Yes, we understand, the US must always consider what will happen when it starts a war or antagonises its neighbours by reneging on its trade commitments.
Yes, actually, it must. I realize that you were being sarcastic, but with this administration, it's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Now, yes, lots of corn -is- being dumped. But we have a massive surplus that could be almost instantly redirected from biofuel production and feeding livestock to, well, making cornbread.
Now, two hundred years ago, most communities were largely self-sufficient, at least food-wise. Ever notice how old people tend to give fruit as part of Christmas? It's because, for long time, getting fresh citrus and other exotic fruits was rare, unless you lived in a place that produced them.
Do you think that people will forget how to grow food?
Can you? Can you grow, process, and preserve enough food to survive for a year? If you can, can your neighbors?
There's a little something called infrastructure, something free-trade economicstards never seem to consider. It's expensive and vital. Once you stop doing something, you don't tend to maintain the infrastructure, and rebuilding it takes far too long in a crisis.
D'you know how long it takes between going "oops, it looks like we've been cut off from our corn supply" and actually having a new crop in hand? Even if you have the infrastructure, the seed corn, and fields lying fallow, you're looking at anywhere between two-three months and six or seven, depending on the time of year it happens.
No, the US was created as a rebellion against England's Imperialism. Get a dictionary. And a history book. The US has always been highly protectionist, and for most of its lifetime (pre-WWII,) it's also been highly isolationist. Furthermore, 'economic efficiency' is not a goal to be striven for in exclusion to all else, particularly security and the economy itself.
Protected industries grew, employing people who would otherwise be unemployed, reserving industrial capacity in our nation as a contingency against the possibility that outside sources could be cut off, either because of strife between our nations, internal political problems, or the other various ways which might cause a country to cease production, or at least cease directing their production our way. No, it's not as 'economically efficient' as the free-market alternative, but it sure as hell makes a lot more sense from the viewpoint of keeping a nation viable.
This device, perhaps, though having dependable access to a low-voltage source is more life-altering than you might think. This device could recharge a cell-or-sat-phone, giving an entire village access to the telephone. One on each roof would provide that most westernizing of forces: pure, dependable light, with no danger of fire. Think about the difference that would make in, say, a clinic in some third-world hellhole. You could probably charge an OLPC with it, too. It's small and lightweight, and would be something that nomadic people would have no problem using or adapting. Most of all, it can be made from scrap. Every component of that machine can be salvaged from trash (I'm thinking a couple of radios or headphones for the magnets and an electric motor for the magnet wire) or whittled out of wood. The filament could use any strong, lightweight material -- you could probably use a taught silk cloth, thick garbage bag material -- whatever fits the bill. And, except for the filament, I'm sure the whole thing would scale rather well. Fixing the turbine could be done by anyone. If the coils were waterproofed, this could even be used for water power, though it would require much more maintenance.
In short, this is one of the most useful and user-friendly innovations in power generation in a long time. And don't knock the utility of micropower generation where there is -no- power, at all, even unreliable power.
Well, one of the problems - if you want to split hairs -- is that, by its nature, in order to be free to express certain things, anonymity is required. When you're working somewhere and will face retribution for whistleblowing, when you call in an anonymous tip about the crack-heads next door, that kinda thing. As such, citizens must be guaranteed privacy in certain cases.
Now, the sane way to handle suits like this would be for a preliminary inquisition to be held, where it's first determined whether or not the information has a decent chance of being libel or not. Then they could decide whether or not it would be appropriate to acquire and reveal information about the defendants, or force the company to proceed on its own to prove that the statements are libelous.
On the contrary -- because you didn't have that merchandise on you (assuming a cop does come by and check), you obviously weren't continually observed.
Actually, there is, because -- as I understand it -- a reset package from any random source won't terminate the connection, it has to come from the source you're currently communicating with. Therefore the intermediary server has to forge a packet appearing to come from the computer you're communicating with. It's a trivial thing to do, but I personally agree with the original poster: this is impersonating someone, and could have significant legal ramifications.
I've done my time in retail, and in every job where I was expected to have the responsibility of preventing loss, I was told that in order to detain someone for shoplifting, I had to see them take the merch, observe them continuously to see that they hadn't put it back somewhere, and observe that they went past the last Point of Sale without making an attempt to pay. If I didn't do that, I couldn't. (And for completeness' sake, I have had jobs where I've been specifically told Loss Prevention wasn't my responsibility, if I saw someone doing something I was to keep an eye out and signal a manager, but I wasn't supposed to do anything myself.)
Anyway. The person who went by without letting them check their receipt did nothing wrong. He excercised his rights. As a shittily-paid employee I'd know this and not give a damn, and let him go by. Even so, the employee just called his manager, and the manager did the stuff that was really wrong, and which he should have known was wrong. I have zero sympathy for anyone in Circuit City's employ, here.
Businesses are a special legal case. They're technically private property, but they don't have most of the same protections that, say, your home does, and an individual does not surrender any of their rights by being in either place.
The only thing they can legally do if you refuse to comply is a: kick you out, or b: detain you on suspicion of shoplifting, but there are certain tests that have to be met in order to claim Shopkeeper Privelage, and if these aren't met, the shopkeeper can be bought up on charges. In no case, AFAIK, though IANAL, does a shopkeeper have the right to actually search your possessions -- he should wait until the cop shows up and let the officer do it.
Read up on "Shopkeeper's Privelage" or however it's spelt; basically, yes, in certain situations shopkeepers are allowed to detain you -if- they've seen you pick up merchandise, pass the POS and not pay, and they have maintained observation to ensure that you haven't put the merch back. If they don't do that, and they -do- detain you, then they're breaking the law. Simply not showing a receipt is not sufficient cause for suspicion of shoplifting.
"They can detain you if they think you are stealing their goods."
Only if they've met the tests for Shopkeeper's Privilage. Basically, you've got to see someone take something, continue observing them to make sure that they haven't put it back, and see them pass beyond the Point of Sale. Otherwise, if they detain you, they're liable for detaining you against your will.
Yes, but that does not give the place a right to search your bags -- only to sue you for breach of contract if you refuse. Since these slapped-up contracts don't give any set fines for breach, they're pretty much screwed, as I understand it. About the only places where these -do- apply - where they really -do- have the right to detain and search you -- are in certain federal facilities, AFAIK.
In another thread, someone brought up this point. You can still refuse the search, though you are then in breach of contract and may be liable for whatever the contract states -- usually termination of your membership.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's quite common for stores to force you to show a receipt before they'll let you leave.
Fortunately, it's just as illegal for them to do so in the US as it is in... what country was the poster from? The UK? The US has essentially the same tests in order to claim Shopkeeper's Privelage.
This depends entirely on the state. Some states -- mine included -- have statutes that say that you have to produce ID upon request by an officer. This state apparently doesn't have that statute, or they would have charged him with a violation of it, and not general Obstructing Official Business. Since there was no crime committed -- and from what I can tell by what I read, there wasn't, and the cop knew it at the time - the 'obstructing official business' charge is on really shaky ground.
I've had the same experience, reporting minor things like vandalism and other completely non-time-critical issues that I've felt guilty calling 911 for. But I've been told by the operators that if you want a police unit to show up, that's how they want it reported, because that ties right into their dispatch line.
Some systems are innately hardened against EMP. In older, carbeurated cars, without electronic ignition systems, the worst an EMP pulse -might- do is stall the car, but it'd probably just make it trip up a bit. Newer cars are somewhat more vulnerable, but even so, the size of the cables involved and the fact that a car (so long as it's not fiberglass) is pretty well shielded under the hood means that I think that the vulnerabilities of cars to EMP are somewhat overrated.
Tanks have a pretty complex transmission system to drive the treads. Going to independent motors actually helps reduce energy loss due to inefficiencies in transmission system, saving fuel. You also lose energy when you have to run an alternator -and- a drive unit. Additionally, the motor can be tuned better -- internal combustion engines can be made insanely fuel efficient, if you only need to run them in a narrow speed range, and if all they have to do is to drive a generator, this is doable. No, with the power then need, they're not 'green,' but this kind of system can make them a lot more efficient.
On the other hand, it'd b really easy to make them so that tires could be mounted, particularly with this new drive system.
Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
Same here. I can't recall what my IQ was tested at, but when I was tested in second grade (because my teacher thought I was retarded because I was never at the place we were when we were reading books out loud -- I was generally two chapters ahead and rapidly accelerating) -- I tested out with college-level english skills, high-school level math skills, etc.
But not much happened, particularly once I moved to a shittier school district. As a result, I skated, bored, though my later years, seldom completing assignments, getting straight Cs in most of my classes (but generally straight 95-100% on tests, including the Regents examinations in high school. I could do this with an absolute minimum of effort. The exceptions to this were some of the science classes I took at an AP level, because they really interested me.) A combination of boredom, abuse, and teachers who were teaching things which were verifiably and demonstrably wrong utterly demotivated me, and enforced shitty (read: non-existent) study habits. When I got to college, I was used to being able to skate through courses -- and thus had some real problems until I got my shit together.
I wish I could disagree with you. The calls I get from people who've had their accounts screwed up or been screwed over by IRS employees who just didn't give a crap or didn't know what they were saying astound and infuriate me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we understand, the US must always consider what will happen when it starts a war or antagonises its neighbours by reneging on its trade commitments.
Yes, actually, it must. I realize that you were being sarcastic, but with this administration, it's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Now, yes, lots of corn -is- being dumped. But we have a massive surplus that could be almost instantly redirected from biofuel production and feeding livestock to, well, making cornbread.
Now, two hundred years ago, most communities were largely self-sufficient, at least food-wise. Ever notice how old people tend to give fruit as part of Christmas? It's because, for long time, getting fresh citrus and other exotic fruits was rare, unless you lived in a place that produced them.
Do you think that people will forget how to grow food?
Can you? Can you grow, process, and preserve enough food to survive for a year? If you can, can your neighbors?
There's a little something called infrastructure, something free-trade economicstards never seem to consider. It's expensive and vital. Once you stop doing something, you don't tend to maintain the infrastructure, and rebuilding it takes far too long in a crisis.
D'you know how long it takes between going "oops, it looks like we've been cut off from our corn supply" and actually having a new crop in hand? Even if you have the infrastructure, the seed corn, and fields lying fallow, you're looking at anywhere between two-three months and six or seven, depending on the time of year it happens.
No, the US was created as a rebellion against England's Imperialism. Get a dictionary. And a history book. The US has always been highly protectionist, and for most of its lifetime (pre-WWII,) it's also been highly isolationist. Furthermore, 'economic efficiency' is not a goal to be striven for in exclusion to all else, particularly security and the economy itself.
Protected industries grew, employing people who would otherwise be unemployed, reserving industrial capacity in our nation as a contingency against the possibility that outside sources could be cut off, either because of strife between our nations, internal political problems, or the other various ways which might cause a country to cease production, or at least cease directing their production our way. No, it's not as 'economically efficient' as the free-market alternative, but it sure as hell makes a lot more sense from the viewpoint of keeping a nation viable.
This device, perhaps, though having dependable access to a low-voltage source is more life-altering than you might think. This device could recharge a cell-or-sat-phone, giving an entire village access to the telephone. One on each roof would provide that most westernizing of forces: pure, dependable light, with no danger of fire. Think about the difference that would make in, say, a clinic in some third-world hellhole. You could probably charge an OLPC with it, too. It's small and lightweight, and would be something that nomadic people would have no problem using or adapting. Most of all, it can be made from scrap. Every component of that machine can be salvaged from trash (I'm thinking a couple of radios or headphones for the magnets and an electric motor for the magnet wire) or whittled out of wood. The filament could use any strong, lightweight material -- you could probably use a taught silk cloth, thick garbage bag material -- whatever fits the bill. And, except for the filament, I'm sure the whole thing would scale rather well. Fixing the turbine could be done by anyone. If the coils were waterproofed, this could even be used for water power, though it would require much more maintenance.
In short, this is one of the most useful and user-friendly innovations in power generation in a long time. And don't knock the utility of micropower generation where there is -no- power, at all, even unreliable power.
Well, one of the problems - if you want to split hairs -- is that, by its nature, in order to be free to express certain things, anonymity is required. When you're working somewhere and will face retribution for whistleblowing, when you call in an anonymous tip about the crack-heads next door, that kinda thing. As such, citizens must be guaranteed privacy in certain cases.
Now, the sane way to handle suits like this would be for a preliminary inquisition to be held, where it's first determined whether or not the information has a decent chance of being libel or not. Then they could decide whether or not it would be appropriate to acquire and reveal information about the defendants, or force the company to proceed on its own to prove that the statements are libelous.
I wish I had mod points. Win. :)
On the contrary -- because you didn't have that merchandise on you (assuming a cop does come by and check), you obviously weren't continually observed.
Actually, there is, because -- as I understand it -- a reset package from any random source won't terminate the connection, it has to come from the source you're currently communicating with. Therefore the intermediary server has to forge a packet appearing to come from the computer you're communicating with. It's a trivial thing to do, but I personally agree with the original poster: this is impersonating someone, and could have significant legal ramifications.
I've done my time in retail, and in every job where I was expected to have the responsibility of preventing loss, I was told that in order to detain someone for shoplifting, I had to see them take the merch, observe them continuously to see that they hadn't put it back somewhere, and observe that they went past the last Point of Sale without making an attempt to pay. If I didn't do that, I couldn't. (And for completeness' sake, I have had jobs where I've been specifically told Loss Prevention wasn't my responsibility, if I saw someone doing something I was to keep an eye out and signal a manager, but I wasn't supposed to do anything myself.)
Anyway. The person who went by without letting them check their receipt did nothing wrong. He excercised his rights. As a shittily-paid employee I'd know this and not give a damn, and let him go by. Even so, the employee just called his manager, and the manager did the stuff that was really wrong, and which he should have known was wrong. I have zero sympathy for anyone in Circuit City's employ, here.
IANAL, but I'm sure you're right about the last point -- a shopowner pretty much always does have the right to kick you out.
Businesses are a special legal case. They're technically private property, but they don't have most of the same protections that, say, your home does, and an individual does not surrender any of their rights by being in either place.
The only thing they can legally do if you refuse to comply is a: kick you out, or b: detain you on suspicion of shoplifting, but there are certain tests that have to be met in order to claim Shopkeeper Privelage, and if these aren't met, the shopkeeper can be bought up on charges. In no case, AFAIK, though IANAL, does a shopkeeper have the right to actually search your possessions -- he should wait until the cop shows up and let the officer do it.
Read up on "Shopkeeper's Privelage" or however it's spelt; basically, yes, in certain situations shopkeepers are allowed to detain you -if- they've seen you pick up merchandise, pass the POS and not pay, and they have maintained observation to ensure that you haven't put the merch back. If they don't do that, and they -do- detain you, then they're breaking the law. Simply not showing a receipt is not sufficient cause for suspicion of shoplifting.
"They can detain you if they think you are stealing their goods."
Only if they've met the tests for Shopkeeper's Privilage. Basically, you've got to see someone take something, continue observing them to make sure that they haven't put it back, and see them pass beyond the Point of Sale. Otherwise, if they detain you, they're liable for detaining you against your will.
"These are typically considered valid contracts."
Yes, but that does not give the place a right to search your bags -- only to sue you for breach of contract if you refuse. Since these slapped-up contracts don't give any set fines for breach, they're pretty much screwed, as I understand it. About the only places where these -do- apply - where they really -do- have the right to detain and search you -- are in certain federal facilities, AFAIK.
In another thread, someone brought up this point. You can still refuse the search, though you are then in breach of contract and may be liable for whatever the contract states -- usually termination of your membership.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's quite common for stores to force you to show a receipt before they'll let you leave.
... what country was the poster from? The UK? The US has essentially the same tests in order to claim Shopkeeper's Privelage.
Fortunately, it's just as illegal for them to do so in the US as it is in
This depends entirely on the state. Some states -- mine included -- have statutes that say that you have to produce ID upon request by an officer. This state apparently doesn't have that statute, or they would have charged him with a violation of it, and not general Obstructing Official Business. Since there was no crime committed -- and from what I can tell by what I read, there wasn't, and the cop knew it at the time - the 'obstructing official business' charge is on really shaky ground.
I've had the same experience, reporting minor things like vandalism and other completely non-time-critical issues that I've felt guilty calling 911 for. But I've been told by the operators that if you want a police unit to show up, that's how they want it reported, because that ties right into their dispatch line.
Being detained against your will is a perfectly reasonable reason to call 911.
Some systems are innately hardened against EMP. In older, carbeurated cars, without electronic ignition systems, the worst an EMP pulse -might- do is stall the car, but it'd probably just make it trip up a bit. Newer cars are somewhat more vulnerable, but even so, the size of the cables involved and the fact that a car (so long as it's not fiberglass) is pretty well shielded under the hood means that I think that the vulnerabilities of cars to EMP are somewhat overrated.
Tanks have a pretty complex transmission system to drive the treads. Going to independent motors actually helps reduce energy loss due to inefficiencies in transmission system, saving fuel. You also lose energy when you have to run an alternator -and- a drive unit. Additionally, the motor can be tuned better -- internal combustion engines can be made insanely fuel efficient, if you only need to run them in a narrow speed range, and if all they have to do is to drive a generator, this is doable. No, with the power then need, they're not 'green,' but this kind of system can make them a lot more efficient.
On the other hand, it'd b really easy to make them so that tires could be mounted, particularly with this new drive system.
Same here. I can't recall what my IQ was tested at, but when I was tested in second grade (because my teacher thought I was retarded because I was never at the place we were when we were reading books out loud -- I was generally two chapters ahead and rapidly accelerating) -- I tested out with college-level english skills, high-school level math skills, etc.
But not much happened, particularly once I moved to a shittier school district. As a result, I skated, bored, though my later years, seldom completing assignments, getting straight Cs in most of my classes (but generally straight 95-100% on tests, including the Regents examinations in high school. I could do this with an absolute minimum of effort. The exceptions to this were some of the science classes I took at an AP level, because they really interested me.) A combination of boredom, abuse, and teachers who were teaching things which were verifiably and demonstrably wrong utterly demotivated me, and enforced shitty (read: non-existent) study habits. When I got to college, I was used to being able to skate through courses -- and thus had some real problems until I got my shit together.
Pretty well, considering. All I can say about Bush without rambling is this: he, too, shall pass. Thank god.
I wish I could disagree with you. The calls I get from people who've had their accounts screwed up or been screwed over by IRS employees who just didn't give a crap or didn't know what they were saying astound and infuriate me.