without religion. Given religion most certainly has come in conflict with science at various points in history, it is implied his examples must show religion helping the advancement of science. So when he brings up examples of religious people conducting science, the only way for it to help his argument is if he is suggesting that their religious work directly contributed to their scientific work. Otherwise he is just giving us examples of religion being neutral to science, which is just as well demonstrated by any scientist that wasn't known for their religious work.
In other words, Bakker falled to prove his point, leaving us to conclude that, at worst, science would be where it is today if there were no religion (as that is the best his arguments seem to demonstrate).
I know! Everyone is right! You see, life started on Earth, but then a giant meteor smashed into earth, which happened to send some rocks into space that had bacteria on them. That meteor was so big, it wiped out all life on Earth, so years later when some of those rocks landed back on Earth, they became the source of all life we see today.
As you approach a stale green, you should be thinking about where that line is between stopping and running the yellow. That way, in the event the light does change, you already know what you plan to do (and if you decide to stop you can ease into your braking to better warn the driver behind you).
My brother has controls like that. Just a few weeks ago the lever somehow got messed up, and even when accelerating (pushing the lever), it would also apply the brakes (which should only be when pulling the lever). Driving the car to the shop that installed the equipment was not fun, I hear.
I'm certainly glad my brother merely had the reverse of this guy's problem.
It is far easier to look through the tabs on the ribbon to find something than it is to go through the old menus. At first I didn't like the ribbon, but now that I am used to it, I have found going back to office 2003 to be unusable. I don't know why you think having a couple more tabs is something to complain about, I think most people can figure out whether "mailings" would have the feature they are looking for. While some features have detailed popup menus as before, it is rare that I need to use those. It is much easier to go from one tab to another to find something, than to try and look through the dropdowns and find all the menus you can access from there.
Sure, some rarely-used features may be hard to find if they are not located on the ribbon, but I've done enough hunting through the old menus to know it's no worse in that respect.
I agree that the ribbon falls well short of its potential in Word due to 'Styles' taking up all that space, but even with that handicap I find it more useful.
Until charging stations are more ubiquitous and charging is faster, electric vehicles might do best in 2-car households so you have a gas-powered car as needed.
And there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year (give or take). Make the switch to measuring time in powers of 10 if you think it's inherently better.
How much of those donations to churches go on to charitable causes? Sure, plenty of it goes to keep the building operational and pay the priests, but many churches also do charity of some form.
There is not a single life that will be lost from AGW, even if your worst case is true. People would just gradually move out of coastal cities. But all the proposed reactions to AGW to try and slow it down or stop it will end up starving a lot of people
So changes to growing seasons, rainfall and flood patterns have zero risk of killing people or causing starvation, and humanity can deal with such changes with little more than a shrug, but replacing a coal plant means certain doom?
When I tell people that my kids will be home-schooled they usually say "but school is where you learn to socialize."
It's true. I went to an engineering school that had quite a few homeschooled kids. You could tell which ones were homeschooled - while there is of course observation bias, I can say every kid that said he was homeschooled stood out as such. In case I need to emphasize, they stood out as socially awkward in a school with nothing but geeks. Sure, you could get along with them just fine, but they had their rough edges that they were never made aware of.
I certainly understand that homeschooling may be the best option depending on the schools available, but I assure you that "learning to socialize" is not a myth.
The point is the two ways to deal with bullying are to end the relationship with the bully, or change the relationship - often by gaining enough acceptance from your peers that the bully stops seeing you as a safe target, maybe eventually he sees you as a human. Your examples are where you won't be getting help from peers, and you really do have to either take things into your own hands, or you have to leave.
In a school bullying situation, if you make yourself a target there won't just be one bully, so the best solution often is to figure out why you get targeted and do something about it. There are plenty of situations where everyone stonewalls the victim and he will never get a chance, but some kids just don't understand how to not be obnoxious, awkward or that special brand of annoying that is too subtle to politely do anything about. If you tell these kids that the entire problem is the bully, their lack of social skills can hurt them more than any direct abuse they are recieving.
Well someone has to lead the way if things are to get better, are you trying to suggest we wait for China? China and India are trying to catch up to the US, so if we can set an example as a sustainable society, there may still be a chance at limiting global warming. Given America's absurd CO2 production per capita, I think it is safe to say we need to make the first move.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure in other countries they allow the evidence, but (are supposed to) prosecute the officer who broke the law. I don't recall though exactly how it works - our "fruit of the poisonous tree" idea means anything gathered afterwords gets thrown out, it is possible some countries just allow this additional evidence.
If I trusted our justice system to prosecute law enforcement for breaking the law, I would favor admitting some/all of the evidence, as it is hard to see a guilty criminal walk free due to an incompetant investigator, but so long as law enforcement tends to be above the law I like our "throw it all out" method more.
That depends... if your house has a furnace and an air conditioning unit, your main concerns are having a well insulated house, and having some means of reducing the impact of solar heat load (the sun generally hurts more in the summer that it helps in the winter). If you have heating and no air conditioning, you'll have a warm house in the winter, but your house might not cool down very well in the evenings during the summer.
I see this mission as a stepping stone. We've recently proven that Mars once had flowing water, so there could be a lot to learn if we can look into the planet's history. Mars has ice caps - I am curious what we could glean from ice cores (and core samples of Martian soil). Such samples would be much harder to extract and transport back to Earth, so retrieving rocks first would help us work towards that.
They are just trying to measure public opinion by sorting comments into "positive" and "negative". They can already sort out most of the negative comments, their shortfalling is false positives due to sarcsm. If their purpose was to censor negative opinion, then they would already be censoring all those non-sarcastic posts they don't like.
In other words, I have no clue how you got modded up because your argument makes no sense.
Your force balance is off- work = force x distance, and at the point of contact with the ground, the wheels are moving at 0 relative velocity. This means any friction between the ground and the wheels does 0 work (aka it is not a factor in your force balance). Instead, the balancing going on is the forward push generated by the propeller and the backwards drag from the air on the vehicle (this drag is 0 when the vehicle is moving the same speed as the wind, and increases as it gains speed from there).
Without a percieved benefit, I agree that the school should not be taking iris scans of the students, but I have to ask: what is the threat posed by the school doing this? What freedom is being given up here?
I could try to piece together an argument, but I would rather hear from someone that feels strongly about this.
Most users of this will probably fall in one of three categories: those who actually stick close to what they would actually spend, those who pay more or more frequently than if using real money, and those who wouldn't spend any real money. Given this is on a voluntary basis, I doubt that many users would be erratic about using it, or otherwise substantially from one of the three profiles I'm expecting (if you were forced to use it, or using it only for a reward at the end, you might be more inclined to abuse the service).
While it would be silly to treat these numbers as directly representative of what you would see with actual money, it should provide some useful information if you take it with a grain of salt as there should be some correlation with real usage. It would be especially useful if later a limited test is done with real money and compared with these results, as it would be hard as-is to guess how much less would be donated with real money.
The *whoosh* is on you.
Bakker was trying to disprove the idea that science would be better off without religion. Given religion most certainly has come in conflict with science at various points in history, it is implied his examples must show religion helping the advancement of science. So when he brings up examples of religious people conducting science, the only way for it to help his argument is if he is suggesting that their religious work directly contributed to their scientific work. Otherwise he is just giving us examples of religion being neutral to science, which is just as well demonstrated by any scientist that wasn't known for their religious work.
In other words, Bakker falled to prove his point, leaving us to conclude that, at worst, science would be where it is today if there were no religion (as that is the best his arguments seem to demonstrate).
I know! Everyone is right! You see, life started on Earth, but then a giant meteor smashed into earth, which happened to send some rocks into space that had bacteria on them. That meteor was so big, it wiped out all life on Earth, so years later when some of those rocks landed back on Earth, they became the source of all life we see today.
As you approach a stale green, you should be thinking about where that line is between stopping and running the yellow. That way, in the event the light does change, you already know what you plan to do (and if you decide to stop you can ease into your braking to better warn the driver behind you).
I sure hope the NASA video includes the sound the asteroid makes as it goes by.
My brother has controls like that. Just a few weeks ago the lever somehow got messed up, and even when accelerating (pushing the lever), it would also apply the brakes (which should only be when pulling the lever). Driving the car to the shop that installed the equipment was not fun, I hear.
I'm certainly glad my brother merely had the reverse of this guy's problem.
It is far easier to look through the tabs on the ribbon to find something than it is to go through the old menus. At first I didn't like the ribbon, but now that I am used to it, I have found going back to office 2003 to be unusable. I don't know why you think having a couple more tabs is something to complain about, I think most people can figure out whether "mailings" would have the feature they are looking for. While some features have detailed popup menus as before, it is rare that I need to use those. It is much easier to go from one tab to another to find something, than to try and look through the dropdowns and find all the menus you can access from there.
Sure, some rarely-used features may be hard to find if they are not located on the ribbon, but I've done enough hunting through the old menus to know it's no worse in that respect.
I agree that the ribbon falls well short of its potential in Word due to 'Styles' taking up all that space, but even with that handicap I find it more useful.
Until charging stations are more ubiquitous and charging is faster, electric vehicles might do best in 2-car households so you have a gas-powered car as needed.
And there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year (give or take). Make the switch to measuring time in powers of 10 if you think it's inherently better.
How much of those donations to churches go on to charitable causes? Sure, plenty of it goes to keep the building operational and pay the priests, but many churches also do charity of some form.
You mean arable? Arid land is desert (which Antarctica already is).
There is not a single life that will be lost from AGW, even if your worst case is true. People would just gradually move out of coastal cities. But all the proposed reactions to AGW to try and slow it down or stop it will end up starving a lot of people
So changes to growing seasons, rainfall and flood patterns have zero risk of killing people or causing starvation, and humanity can deal with such changes with little more than a shrug, but replacing a coal plant means certain doom?
Whether or not you agree with him, parent is not a troll.
Damn, and here I thought I was 60 feet tall :/
I assume by "never ever" you mean "except for when there is an active shooter". But sure, pretend it's black and white.
You realize this is between the artist and Pandora, Pandora already has your data. They aren't asking anything else from you.
When I tell people that my kids will be home-schooled they usually say "but school is where you learn to socialize."
It's true. I went to an engineering school that had quite a few homeschooled kids. You could tell which ones were homeschooled - while there is of course observation bias, I can say every kid that said he was homeschooled stood out as such. In case I need to emphasize, they stood out as socially awkward in a school with nothing but geeks. Sure, you could get along with them just fine, but they had their rough edges that they were never made aware of.
I certainly understand that homeschooling may be the best option depending on the schools available, but I assure you that "learning to socialize" is not a myth.
The point is the two ways to deal with bullying are to end the relationship with the bully, or change the relationship - often by gaining enough acceptance from your peers that the bully stops seeing you as a safe target, maybe eventually he sees you as a human. Your examples are where you won't be getting help from peers, and you really do have to either take things into your own hands, or you have to leave.
In a school bullying situation, if you make yourself a target there won't just be one bully, so the best solution often is to figure out why you get targeted and do something about it. There are plenty of situations where everyone stonewalls the victim and he will never get a chance, but some kids just don't understand how to not be obnoxious, awkward or that special brand of annoying that is too subtle to politely do anything about. If you tell these kids that the entire problem is the bully, their lack of social skills can hurt them more than any direct abuse they are recieving.
Well someone has to lead the way if things are to get better, are you trying to suggest we wait for China? China and India are trying to catch up to the US, so if we can set an example as a sustainable society, there may still be a chance at limiting global warming. Given America's absurd CO2 production per capita, I think it is safe to say we need to make the first move.