I understand what you are trying to say, however the example you gave is anything but an alibi:
LOL that was the day of my birthday - irrelevant
and I haven't been in France ever - not a proof of anything, just words of a suspect.
Look this is my photo with my family that day - how do we know that it was exactly that day?
it was funny because that water pipe broke and was a mess all over the town, here look at the broken pipe and thats John all wet because he's a jerk
- the town probably couldn't fix the pipe within one day, so there were tons of possibilities to drive to somewhere, kill someone, and be back for breakfast (and to pose for a camera in front of a broken pipe.)
There is another concern - hardly any honest citizen can provide an alibi for a random day and time a few years ago. I don't even know what I did on each day in February of this year, just a month ago! If police comes and asks me "what did you do between 11pm and 8am on Feb. 03/04, 2009" the only thing I can say is "probably I was asleep, what else?" - and how good an alibi that is? Plenty of crime is committed at night. Even if you need an alibi for your usual work hours, in many places nobody can definitely say that you were at work (unless that happens to be a meeting or something else with an attendance record preserved.) I work at an office where people can come in the morning, disappear by 10am, be back by 3pm and nobody would even notice.
How is her DNA getting on these cotton swabs, anyway?
Earlier someone suggested sneezing/coughing, covering her mouth with a gloved hand, and then using the same gloved hand to pack swabs. Hard to avoid this unless she works in an enclosed suit (which is unlikely.)
they might need to be hygienic in other applications
Or not - I use them to clear soldered contacts, for example - couldn't care less about traces of some organic, they'd be all history after I dip the swab into some of our solvents (alcohols and acetone, for example.) Medical people simply sterilize everything before they use it on a patient. So this is an interesting case where highly sensitive biological test is performed without checking that the material is clean and without cleaning it. This may have something to do with the fact that the users here are not highly trained doctors and scientists (who are personally responsible for quality of results) but mere technicians who do the steps by the book but don't quite understand how the whole thing works, and maybe sometimes even don't care to know.
Most likely yes, rights and responsibilities of a child are a close match to those of a slave. For example:
They are required to obey the overwhelming authority of their masters/parents
They will be punished, one way or another, if they disobey (the level of punishment is usually limited by the state)
They are assigned tasks to complete, and if they fail to complete them they will be punished
They will be given small rewards for tasks done well
All major decisions are done for them by their parents/masters
They are fed and cared for by their parents/masters, and not by themselves
They have near zero legal status in the society
They have about the same chance of being loved or hated by their masters/parents
etc.
So technically children are slaves, with the only difference being in the acquisition method. A slave in ancient Rome was probably also much cheaper than a modern child, a far better deal:-)
You say nothing to the higher ups. You do nothing. That's the answer
By definition it's not possible because the poster has to do installs, maintenance and support of pirated stuff. How can he do that without installing more pirated code? And if he doesn't tell the management then he becomes personally responsible, and the management has a perfect excuse, if necessary, to blame him alone and fire him and set him up for prosecution, while exonerating themselves.
You document and keep the info as future ammo
Ammo against himself... how he observed an illegal activity and covered it up.
Elsewhere in the test there usually are complementary questions, or the same questions will be rephrased. If you do not answer them consistently the trust in your answers will be lower. If you want to fake such a test you need to have a good mental image of the person that you are representing. This test, as it seems, is for a low-IQ applicant for a menial job; the applicant is given 500+ questions and likely barely enough time (10 seconds per question?) to mark the paper up. In such conditions you have to either (a) answer the truth, or (b) lie randomly. The (b) will be detected (or estimated) by the questions which are there only for that purpose. This is why keeping the questions secret is so important - an applicant can prepare correct answers on most questions, given time, and memorize the profile that he wants to show.
If you look outside your CPU, you'll see the rest of the computers on this planet are massively parallel
You don't even need to look outside of your computer - it has many microcontrollers, each having a CPU, to do disk I/O, video, audio - even a keyboard has its own microcontroller. This is not far from a mouse being able to think about escape and run at the same time - most mechanical functions in critters are highly automated (a headless chicken is an example.) I don't call it multithreading because these functions are independently operated, just as I don't call a 386 computer dual-core because it has an independent ATA controller or an independent network card. The HDD gets written to and the network data is sent without using the main CPU, but these are independent functions performed by independent hardware. IBM/360 had that already.
Some people (very few) have an ability to do two dissimilar tasks at the same time. That would be a perfect analogy. But the rest of us, all critters included, are single-threaded, just as you mentioned yourself. Logically thinking, any single thought can't be easily parallelized, but why couldn't we think two thoughts at the same time? I wonder why is that? This question is, IMO, very important because a brain should, technically, be capable of that feat - and nevertheless it doesn't do that! I guess this could be because the brain has (or must have?) only one VM to run our consciousness (our persona) on. Since most thoughts [queries] are executed in volatile context of owner's persona [database] it could be that allowing two thoughts at the same time, on two copies of the persona, would result in independent modification of both personas, and how to you merge them back then? And if the brain doesn't copy a full database that defines a person for each trivial thought, then running of two or more queries in parallel may result in unpredictable results (does a brain have semaphores, mutexes and spinlocks? I doubt that; if you are asked to "hold that thought" it takes a considerable effort to separate and memorize the context, and often we fail.
To dumb your message down, CPU manufacturers act like book publishers who want you to read one book in two different places at the same time just because you happen to have two eyes. But a story can't be read this way, and for the same reason most programs don't benefit from several CPU cores. Books are read page by page because each little bit of story depends on previous story; buildings are constructed one floor at a time because each new floor of a building sits on top of lower floors; a game renders one map at a time because it's pointless to render other maps until the player made his gameplay decisions and arrived there.
In this particular case CPU manufacturers do what they do simply because that's the only thing they know how to do. We, as users, for most tasks would rather prefer a single 1 THz CPU core, but we can't have that yet.
There are engineering and scientific tasks that can be easily subdivided - this comes to mind - and these are very CPU-intensive tasks. They will benefit from as many cores as you can scare up. But most computing in the world is done using single-threaded processes which start somewhere and go ahead step by step, without much gain from multiple cores.
Deaf? Not to be too harsh, but please come back when you know what you're talking about.
Since you obviously know the subject, maybe you can comment on three items of my post:
Who has the primary duty to avoid such a collision?
Is it reasonable to expect a surface ship to see a submarine 30' below the surface at night?
Would it be expected that many sailors aboard the sub will hear 100,000 HP diesels of a surface ship a couple of hundred feet away?
In my opinion these answers, made by a competent person, would be far more useful than guessing about me and at the same time telling nothing on the subject of discussion.
Yes, I remember the memo. The experimental stealth technology was installed on a submarine and powered up. But when the crew came to take the ship to the sea for testing they couldn't find it, even though they searched for three days and three nights... they had to be given a new sub to continue their service;-)
I think it's submarine navigator's duty to avoid surface ships. Hardly any surface ship can detect a submarine at periscope depth, let alone if it is deeper. Sailors at USS Hartford must have been completely deaf to not hear the noise of a huge ship.
People ask what can IPv6 offer that NAT cannot. Try running multiple servers on multiple machines behind the same NAT
This is a wrong answer, addressed to wrong people. Tell this to your non-IT neighbors and watch their reaction:-) Nobody but an IT specialist would be worried about multiple instances of a service behind a NAT, and those people do not need anyone's explanations about NAT and IPv6, they make their decisions based on their own plans and goals.
A better pitch to tell your neighbor would be something about a service that he could not have on IPv4 but could easily get on IPv6. For example, his children could play online games on their consoles independently or together, with no configuration at the router needed. Or that he could buy a bunch of IPv6 SIP phones, plug them in and talk to anyone in the world instantly, no configuration required.
But most people only need TCP for Web browsing and maybe email. Those will be happier with IPv4, at least because they don't need to change anything in their computers.
There wasn't a business case for the automobile when it first came out, either. Nor for the airplane.
There was a business case for the automobile - to haul heavier loads faster, without horses being tired. A very real example of that need is in railroads and steam locomotives, so people already knew what they want, just without rails.
There was a business case for the airplane - to fly people and cargo faster than in a dirigible (which predates the airplane by about 50 years.)
Compared to all that, IPv6 does not offer *to businesses* (an important distinction) anything that they don't have already. The network utilization will grow, the hardware needs to be replaced, a migration plan needs to be drawn, techs need to be trained - and all that hard work for what? To see the same Web site of Google or Digikey? Lack of clear need is why businesses have no interest in IPv6. Businesses see the network not as a goal in itself, but just as a tool, and as long as the tool works it won't be replaced.
The only place where IPv6 does show some demand is among ISPs who service home users. It may be that some ISPs will be offering IPv6 routers to homes, as long as IPv4 is fully and transparently supported. The end user, though, may be willingly stuck with IPv4 for a long time, due to number of devices that are IPv4 only or require a lot of effort to switch to IPv6. I have a few SIP phones that support only IPv4 and won't be ever upgraded.
And what exactly is wrong with NAT? 10's of millions use it without issue.
NAT does present a problem, for example in VoIP telecommunications. You can't generally just plug a SIP phone into your office network and call someone overseas who has a similar phone plugged into his office network if at least one of those offices uses NAT. There are workarounds, but they are quite bad. Most video and audio streams are UDP, sent unsolicited from and to weird ports of phones (weird unless you also spy on SIP...)
A properly implemented IPv6 office would be better connected than IPv4+NAT. But many managers and company owners *do not want that* - specifically and aggressively. They do not want their workers to use multimedia and IP phones and such. Such expanded connectivity will require higher level of traffic monitoring and AUP enforcement, and HR problems, and annoyed people... instead you can just configure the system so that only permitted activities are technically possible, and there is nothing for employees to complain about.
Managers also do not want every box on the LAN to have a unique, globally addressable identifier either - simply because there is so little need to do so. NAT, as other people indicated, if fails, defaults to a safe (broken) configuration, and that is a good thing - not something to depend upon, but a little incremental protection, like the safety on a gun.
IPv6 could be a great technology for home, where you really may want to have tens of devices that you need to access from afar - your security cameras, your fridge, your home automation, your mail server, your Web server, etc. And most home users would want every multimedia connectivity that there is. But home users do not drive technology, businesses do - and businesses have *negative* need to move from NAT to IPv6.
These corporations employ tens of thousands, and sometimes, hundreds of thousands of employees.
These jobs are not productive. These tens of thousands of clerks make NOTHING OF VALUE, and not only they ought to be not paid salary - they should pay for the privilege of occupying their offices. That's just a glimpse of the huge problem that USA is having - too many employees here do nothing useful, make no products, do not improve anyone's life. All they do is push papers and sell lies to each other, paying with imaginary money. A single machinist who makes a single part and sells it abroad is more valuable than a spaceshipload of politicians and tax accountants and lawyers...
If a, say, big bank closes its doors then a ton of people will be suddenly without jobs. They'd have to find another job, and chances are some will find a productive job, even digging ditches and repairing fences. I recall that a couple of bridges in this country are in need of repair, for example... and with these trillions of bailouts that's an ideal, rightful destination of taxpayers' money - unlike what they do now.
And those who are completely unable to find a job... well, tough luck. They can always find a job as maids and butlers and chauffeurs for people who have jobs and pull this country out of the hole. Still better than sitting in their offices and burning taxpayers' money to the tune of billion per day.
Because by definition I know, a liberal believes in the power of a free (liberal) market or society without regulation or too much intervention from the state.
You shouldn't look into that dictionary. Modern US equivalent of the word "liberal" is, of course, "socialist", and it means, roughly, someone who wants to take money from people who work hard and give it to people who don't work at all.
If you look at these bailouts you can see for yourself that they are nothing but socialism for bankers. And the sad, confusing part here is that both administrations and both parties are equally guilty in making this happen.
Even if you build it, you often can't fix it because you don't have the parts, and the seller at eBay who you bought from five years ago is no longer selling there, what a surprise... (or more commonly he doesn't have such parts any more.)
If you must ask these questions then you can't afford the car.
This is exactly why all three vehicles are "super-luxury" cars, where cost does not matter. Manufacturers (tiny shops) can afford to assemble each car by hand and there is enough money left to grow business. A car for everyone (Smart, Prius etc.) must be made by robots, and in quantity, to have a reasonably low cost. No small business can sink a billion dollars on an assembly plant.
Speaking of airplanes and emergency situations, there is one thing I never understood about commercial airlines. Why do they not have parachutes aboard for the crew and for each passenger?
Most accidents happen during at takeoff or landing; in such situations only an ejecting seat may save you.
It may not cost your neighbor extra money. However imagine that you own a home and a homeless man broke into an unused bedroom and lives there. He doesn't cost you extra money either, but will you tolerate that? Let me summarize:
He is using a resource (house or Internet) that you paid for. You pay, he is getting it for free. See a problem here?
He is living inside of your house (or inside of your LAN) and has access to your internal property (computers, cupboards, files.) This is a security issue, since he is bypassing the firewall that your router likely has.
He may be engaged in crime, be it child pr0n on Internet or drug dealing in your house. You will be seen as accessory in either case; probably even it's tougher in the Internet case, since MAFIAA and FBI shoot first and never ask questions.
As other posters mentioned, he may be eating into your Internet caps or just drag the speed down by large downloads.
Even if he is doing none of the above, who is to guarantee that his friends will be also benign when they decide to use your "free" resource? You aren't objecting to it, after all...
It seems obvious that there are too many disadvantages for such a sharing, and no WiFi router owner should allow neighbors to connect, just to be safe.
A personal diary may be a privileged document because of possible self-incrimination. But the court can summon his daughter as a witness and ask if her dad looked happy or depressed on a certain date; and you don't need to raid the house for that.
A radar could be an excellent device to monitor movement of metal objects - say, cars - even if they are camouflaged and/or moving at night. The invaders would have to carry stuff on their backs, or get some horses - which exposes them to IR cameras...
What exactly makes you think they don't learn from their parents? Squirrels don't exactly grow up in a vacuum.
I have plenty of ground squirrels around, and they are fairly independent animals; they run alone, maintain their personal space, and when they meet it's usually to fight. They do maintain a collective behavior (when a hawk shows up, for example.) However nobody can learn from experience that one hasn't experienced before; and squirrels are not very good in "instruction", whatever you mean by that:-) - it would require fairly elaborate communication between generations, and already in April or May young squirrels live on their own, dig their burrows and such.
Again, the issue here is that an animal has one and only one chance to make a correct "life vs. death" decision when winter comes, and that decision (gathering food and fattening up) has to be made well ahead of cold time. To make matters worse, this decision is counter-intuitive, since the young squirrel never saw a winter and never participated in preparations. A lone human could figure out the need by reading books; a child could be told to do that by adults; but a small rodent does not have access to such complex communication mechanisms, and by nature is not a herd animal to blindly follow a leader. Other animals, like deer or sheep, are far better in introducing their young to the world.
It must be an instinct because an animal has to do these things before its first winter. A squirrel without its food supply (or fat, if it hibernates) will simply die.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you are trying to say, however the example you gave is anything but an alibi:
There is another concern - hardly any honest citizen can provide an alibi for a random day and time a few years ago. I don't even know what I did on each day in February of this year, just a month ago! If police comes and asks me "what did you do between 11pm and 8am on Feb. 03/04, 2009" the only thing I can say is "probably I was asleep, what else?" - and how good an alibi that is? Plenty of crime is committed at night. Even if you need an alibi for your usual work hours, in many places nobody can definitely say that you were at work (unless that happens to be a meeting or something else with an attendance record preserved.) I work at an office where people can come in the morning, disappear by 10am, be back by 3pm and nobody would even notice.
How is her DNA getting on these cotton swabs, anyway?
Earlier someone suggested sneezing/coughing, covering her mouth with a gloved hand, and then using the same gloved hand to pack swabs. Hard to avoid this unless she works in an enclosed suit (which is unlikely.)
they might need to be hygienic in other applications
Or not - I use them to clear soldered contacts, for example - couldn't care less about traces of some organic, they'd be all history after I dip the swab into some of our solvents (alcohols and acetone, for example.) Medical people simply sterilize everything before they use it on a patient. So this is an interesting case where highly sensitive biological test is performed without checking that the material is clean and without cleaning it. This may have something to do with the fact that the users here are not highly trained doctors and scientists (who are personally responsible for quality of results) but mere technicians who do the steps by the book but don't quite understand how the whole thing works, and maybe sometimes even don't care to know.
So, are toddlers slaves?
Most likely yes, rights and responsibilities of a child are a close match to those of a slave. For example:
So technically children are slaves, with the only difference being in the acquisition method. A slave in ancient Rome was probably also much cheaper than a modern child, a far better deal :-)
You say nothing to the higher ups. You do nothing. That's the answer
By definition it's not possible because the poster has to do installs, maintenance and support of pirated stuff. How can he do that without installing more pirated code? And if he doesn't tell the management then he becomes personally responsible, and the management has a perfect excuse, if necessary, to blame him alone and fire him and set him up for prosecution, while exonerating themselves.
You document and keep the info as future ammo
Ammo against himself ... how he observed an illegal activity and covered it up.
Elsewhere in the test there usually are complementary questions, or the same questions will be rephrased. If you do not answer them consistently the trust in your answers will be lower. If you want to fake such a test you need to have a good mental image of the person that you are representing. This test, as it seems, is for a low-IQ applicant for a menial job; the applicant is given 500+ questions and likely barely enough time (10 seconds per question?) to mark the paper up. In such conditions you have to either (a) answer the truth, or (b) lie randomly. The (b) will be detected (or estimated) by the questions which are there only for that purpose. This is why keeping the questions secret is so important - an applicant can prepare correct answers on most questions, given time, and memorize the profile that he wants to show.
If you look outside your CPU, you'll see the rest of the computers on this planet are massively parallel
You don't even need to look outside of your computer - it has many microcontrollers, each having a CPU, to do disk I/O, video, audio - even a keyboard has its own microcontroller. This is not far from a mouse being able to think about escape and run at the same time - most mechanical functions in critters are highly automated (a headless chicken is an example.) I don't call it multithreading because these functions are independently operated, just as I don't call a 386 computer dual-core because it has an independent ATA controller or an independent network card. The HDD gets written to and the network data is sent without using the main CPU, but these are independent functions performed by independent hardware. IBM/360 had that already.
Some people (very few) have an ability to do two dissimilar tasks at the same time. That would be a perfect analogy. But the rest of us, all critters included, are single-threaded, just as you mentioned yourself. Logically thinking, any single thought can't be easily parallelized, but why couldn't we think two thoughts at the same time? I wonder why is that? This question is, IMO, very important because a brain should, technically, be capable of that feat - and nevertheless it doesn't do that! I guess this could be because the brain has (or must have?) only one VM to run our consciousness (our persona) on. Since most thoughts [queries] are executed in volatile context of owner's persona [database] it could be that allowing two thoughts at the same time, on two copies of the persona, would result in independent modification of both personas, and how to you merge them back then? And if the brain doesn't copy a full database that defines a person for each trivial thought, then running of two or more queries in parallel may result in unpredictable results (does a brain have semaphores, mutexes and spinlocks? I doubt that; if you are asked to "hold that thought" it takes a considerable effort to separate and memorize the context, and often we fail.
To dumb your message down, CPU manufacturers act like book publishers who want you to read one book in two different places at the same time just because you happen to have two eyes. But a story can't be read this way, and for the same reason most programs don't benefit from several CPU cores. Books are read page by page because each little bit of story depends on previous story; buildings are constructed one floor at a time because each new floor of a building sits on top of lower floors; a game renders one map at a time because it's pointless to render other maps until the player made his gameplay decisions and arrived there.
In this particular case CPU manufacturers do what they do simply because that's the only thing they know how to do. We, as users, for most tasks would rather prefer a single 1 THz CPU core, but we can't have that yet.
There are engineering and scientific tasks that can be easily subdivided - this comes to mind - and these are very CPU-intensive tasks. They will benefit from as many cores as you can scare up. But most computing in the world is done using single-threaded processes which start somewhere and go ahead step by step, without much gain from multiple cores.
Deaf? Not to be too harsh, but please come back when you know what you're talking about.
Since you obviously know the subject, maybe you can comment on three items of my post:
In my opinion these answers, made by a competent person, would be far more useful than guessing about me and at the same time telling nothing on the subject of discussion.
I think we perfected it a while back.
Yes, I remember the memo. The experimental stealth technology was installed on a submarine and powered up. But when the crew came to take the ship to the sea for testing they couldn't find it, even though they searched for three days and three nights... they had to be given a new sub to continue their service ;-)
I think it's submarine navigator's duty to avoid surface ships. Hardly any surface ship can detect a submarine at periscope depth, let alone if it is deeper. Sailors at USS Hartford must have been completely deaf to not hear the noise of a huge ship.
People ask what can IPv6 offer that NAT cannot. Try running multiple servers on multiple machines behind the same NAT
This is a wrong answer, addressed to wrong people. Tell this to your non-IT neighbors and watch their reaction :-) Nobody but an IT specialist would be worried about multiple instances of a service behind a NAT, and those people do not need anyone's explanations about NAT and IPv6, they make their decisions based on their own plans and goals.
A better pitch to tell your neighbor would be something about a service that he could not have on IPv4 but could easily get on IPv6. For example, his children could play online games on their consoles independently or together, with no configuration at the router needed. Or that he could buy a bunch of IPv6 SIP phones, plug them in and talk to anyone in the world instantly, no configuration required.
But most people only need TCP for Web browsing and maybe email. Those will be happier with IPv4, at least because they don't need to change anything in their computers.
There wasn't a business case for the automobile when it first came out, either. Nor for the airplane.
There was a business case for the automobile - to haul heavier loads faster, without horses being tired. A very real example of that need is in railroads and steam locomotives, so people already knew what they want, just without rails. There was a business case for the airplane - to fly people and cargo faster than in a dirigible (which predates the airplane by about 50 years.)
Compared to all that, IPv6 does not offer *to businesses* (an important distinction) anything that they don't have already. The network utilization will grow, the hardware needs to be replaced, a migration plan needs to be drawn, techs need to be trained - and all that hard work for what? To see the same Web site of Google or Digikey? Lack of clear need is why businesses have no interest in IPv6. Businesses see the network not as a goal in itself, but just as a tool, and as long as the tool works it won't be replaced.
The only place where IPv6 does show some demand is among ISPs who service home users. It may be that some ISPs will be offering IPv6 routers to homes, as long as IPv4 is fully and transparently supported. The end user, though, may be willingly stuck with IPv4 for a long time, due to number of devices that are IPv4 only or require a lot of effort to switch to IPv6. I have a few SIP phones that support only IPv4 and won't be ever upgraded.
You can do that and more already, with IPv4 and a NAT. What are you waiting for?
And what exactly is wrong with NAT? 10's of millions use it without issue.
NAT does present a problem, for example in VoIP telecommunications. You can't generally just plug a SIP phone into your office network and call someone overseas who has a similar phone plugged into his office network if at least one of those offices uses NAT. There are workarounds, but they are quite bad. Most video and audio streams are UDP, sent unsolicited from and to weird ports of phones (weird unless you also spy on SIP...)
A properly implemented IPv6 office would be better connected than IPv4+NAT. But many managers and company owners *do not want that* - specifically and aggressively. They do not want their workers to use multimedia and IP phones and such. Such expanded connectivity will require higher level of traffic monitoring and AUP enforcement, and HR problems, and annoyed people... instead you can just configure the system so that only permitted activities are technically possible, and there is nothing for employees to complain about.
Managers also do not want every box on the LAN to have a unique, globally addressable identifier either - simply because there is so little need to do so. NAT, as other people indicated, if fails, defaults to a safe (broken) configuration, and that is a good thing - not something to depend upon, but a little incremental protection, like the safety on a gun.
IPv6 could be a great technology for home, where you really may want to have tens of devices that you need to access from afar - your security cameras, your fridge, your home automation, your mail server, your Web server, etc. And most home users would want every multimedia connectivity that there is. But home users do not drive technology, businesses do - and businesses have *negative* need to move from NAT to IPv6.
These corporations employ tens of thousands, and sometimes, hundreds of thousands of employees.
These jobs are not productive. These tens of thousands of clerks make NOTHING OF VALUE, and not only they ought to be not paid salary - they should pay for the privilege of occupying their offices. That's just a glimpse of the huge problem that USA is having - too many employees here do nothing useful, make no products, do not improve anyone's life. All they do is push papers and sell lies to each other, paying with imaginary money. A single machinist who makes a single part and sells it abroad is more valuable than a spaceshipload of politicians and tax accountants and lawyers...
If a, say, big bank closes its doors then a ton of people will be suddenly without jobs. They'd have to find another job, and chances are some will find a productive job, even digging ditches and repairing fences. I recall that a couple of bridges in this country are in need of repair, for example... and with these trillions of bailouts that's an ideal, rightful destination of taxpayers' money - unlike what they do now.
And those who are completely unable to find a job ... well, tough luck. They can always find a job as maids and butlers and chauffeurs for people who have jobs and pull this country out of the hole. Still better than sitting in their offices and burning taxpayers' money to the tune of billion per day.
Because by definition I know, a liberal believes in the power of a free (liberal) market or society without regulation or too much intervention from the state.
You shouldn't look into that dictionary. Modern US equivalent of the word "liberal" is, of course, "socialist", and it means, roughly, someone who wants to take money from people who work hard and give it to people who don't work at all.
If you look at these bailouts you can see for yourself that they are nothing but socialism for bankers. And the sad, confusing part here is that both administrations and both parties are equally guilty in making this happen.
Even if you build it, you often can't fix it because you don't have the parts, and the seller at eBay who you bought from five years ago is no longer selling there, what a surprise... (or more commonly he doesn't have such parts any more.)
If you must ask these questions then you can't afford the car.
This is exactly why all three vehicles are "super-luxury" cars, where cost does not matter. Manufacturers (tiny shops) can afford to assemble each car by hand and there is enough money left to grow business. A car for everyone (Smart, Prius etc.) must be made by robots, and in quantity, to have a reasonably low cost. No small business can sink a billion dollars on an assembly plant.
Speaking of airplanes and emergency situations, there is one thing I never understood about commercial airlines. Why do they not have parachutes aboard for the crew and for each passenger?
Most accidents happen during at takeoff or landing; in such situations only an ejecting seat may save you.
Didn't Jack Thompson die?
It doesn't matter, Jack Thompson saves frequently.
It seems obvious that there are too many disadvantages for such a sharing, and no WiFi router owner should allow neighbors to connect, just to be safe.
A personal diary may be a privileged document because of possible self-incrimination. But the court can summon his daughter as a witness and ask if her dad looked happy or depressed on a certain date; and you don't need to raid the house for that.
A radar could be an excellent device to monitor movement of metal objects - say, cars - even if they are camouflaged and/or moving at night. The invaders would have to carry stuff on their backs, or get some horses - which exposes them to IR cameras...
What exactly makes you think they don't learn from their parents? Squirrels don't exactly grow up in a vacuum.
I have plenty of ground squirrels around, and they are fairly independent animals; they run alone, maintain their personal space, and when they meet it's usually to fight. They do maintain a collective behavior (when a hawk shows up, for example.) However nobody can learn from experience that one hasn't experienced before; and squirrels are not very good in "instruction", whatever you mean by that :-) - it would require fairly elaborate communication between generations, and already in April or May young squirrels live on their own, dig their burrows and such.
Again, the issue here is that an animal has one and only one chance to make a correct "life vs. death" decision when winter comes, and that decision (gathering food and fattening up) has to be made well ahead of cold time. To make matters worse, this decision is counter-intuitive, since the young squirrel never saw a winter and never participated in preparations. A lone human could figure out the need by reading books; a child could be told to do that by adults; but a small rodent does not have access to such complex communication mechanisms, and by nature is not a herd animal to blindly follow a leader. Other animals, like deer or sheep, are far better in introducing their young to the world.
It must be an instinct because an animal has to do these things before its first winter. A squirrel without its food supply (or fat, if it hibernates) will simply die.