Pacemakers indeed; a suicide bomber can have a good deal of explosive surgically implanted into him, replacing most of his bowels, for example, or one lung (as larger organs that are not mandatory for survival.) He'd need to live on injections of glucose for the rest of his life, but that's hardly a long time; he could board his flight mere days after the surgery. A similar scenario was described in the Gap trilogy by Stephen R. Donaldson; in his version the assassin had his blood replaced with an explosive that was still functioning as blood, more or less, just enough to carry him through the mission.
I don't want to give any ideas, but it is not a rocket science to find a place on the ground where many people are present, and bring it down. Compare to a half-empty aircraft, with 80 people aboard. You probably can find more people than that at any fast food restaurant at lunch time.
Sure, you can drive a van up to the front of a supermarket and detonate the tons of explosives you have inside, but how many people would that kill?
you just have to worry about making an explosion just big enough to put a hole in the side of the plane.
Like Aloha Airlines Flight 243? Fact is that it's not easy to bring a passenger plane down; even a missile hit into one engine is not guaranteed to destroy the vehicle, unless the wing is breached and the fuel ignites.
TFA stops mentioning other passengers long before the iPod is found. And the police had to wait until they have the device in their [gloved] hands and have a chance to verify that it is not something nefarious. After they did that the police stopped treating the owner as a terrier, and only the customs inspector - who was probably required by the book to go through all the luggage - chose to play tough, out of habit or just for his personal pleasure.
But what this carrier group is to do when it runs out of fuel? Iran will make Straits of Hormuz into a target practice range, and no oil for you. They could just do what they did decades before - dump thousands of sea mines into the Straits and see what happens (answer: supertankers' captains won't be amused, and so won't be Lloyd's.)
A blockade of a self-sufficient country is pointless; airstrikes would be an open declaration of war; and if you declare a war you don't want your Navy to lazily cruise along the shores of the enemy country. I am not an admiral, so I can't tell what it should do - but it's quite obvious what the Navy shouldn't do - it shouldn't be within reach of the enemy unnecessarily. And the whole Straits are within reach of Iran, with its shore artillery, missiles, torpedos and trained goldfish, for all I know. Iranians kind of live there, they probably know.
If the "higher ups" refused to do so, I would call them up in the middle of the night the next time the problem occured and inform them that they have some work to do.
Me calling Boss: Hi, Boss, the box crashed again, full of viruses. I tell you, we must upgrade it to Linux!
Boss: Ok, smart guy, now tell me how our custom universal resource planning database for civil works is going to work on Linux, given that it uses every single Windows API that there is?
Me: Well... we can always try Wine, it's in alpha now, and it can run Notepad already, and even some IE! It may work for us if we are lucky, then we don't need to rewrite that monstrosity of the database and spend another $15,000,000 and five years...
Boss: I thought you were not supposed to be stupid! You are fired. Good night.
I am managing developers too (but the GP post was not mine.) Maybe I can comment.
If deliverables are late, then it's YOUR job, as a manager, to motivate your people to keep their commitments and complete their project work.
Nice words, but how will you do that motivation? Should you give a fiery speech in front of a yawning audience? Should you ask the developers to chant the Company Hymn every morning? I don't think so.
Fact is, many otherwise good people treat their job as a contract between you and me. "Me work, you pay." If "me" works less and "you" still pays as agreed upon, good for me. They don't feel any obligations toward you as an employer. And if they can get away with MySpace browsing, or/. even, they see it as a point scored against you, money earned for doing nothing.
If the deliverables are late, then people browsing MySpace is a symptom, not the cause, of the problem.
In medical science treating a symptom goes a long way toward treating of the disease. For example, if your temperature is 42 deg C the first thing a physician might do is to put a fan to cool you, secondary damage be damned, because otherwise you'll die from overheating alone.
It is true that waste of time may be seen as a symptom - but symptom of what? As I said, if the employee perceives the work relation as a truest form of a literal business contract, he is only obliged to show up from 9 to 5 and do whatever the manager tells him to do. I can sit with him all day and make sure he does not go astray, or I can program a computer to block this avenue for me. Manager's time is expensive and in short supply, I can't check on everyone all the time, and I am not going to play a whack-a-mole with people working in different offices.
If you can't motivate your team to produce on time, then you certainly can't force them to do that by taking away their Internet access.
Motivation is not always working. Some people indeed have team spirit and love the job, they want to have it done and to see the customers happy, and to do something else, even better and even greater. Those are the best people you can possibly have. But you can't have all of your developers like that - good, sensible people are rare. What will you do with the rest? You can't fire them, they know the stuff and can do the work - but only if they have nothing else to do. So here you are.
There's PLENTY of research indicating that the freedom to "goof off", to spend time on other things, INCREASES productivity.
That may be so. I do not block access to anything except pr0n. But not everyone is using this privilege wisely. Some people just don't care about productivity. In such cases you have to micromanage the abusers, giving them small tasks with very predictable completion times, and holding them responsible (but how?) for having these tasks done on time. This micromanagement in itself is a bad practice, and it's hard on the manager as well. What else is out there to deal with such a lazy employee?
Yes, he is saying that abuse done by one person scared the management into implementing filtering. That was the right decision on management's part because:
If one person was stupid enough to do that, what are the chances that another equally stupid person won't do the same thing later?
Holding pr0n on business computers is a big liability issue. Nobody would want to allow it, especially after being informed about a previous incident.
At work I have standard IPCop filter in place, which blocks some generic pr0n and has a custom blacklist which I use to block individual sites (not pr0n, just stuff like MySpace for example, though I don't think anyone here goes there.) The company is small, and I know for a fact that nobody hits the blocks (except advertising sites which are blocked heavily to protect our privacy and bandwidth.) I know because the blocking log is emailed to me every day. But officially we have a policy in place, and if anyone asks we are good.
Since they pay you for this voodoo, please go ahead and do it by their book. And while the paperwork makes its way from desk to desk you should be free to do something else, or nothing. It's company's problem now, not yours. Just make sure your manager knows, in writing (send him an email.)
You are actually contradicting yourself. Translated books are very likely to be longer or shorter, depending on languages. Even the paper size and font size and margins make the difference. There is absolutely no point in referring to page numbers unless the other guy has exactly the same book.
What you are looking for is chapters - dividers inserted by the author that are actually meaningful. You can refer to chapter 1.2.3 in a book, and it will point to the same place regardless of physical format, or the language, of that book. This concept is not exactly new.
Why the parents have to be under constant pressure, whether their kids will be in trouble for doing something innocent
You won't be in any trouble if you buy your kids a pizza with cheeseburgers and leave them in front of the TV for 24 hours per day. Every day. That's what the government recommends. Or else...
How do we know that dumping material into the sun might not somehow affect the sun in some way? I don't know if we have a lot of experimental data on the subject.
To put it bluntly, when you're in jail it's basically because you've demonstrated for one reason or another that you can't handle the responsibilies of a citizen in free society.
Bluntly indeed. A convict in jail only demonstrated that he on one specific occasion failed to handle one or a few selected responsibilities of a citizen. If you are in jail for littering it does not mean that you are a terrorist or a serial killer. Robbing felons of the right to vote is particularly appalling because the act of declaring something a crime is itself political; the accused and convicted people should be allowed to vote for or against laws that may have imprisoned them or may imprison others. They have more at stake than some hermit far away from trouble, who does not care.
I understand that, of course. If the cop is good and has nothing against you then it's not a problem; but that's not what the thread is about.
The problem is that a firearm offers a bad cop a ready excuse for *any* action against you, including shooting to kill. There would be his word against your dead body, with your legally owned firearm close by. With photo and video evidence suppressed (as this case demonstrates) there is *nothing* one can do to argue the case; your weapon need not be fired, or even loaded; and nobody can tell where it was pointed when, and what words you purportedly said to who.
Besides, a gun is a citizen's "nuclear option" - if he uses it against authorities, even if to protect himself from them, he may be instantly declared a criminal who may be hunted down like a mad dog. Imagine if two bad cops decide to illegally search your house and you grab that shotgun - do you think they are likely to apologize and walk away? They are trained to kill and authorized to kill; you are probably not as ready, and you have very fuzzy legal right to shoot anyone to start with, and that right dissipates fast if that "anyone" happens to be the police. If those two cops are indeed bad, they will shoot you first and come up with a believable explanation later. That was my point, nothing else.
The question is unclear, that's why you are getting garbage out.
The question does not specify which of widow's husbands it is talking about. The husband #1 is dead, so he can't marry anyone. The husband #2 - if the widow remarried - is free to divorce her and marry anyone else in general; relation to his former wife is irrelevant.
This is a tricky question in part because a widow can be called a widow even if she marries someone else.
Bad move. They will be back, with vengeance (and with a better plan against you.) The Ender's Rule is simple: if you fight back, do it so the attacker won't ever try again.
As many people indicated, you may look at anything you want while you are at a public place, and a LEO is definitely a public place. Google need not worry unless they publish very, very detailed views of private pools that are in use.
Slashdot Mirror
What the agent should have replied to that is "I wish I were, so much of that stuff people keep smuggling in!"
Pacemakers indeed; a suicide bomber can have a good deal of explosive surgically implanted into him, replacing most of his bowels, for example, or one lung (as larger organs that are not mandatory for survival.) He'd need to live on injections of glucose for the rest of his life, but that's hardly a long time; he could board his flight mere days after the surgery. A similar scenario was described in the Gap trilogy by Stephen R. Donaldson; in his version the assassin had his blood replaced with an explosive that was still functioning as blood, more or less, just enough to carry him through the mission.
Sure, you can drive a van up to the front of a supermarket and detonate the tons of explosives you have inside, but how many people would that kill?
Ask Tim McVeigh when you get a chance.
you just have to worry about making an explosion just big enough to put a hole in the side of the plane.
Like Aloha Airlines Flight 243? Fact is that it's not easy to bring a passenger plane down; even a missile hit into one engine is not guaranteed to destroy the vehicle, unless the wing is breached and the fuel ignites.
TFA stops mentioning other passengers long before the iPod is found. And the police had to wait until they have the device in their [gloved] hands and have a chance to verify that it is not something nefarious. After they did that the police stopped treating the owner as a terrier, and only the customs inspector - who was probably required by the book to go through all the luggage - chose to play tough, out of habit or just for his personal pleasure.
A blockade of a self-sufficient country is pointless; airstrikes would be an open declaration of war; and if you declare a war you don't want your Navy to lazily cruise along the shores of the enemy country. I am not an admiral, so I can't tell what it should do - but it's quite obvious what the Navy shouldn't do - it shouldn't be within reach of the enemy unnecessarily. And the whole Straits are within reach of Iran, with its shore artillery, missiles, torpedos and trained goldfish, for all I know. Iranians kind of live there, they probably know.
If the "higher ups" refused to do so, I would call them up in the middle of the night the next time the problem occured and inform them that they have some work to do.
Me calling Boss: Hi, Boss, the box crashed again, full of viruses. I tell you, we must upgrade it to Linux!
Boss: Ok, smart guy, now tell me how our custom universal resource planning database for civil works is going to work on Linux, given that it uses every single Windows API that there is?
Me: Well... we can always try Wine, it's in alpha now, and it can run Notepad already, and even some IE! It may work for us if we are lucky, then we don't need to rewrite that monstrosity of the database and spend another $15,000,000 and five years...
Boss: I thought you were not supposed to be stupid! You are fired. Good night.
It doesn't pay to play cat-and-mouse with your employer. Literally so.
If deliverables are late, then it's YOUR job, as a manager, to motivate your people to keep their commitments and complete their project work.
Nice words, but how will you do that motivation? Should you give a fiery speech in front of a yawning audience? Should you ask the developers to chant the Company Hymn every morning? I don't think so.
Fact is, many otherwise good people treat their job as a contract between you and me. "Me work, you pay." If "me" works less and "you" still pays as agreed upon, good for me. They don't feel any obligations toward you as an employer. And if they can get away with MySpace browsing, or /. even, they see it as a point scored against you, money earned for doing nothing.
If the deliverables are late, then people browsing MySpace is a symptom, not the cause, of the problem.
In medical science treating a symptom goes a long way toward treating of the disease. For example, if your temperature is 42 deg C the first thing a physician might do is to put a fan to cool you, secondary damage be damned, because otherwise you'll die from overheating alone.
It is true that waste of time may be seen as a symptom - but symptom of what? As I said, if the employee perceives the work relation as a truest form of a literal business contract, he is only obliged to show up from 9 to 5 and do whatever the manager tells him to do. I can sit with him all day and make sure he does not go astray, or I can program a computer to block this avenue for me. Manager's time is expensive and in short supply, I can't check on everyone all the time, and I am not going to play a whack-a-mole with people working in different offices.
If you can't motivate your team to produce on time, then you certainly can't force them to do that by taking away their Internet access.
Motivation is not always working. Some people indeed have team spirit and love the job, they want to have it done and to see the customers happy, and to do something else, even better and even greater. Those are the best people you can possibly have. But you can't have all of your developers like that - good, sensible people are rare. What will you do with the rest? You can't fire them, they know the stuff and can do the work - but only if they have nothing else to do. So here you are.
There's PLENTY of research indicating that the freedom to "goof off", to spend time on other things, INCREASES productivity.
That may be so. I do not block access to anything except pr0n. But not everyone is using this privilege wisely. Some people just don't care about productivity. In such cases you have to micromanage the abusers, giving them small tasks with very predictable completion times, and holding them responsible (but how?) for having these tasks done on time. This micromanagement in itself is a bad practice, and it's hard on the manager as well. What else is out there to deal with such a lazy employee?
At work I have standard IPCop filter in place, which blocks some generic pr0n and has a custom blacklist which I use to block individual sites (not pr0n, just stuff like MySpace for example, though I don't think anyone here goes there.) The company is small, and I know for a fact that nobody hits the blocks (except advertising sites which are blocked heavily to protect our privacy and bandwidth.) I know because the blocking log is emailed to me every day. But officially we have a policy in place, and if anyone asks we are good.
Since they pay you for this voodoo, please go ahead and do it by their book. And while the paperwork makes its way from desk to desk you should be free to do something else, or nothing. It's company's problem now, not yours. Just make sure your manager knows, in writing (send him an email.)
Maybe that's what your employer hopes for? :-)
That's ridiculous. Then it can be said that it's abuse if you don't buy her new clothes or jewelry every day, just because she wants them.
What you are looking for is chapters - dividers inserted by the author that are actually meaningful. You can refer to chapter 1.2.3 in a book, and it will point to the same place regardless of physical format, or the language, of that book. This concept is not exactly new.
Google is still in business: see here for example.
People who tried to do it on 999 pages or less all failed.
You won't be in any trouble if you buy your kids a pizza with cheeseburgers and leave them in front of the TV for 24 hours per day. Every day. That's what the government recommends. Or else...
Nothing, assuming that your thermal insulation is really good. And if it isn't ... 1 cal = 4.185 J.
It means we need an experiment to find that out!
Bluntly indeed. A convict in jail only demonstrated that he on one specific occasion failed to handle one or a few selected responsibilities of a citizen. If you are in jail for littering it does not mean that you are a terrorist or a serial killer. Robbing felons of the right to vote is particularly appalling because the act of declaring something a crime is itself political; the accused and convicted people should be allowed to vote for or against laws that may have imprisoned them or may imprison others. They have more at stake than some hermit far away from trouble, who does not care.
The problem is that a firearm offers a bad cop a ready excuse for *any* action against you, including shooting to kill. There would be his word against your dead body, with your legally owned firearm close by. With photo and video evidence suppressed (as this case demonstrates) there is *nothing* one can do to argue the case; your weapon need not be fired, or even loaded; and nobody can tell where it was pointed when, and what words you purportedly said to who.
Besides, a gun is a citizen's "nuclear option" - if he uses it against authorities, even if to protect himself from them, he may be instantly declared a criminal who may be hunted down like a mad dog. Imagine if two bad cops decide to illegally search your house and you grab that shotgun - do you think they are likely to apologize and walk away? They are trained to kill and authorized to kill; you are probably not as ready, and you have very fuzzy legal right to shoot anyone to start with, and that right dissipates fast if that "anyone" happens to be the police. If those two cops are indeed bad, they will shoot you first and come up with a believable explanation later. That was my point, nothing else.
Yes, you can. However after you create these things they will be instantly deleted for you on save, or else you will cause a paradox.
The question does not specify which of widow's husbands it is talking about. The husband #1 is dead, so he can't marry anyone. The husband #2 - if the widow remarried - is free to divorce her and marry anyone else in general; relation to his former wife is irrelevant.
This is a tricky question in part because a widow can be called a widow even if she marries someone else.
Indeed. It will give the police a valid reason to kill you.
Bad move. They will be back, with vengeance (and with a better plan against you.) The Ender's Rule is simple: if you fight back, do it so the attacker won't ever try again.
As many people indicated, you may look at anything you want while you are at a public place, and a LEO is definitely a public place. Google need not worry unless they publish very, very detailed views of private pools that are in use.