You should never drive with your hand on the gear stick. It's bad for the transmission. You put some slight pressure on the gears, and that increases wear. Better to leave the lever touching nothing.
The wear it adds is negligible, in that the gearbox is generally the last thing to go. I've had cars for sometimes up to 300000km, and while I've had to replace clutch, seals, engine parts (and sometimes even whole engines), I've never ever had to replace or repair a manual gearbox, and I drive like that all the time.
Lots of good arguments against selling organs exist, notably the corruption one. Taking money out of the equation makes it a little easier to avoid the situation of rich people taking advantage of poor people and paying them to die. A better solution would be to waive all medical expenses in the keeping of the donor corpse alive (before it became a corpse, of course). That way, you get some value out of it without getting any money out of it. A better way would be to take care of every single funeral cost for the bits that they want to bury.
While I *do* have a signed donor card, it does occur to me that if there's $2m floating around that goes to hospitals to transport organs from donor corpses to recipient patients, then they may as well make it $2.2m and use that extra $200k to free my family from the burden of funeral expenses. Once again, you get value out of it without anyone giving out negotiable currency.
All that people want is a fair deal, and if donors see $2m going around for their organs while their family languishes in poverty after an expensive and long illness, they're understandably bitter and would rather feed their organs to the worms than give it away.
It's been three years of complaints now (and that's just from me). If they haven't made any attempt (and recently, even regressed by offering even *fewer* countries as those that they deal with), I doubt they intend to fix it at all, nevermind anytime soon.
If you want to do payments, you have to do it globally or not do it at all. If you want to do payments, you have to do them to everyone. If you want to do payments, you can't do it with google, because google insists on being a toy solution.
The only way to unseat them is for a big player (like Google) to say enough is enough and discontinue doing business with a company with such abusive practices. And of course, then they need an alternative to replace it with, so they created one.
Don't make me laugh. Saying "Google being a replacement for Paypal" is like saying "This thimbleful of water is a replacement for the ocean". Android Market developers only get paid if they have a US bank account (or maybe a UK one as well?). Paypal works with every country that I can think of that does software development.
yeah, and not only that - devs from other countries can't accept payment, while Apple, MS, Amazon and a host of other companies are able to make payments to devs in my country.
Because, as we all know, only the US has devs:( Google has dropped the ball, and they are trusting in their own arrogance to get out of it. They won't; they need other countries more than other countries need them.
Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"
And this is why we as the people who understand the technology must take the time to educate the masses about what it can and cannot do. And by that, I mean we have to club them over the head with the harsh reality that these things are no more effective than a dowsing rod at catching real terrorists.
Unfortunately the masses believe that dowsing works, so indoctrinating them that these things works as well as dowsing rods actually makes them believe that these things work.
How nice, all unified, except that quite a number of users have, since last week, not been able to edit their google docs. Searching for "help docs trying to reach google.com" shows how bad this problem is, and also displays google's apparent lack of interest in fixing it.
I can't wait to see the response when a problem occurs on this unified system of theirs:(
Then you won't be the invisible passive-aggressive asshole who is shutting down the belligerent asshole, you'll be the highly visible aggressive asshole shutting down the belligerent asshole (This is why I required that the act of button-pushing be a visible one).
Either way, the commuters win, 'cos then they get to accost you directly if they see you doing it.
This isn't about rights, it's about whats legal and what's not
I was responding to his assertion that being an asshole in his general area was infringing his "liberty", which is just silly.
The best thing, I think, is to crowdsource the jamming
A good idea, except when you introduce the critical failure point - people. Someone will hoard devices and then press the button on all of them:)
Hard to hoard them if they are fixed at periodic intervals within the bus. The buses here all have buttons along the length of the interior to notify the bus-driver. Besides, the requirement that the act of pushing a button must be a highly visible procedure means more passive-aggressive behaviour - it's simply aggressive:)
(Humans have tolerated belligerent assholes for centuries because there was no easy way of shutting them up. Now that there is, expect to see it used. The best way would be to ensure that it gets used appropriately would be to make it a democratic thing:))
Conversely, you don't have a right to cell signal. This isn't about rights, it's about whats legal and what's not. It's legal to be an asshole in public.
Nonetheless, expect to see more passive-aggressive behaviour towards assholes in the future as the technology matures to the point of being cheap enough. I'm divided as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, I don't buy the emergency arguments - we don't behave in anticipation of statistical outliers (which is what the emergency arguments amount to - there is a greater chance of getting struck by lightening than needing to use the phone for an emergency in a public place). Quickly and quietly shutting down an asshole is a good thing - confronting someone who already parades their assholery in public will not end well.
On the other hand, there is a lot of collateral damage to the non-asshole phone-users by using a jamming device. The airwaves are regulated for a reason, after all, and it's so that we can all use them. Performing what amounts to a DoS won't end well either.
The best thing, I think, is to crowdsource the jamming. Equip all passengers with a button (say by placing them at regular intervals in the bus) that will, when a certain threshold of buttons are pushed, enable the jamming device for a few seconds. Make these buttons large and visible, so that everyone can see when anyone pushes it. If the majority of buttons are pushed, not only will the phone call drop, but the asshole will understand that the rest of the passengers are, in the large, against him/her. Making sure that said asshole can see more and more people reaching for their nearest button will go some way towards making them end their call without the threshold ever getting reached.
That's the best solution, all round, I think, as these things aren't going to go away and are impossible to police anyway, so may as well put one well-regulated jammer on the bus so that no one feels compelled to buy their own and operate it indiscriminately.
I am in fact walking the walk. Most of my reading material comes from the public domain (thank you, Project Gutenberg!) and I hardly watch any movies or TV shows. Yes, I am that guy who doesn't even own a TV.
I have cut most of the major publishers out of my life already, cutting out all of them for a month will not be a challenge.
BTW, nice move starting a sales spiel by calling bullshit on my statements. That's one sale you won't be getting, generous return policy or not.
I didn't expect to get a 0.99 USD sale from you, because like I already said, you'll simply go out and buy twice the content in the very next month:) And yeah, it is such an aberration that someone actually points you in the direction of non-free independent artists. You seem to think that your proposal is unique; it isn't. It's been seen hundreds of times before. But of course, the proponents of this argument are too wedded to the existing popular content that the masses consume, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Face it, even if you didn't buy my particular novella simply because I told you it exists (no link was provided), there are hundreds of independent artists to be found in the link in my sig. Shock, Shock, Horror, Horror - some artist recommends their own work available drm-free for a negligible fee? The Nerve!!!
Face it, your actions speak louder than your words - you're just unwilling to support upcoming artists. You don't have to buy my work, you can take a 0.99 USD chance on someone else, after all, instead of purely free-as-in-beer works. I mean, after all, your "boycott" doesn't mean much if you are already not buying, right?
If all you'll read are public domain stuff, then well, congratulations - you're part of the problem you're trying to solve.
You're not supporting the artists who want to change things, and you're proud of that???. Good job, Well Done!
I call bullshit on your post. Why not simply buy the stuff people like me produce? Almost all of my entertainment these days is from independents (good thing I don't need movies for entertainment:-). Simply go to amazon and purchasing a kindle book by someone like myself (c'mon - it's 0.99 USD - not that much for 30 mins of entertainment!). I've been reading stuff by the independents. Very little of it is bad. I tried watching a major hollywood release with big names in the credits just last week and never even made it to the half-way mark before leaving the theatre, so it's not like I've lowered my standards for entertainment, but yet still, I get more than enough from indies (books, mostly)
I'm betting that you won't get anything for the month of March, and then purchase two months worth of content in April. Yeah, that's really sticking it to the man!!! *rolls eyes.
btw, Google: "amazon zombies! lelanthran" for my book. If you don't like it, email me and I'll wire you your 0.99 USD back. But at least taking a chance on a non-DRM, non-RIAA, non-MPAA, non-affiliated publisher you get to say "Hey, I actually talk the talk and walk the walk". Now, you're just talking the talk.
You don't get to get out of the law just because you are somewhere else. For example suppose I get your bank account password and steal all your money, but I do it from a different country. Not a crime where I am, even though the act probably is it wasn't done in their jurisdiction so not a crime there. Doesn't matter, your country can still extradite me to face justice (provided our nations have extradition treaties, which most do). I can't hide behind a border. Same deal if I ordered someone in your country to kill your wife. I didn't actually do the killing and I wasn't there. Doesn't matter, the blood is still on my hands and I can still be extradited and charged.
Actually I think you'll find that an extradition can't be made unless prima facie evidence exists that displays you broke a local law wherever you are. Those two examples you gave are disingenuous - if you steal my money, it's a crime where you are, if you order a hit, that's a crime where you are.
If it isn't a crime where you are, then you will not be extradited.
Doesn't matter if you don't think this is how things should be, it is how they are. This is well established in national and international law.
Nope, sorry. The only thing that is established is that the prosecution where you are holds prima facie evidence that you broke a local law while
on local soil, but are unable to pursue you for this due to the majority of the evidence and/or victims of the crime resides on foreign soil. IOW, they know you did it, they have prima facie evidence to go to trial with, but not enough evidence to convict "beyond reasonable doubt" (or whatever yardstick your jurisdiction uses for criminal offences). However they may agree to extradite on the basis of that evidence, using that evidence to convince a judge to issue extradition order if the wronged party on the foreign soil wants to pursue the issue.
In a case like this, the prosecution has to convince a local judge that the subject of the extradition hearing (respondent?) has broken local laws, either while on local soil or on foreign soil, before an extradition order will be granted by a judge.
Also in terms of practical things, look to Europe with many small countries near each other. You can see why it might be important to not have a national border be an impenetrable line.
It isn't. Europe works well the way it does because their laws are all similar. This is why you cannot be arrested in France for wiring money to enable a friend in Amsterdam to visit a coffee shop. Because, you see, in France sending money to someone with the explicit purpose of buying an illicit narcotic makes you a dealer. But they cannot prosecute you for that, because even though the prima facie evidence exists, it is not enough to get you convicted. They cannot extradite you for that either, because the receiving country will not prosecute you either (broke no laws).
It's actually very simple - to be extradited there needs to be sufficient evidence that you committed a a crime in a foreign country that, had it happened locally, will also be a crime OR you committed a crime in a foreign country while in that country.
There is no such thing as "Prosecuted for breaking a law overseas, in a country that you never set foot in, for an act that happens to be legal locally". None. It's never happened. Once it's legal locally, the prosecutors can go do something physically impossible to themselves. They can, however, deport you to your country of citizenship if you are not a citizen.
I'm not american, but I can understand the rationale behind their actions. Getting ten users to plea-bargain into testifying that they purchased from Mr X is much easier to secure a conviction for Mr X as a dealer than simply convicting Mr X for possession. So, if I were in charge of trying charge put Mr X as a dealer I would do the same: I would arrest all the buyers and offer to drop charges (or plea down to lesser charges) in exchange for testimony.
I've been using WindowMaker almost continuously since the 90's. In addition to be much more lightweight than any DE:
With ctrl-alt- controlling which of my 8 workspaces I am on, it means I don't have to touch the mouse.
It also supports focus-follows mouse (properly, I mean) with alt-tab. The alt-tab doesn't raise the focused window, though, so I can switch to a big background window to type stuff in while reading from the unfocused foreground window.
Pressing f-12 gives me a menu that can be used with the arrow keys, meaning I don't need to use the mouse to launch new applications that are in a menu.
New applications don't automatically get focus, so I can launch an application and carry on typing in my current application without fearing that my keystrokes are going to suddenly go to a different application. (As far as I know, only WindowManager has a sane policy with regards to this. The others don't have the distinction between "unfocused foreground application" and "focused background application"). Even if the new application covers the existing window, it won't get focus and my keystrokes don't go to the new application until I alt-tab to it.
I lose no vertical screen real-estate, my icons are set to minimize to a horizontally-aligned place (that doesn't get covered when a window is maximised).
I've mapped shortcuts for maximise and maximise vertically, so never need to touch the mouse.
It starts up in under half a second from login. Basically, instantaneous to me when I press "enter" on the login screen.
Windows can "snap" to a border, making the rare occasion when I use the mouse for window-management a pleasant one.
tiles rock!
All in all, it means I hardly ever have to touch the mouse. Other window managers I've tried that boast of never needing the mouse (like "awesome" or something that was spammed here recently! I tried it for about an hour before I gave up and went back to WindowMaker) have insane window-placing policies, no help in configuring it, etc. WindowMaker comes with a gui tool that lets you configure everything without needing to edit files or find a menu-item that will configure separate parts of the system It is not only much more configurable (in the ways that matter to me) than something like Gnome, it is also more easily configurable. Simply click the icon you see when it starts up.
It is the kind of beauty of simplicity that Apple users would probably go green over (from NeXT, no doubt:-)) Everything works like one expects it to. Nothing on screen is superfluous. When it starts up, there is nothing but the desktop background and three icons. And, whats more, thats all that is ever needed - I never found myself trying to place more tiles on the desktop. Everything I ever want to do is no more than 3-5 keystrokes (yes, you read that right... 3-5 keystrokes) away from me, whether it's launching the browser, starting an xterm, changing the desktop, reading a manpage, locating an eclipse workspace or writing some lisp code, the thing I want can be found in under 2 seconds.
For men, it is success, power, confidence. Not saying that all women are gold diggers only after a wallet but confidence is something you gain overtime, with success, with power, with age.
Surprised to see that many opinions of this kind modded up here.
First of all - there is a lot of traits that women find attractive besides raw confidence or power. Here's a little list of them:
humorous/ witty
creative
adventurous
artistic
mysterious
classy
original
social
entertaining
inspiring
charismatic
Hate to be the one to pee on your parade, but those traits are a symptom of having raw confidence and power. Women want the raw confidence and power so they look for those indicators. OTOH, men who are only in it for one-night stands are able to fake confidence and power by emulating those characteristics.
To add to parent (who I just noticed is a friend of a friend), evolutionary biology took care of all of this a long time ago and now we're in a Nash equilibrium, with the drive for each genders best strategy being something we've inherited from ancestors.
In short, because the male had very little invested in the process of making kids (no 9-month wait, can have as many as there are women) the males best strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, and if few women are available, then to have intercourse with those few as often as possible to tip the odds in their favour (other males will be also having intercourse with those few females, leading to an escalating arms-race-ish situation where the male with the most progeny is the one who can get it up the most, meaning more of those progeny having the trait of higher libido. Repeat this over a few thousand generations, and we then have the male libido much higher than the female one, such as it is today).
Because the girl has so much invested in the offspring (can only have one a year, limited to perhaps 10 or less in a lifetime *and* has to take care of them), the females best strategy is to find a male to settle down with who will help her raise the children and find a male to impregnate her (with good genes). Very rarely are both the males the same person. Males settle down with a women hoping that the clandestine impregnations are too rare to impregnate her and that his regular intercourse with her tips the odds in his favour. Females, as a response, develop resistance to their male and their body tends to start killing sperm cells from the regular partner, so that her clandestine liasons have a higher chance of resulting in a child.
Science, bitches... it works:)
No amount of PC in the world is going to change those strategies, as they have been refined over tens of thousands of years, and the only males who survived were those who excuted
I got my book into the KDP thingy... the biggest thing is that you can make your book available for free for 5 days, hence I now got my book available for free on amazon until tonight.
The worst part of using amazon is that your book is effectively "lost" in the hundreds of thousands of crap that is there. Even doing a verbatim search for the title of my book doesn't result in a showing on the first page, you have to go to it directly like this. I was hoping to get a few reviews, but no go - for every 5000 downloads you can expect one review.
Slashdot Mirror
You should never drive with your hand on the gear stick. It's bad for the transmission. You put some slight pressure on the gears, and that increases wear. Better to leave the lever touching nothing.
The wear it adds is negligible, in that the gearbox is generally the last thing to go. I've had cars for sometimes up to 300000km, and while I've had to replace clutch, seals, engine parts (and sometimes even whole engines), I've never ever had to replace or repair a manual gearbox, and I drive like that all the time.
Read the works of Dan Norman,
Donald E. Norman?
Why they were even bothering with the unlock screen rather than just slurping up all the data on the phone with a UFED is beyond me.
Because cops are idiots and the only reason the system works is because criminals are usually even dumber ?
What makes you think that the system is working?
Lots of good arguments against selling organs exist, notably the corruption one. Taking money out of the equation makes it a little easier to avoid the situation of rich people taking advantage of poor people and paying them to die. A better solution would be to waive all medical expenses in the keeping of the donor corpse alive (before it became a corpse, of course). That way, you get some value out of it without getting any money out of it. A better way would be to take care of every single funeral cost for the bits that they want to bury.
While I *do* have a signed donor card, it does occur to me that if there's $2m floating around that goes to hospitals to transport organs from donor corpses to recipient patients, then they may as well make it $2.2m and use that extra $200k to free my family from the burden of funeral expenses. Once again, you get value out of it without anyone giving out negotiable currency.
All that people want is a fair deal, and if donors see $2m going around for their organs while their family languishes in poverty after an expensive and long illness, they're understandably bitter and would rather feed their organs to the worms than give it away.
It's been three years of complaints now (and that's just from me). If they haven't made any attempt (and recently, even regressed by offering even *fewer* countries as those that they deal with), I doubt they intend to fix it at all, nevermind anytime soon.
If you want to do payments, you have to do it globally or not do it at all. If you want to do payments, you have to do them to everyone. If you want to do payments, you can't do it with google, because google insists on being a toy solution.
The only way to unseat them is for a big player (like Google) to say enough is enough and discontinue doing business with a company with such abusive practices. And of course, then they need an alternative to replace it with, so they created one.
Don't make me laugh. Saying "Google being a replacement for Paypal" is like saying "This thimbleful of water is a replacement for the ocean". Android Market developers only get paid if they have a US bank account (or maybe a UK one as well?). Paypal works with every country that I can think of that does software development.
yeah, and not only that - devs from other countries can't accept payment, while Apple, MS, Amazon and a host of other companies are able to make payments to devs in my country.
Because, as we all know, only the US has devs :( Google has dropped the ball, and they are trusting in their own arrogance to get out of it. They won't; they need other countries more than other countries need them.
And this is why we as the people who understand the technology must take the time to educate the masses about what it can and cannot do. And by that, I mean we have to club them over the head with the harsh reality that these things are no more effective than a dowsing rod at catching real terrorists.
Unfortunately the masses believe that dowsing works, so indoctrinating them that these things works as well as dowsing rods actually makes them believe that these things work.
How nice, all unified, except that quite a number of users have, since last week, not been able to edit their google docs. Searching for "help docs trying to reach google.com" shows how bad this problem is, and also displays google's apparent lack of interest in fixing it.
I can't wait to see the response when a problem occurs on this unified system of theirs :(
Then you won't be the invisible passive-aggressive asshole who is shutting down the belligerent asshole, you'll be the highly visible aggressive asshole shutting down the belligerent asshole (This is why I required that the act of button-pushing be a visible one).
Either way, the commuters win, 'cos then they get to accost you directly if they see you doing it.
This isn't about rights, it's about whats legal and what's not
I was responding to his assertion that being an asshole in his general area was infringing his "liberty", which is just silly.
The best thing, I think, is to crowdsource the jamming
A good idea, except when you introduce the critical failure point - people. Someone will hoard devices and then press the button on all of them :)
Hard to hoard them if they are fixed at periodic intervals within the bus. The buses here all have buttons along the length of the interior to notify the bus-driver. Besides, the requirement that the act of pushing a button must be a highly visible procedure means more passive-aggressive behaviour - it's simply aggressive :)
(Humans have tolerated belligerent assholes for centuries because there was no easy way of shutting them up. Now that there is, expect to see it used. The best way would be to ensure that it gets used appropriately would be to make it a democratic thing :))
Conversely, you don't have a right to cell signal. This isn't about rights, it's about whats legal and what's not. It's legal to be an asshole in public.
Nonetheless, expect to see more passive-aggressive behaviour towards assholes in the future as the technology matures to the point of being cheap enough. I'm divided as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, I don't buy the emergency arguments - we don't behave in anticipation of statistical outliers (which is what the emergency arguments amount to - there is a greater chance of getting struck by lightening than needing to use the phone for an emergency in a public place). Quickly and quietly shutting down an asshole is a good thing - confronting someone who already parades their assholery in public will not end well.
On the other hand, there is a lot of collateral damage to the non-asshole phone-users by using a jamming device. The airwaves are regulated for a reason, after all, and it's so that we can all use them. Performing what amounts to a DoS won't end well either.
The best thing, I think, is to crowdsource the jamming. Equip all passengers with a button (say by placing them at regular intervals in the bus) that will, when a certain threshold of buttons are pushed, enable the jamming device for a few seconds. Make these buttons large and visible, so that everyone can see when anyone pushes it. If the majority of buttons are pushed, not only will the phone call drop, but the asshole will understand that the rest of the passengers are, in the large, against him/her. Making sure that said asshole can see more and more people reaching for their nearest button will go some way towards making them end their call without the threshold ever getting reached.
That's the best solution, all round, I think, as these things aren't going to go away and are impossible to police anyway, so may as well put one well-regulated jammer on the bus so that no one feels compelled to buy their own and operate it indiscriminately.
I am in fact walking the walk. Most of my reading material comes from the public domain (thank you, Project Gutenberg!) and I hardly watch any movies or TV shows. Yes, I am that guy who doesn't even own a TV.
I have cut most of the major publishers out of my life already, cutting out all of them for a month will not be a challenge.
BTW, nice move starting a sales spiel by calling bullshit on my statements. That's one sale you won't be getting, generous return policy or not.
I didn't expect to get a 0.99 USD sale from you, because like I already said, you'll simply go out and buy twice the content in the very next month :) And yeah, it is such an aberration that someone actually points you in the direction of non-free independent artists. You seem to think that your proposal is unique; it isn't. It's been seen hundreds of times before. But of course, the proponents of this argument are too wedded to the existing popular content that the masses consume, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Face it, even if you didn't buy my particular novella simply because I told you it exists (no link was provided), there are hundreds of independent artists to be found in the link in my sig. Shock, Shock, Horror, Horror - some artist recommends their own work available drm-free for a negligible fee? The Nerve!!!
Face it, your actions speak louder than your words - you're just unwilling to support upcoming artists. You don't have to buy my work, you can take a 0.99 USD chance on someone else, after all, instead of purely free-as-in-beer works. I mean, after all, your "boycott" doesn't mean much if you are already not buying, right? If all you'll read are public domain stuff, then well, congratulations - you're part of the problem you're trying to solve.
You're not supporting the artists who want to change things, and you're proud of that???. Good job, Well Done!
I call bullshit on your post. Why not simply buy the stuff people like me produce? Almost all of my entertainment these days is from independents (good thing I don't need movies for entertainment :-). Simply go to amazon and purchasing a kindle book by someone like myself (c'mon - it's 0.99 USD - not that much for 30 mins of entertainment!). I've been reading stuff by the independents. Very little of it is bad. I tried watching a major hollywood release with big names in the credits just last week and never even made it to the half-way mark before leaving the theatre, so it's not like I've lowered my standards for entertainment, but yet still, I get more than enough from indies (books, mostly)
I'm betting that you won't get anything for the month of March, and then purchase two months worth of content in April. Yeah, that's really sticking it to the man!!! *rolls eyes.
btw, Google: "amazon zombies! lelanthran" for my book. If you don't like it, email me and I'll wire you your 0.99 USD back. But at least taking a chance on a non-DRM, non-RIAA, non-MPAA, non-affiliated publisher you get to say "Hey, I actually talk the talk and walk the walk". Now, you're just talking the talk.
You don't get to get out of the law just because you are somewhere else. For example suppose I get your bank account password and steal all your money, but I do it from a different country. Not a crime where I am, even though the act probably is it wasn't done in their jurisdiction so not a crime there. Doesn't matter, your country can still extradite me to face justice (provided our nations have extradition treaties, which most do). I can't hide behind a border. Same deal if I ordered someone in your country to kill your wife. I didn't actually do the killing and I wasn't there. Doesn't matter, the blood is still on my hands and I can still be extradited and charged.
Actually I think you'll find that an extradition can't be made unless prima facie evidence exists that displays you broke a local law wherever you are. Those two examples you gave are disingenuous - if you steal my money, it's a crime where you are, if you order a hit, that's a crime where you are. If it isn't a crime where you are, then you will not be extradited.
Doesn't matter if you don't think this is how things should be, it is how they are. This is well established in national and international law.
Nope, sorry. The only thing that is established is that the prosecution where you are holds prima facie evidence that you broke a local law while on local soil, but are unable to pursue you for this due to the majority of the evidence and/or victims of the crime resides on foreign soil. IOW, they know you did it, they have prima facie evidence to go to trial with, but not enough evidence to convict "beyond reasonable doubt" (or whatever yardstick your jurisdiction uses for criminal offences). However they may agree to extradite on the basis of that evidence, using that evidence to convince a judge to issue extradition order if the wronged party on the foreign soil wants to pursue the issue.
In a case like this, the prosecution has to convince a local judge that the subject of the extradition hearing (respondent?) has broken local laws, either while on local soil or on foreign soil, before an extradition order will be granted by a judge.
Also in terms of practical things, look to Europe with many small countries near each other. You can see why it might be important to not have a national border be an impenetrable line.
It isn't. Europe works well the way it does because their laws are all similar. This is why you cannot be arrested in France for wiring money to enable a friend in Amsterdam to visit a coffee shop. Because, you see, in France sending money to someone with the explicit purpose of buying an illicit narcotic makes you a dealer. But they cannot prosecute you for that, because even though the prima facie evidence exists, it is not enough to get you convicted. They cannot extradite you for that either, because the receiving country will not prosecute you either (broke no laws). It's actually very simple - to be extradited there needs to be sufficient evidence that you committed a a crime in a foreign country that, had it happened locally, will also be a crime OR you committed a crime in a foreign country while in that country. There is no such thing as "Prosecuted for breaking a law overseas, in a country that you never set foot in, for an act that happens to be legal locally". None. It's never happened. Once it's legal locally, the prosecutors can go do something physically impossible to themselves. They can, however, deport you to your country of citizenship if you are not a citizen.
I'm not american, but I can understand the rationale behind their actions. Getting ten users to plea-bargain into testifying that they purchased from Mr X is much easier to secure a conviction for Mr X as a dealer than simply convicting Mr X for possession. So, if I were in charge of trying charge put Mr X as a dealer I would do the same: I would arrest all the buyers and offer to drop charges (or plea down to lesser charges) in exchange for testimony.
None of that makes any sense, so perhaps a new MI movie instead.
I've been using WindowMaker almost continuously since the 90's. In addition to be much more lightweight than any DE:
All in all, it means I hardly ever have to touch the mouse. Other window managers I've tried that boast of never needing the mouse (like "awesome" or something that was spammed here recently! I tried it for about an hour before I gave up and went back to WindowMaker) have insane window-placing policies, no help in configuring it, etc. WindowMaker comes with a gui tool that lets you configure everything without needing to edit files or find a menu-item that will configure separate parts of the system It is not only much more configurable (in the ways that matter to me) than something like Gnome, it is also more easily configurable. Simply click the icon you see when it starts up.
It is the kind of beauty of simplicity that Apple users would probably go green over (from NeXT, no doubt :-)) Everything works like one expects it to. Nothing on screen is superfluous. When it starts up, there is nothing but the desktop background and three icons. And, whats more, thats all that is ever needed - I never found myself trying to place more tiles on the desktop. Everything I ever want to do is no more than 3-5 keystrokes (yes, you read that right ... 3-5 keystrokes) away from me, whether it's launching the browser, starting an xterm, changing the desktop, reading a manpage, locating an eclipse workspace or writing some lisp code, the thing I want can be found in under 2 seconds.
Try that with KDE, Gnome or another DE.
Ask Steve Jobs
I live in South Africa. It's not that bad.
For men, it is success, power, confidence. Not saying that all women are gold diggers only after a wallet but confidence is something you gain overtime, with success, with power, with age.
Surprised to see that many opinions of this kind modded up here.
First of all - there is a lot of traits that women find attractive besides raw confidence or power. Here's a little list of them: humorous/ witty creative adventurous artistic mysterious classy original social entertaining inspiring charismatic
Hate to be the one to pee on your parade, but those traits are a symptom of having raw confidence and power. Women want the raw confidence and power so they look for those indicators. OTOH, men who are only in it for one-night stands are able to fake confidence and power by emulating those characteristics.
To add to parent (who I just noticed is a friend of a friend), evolutionary biology took care of all of this a long time ago and now we're in a Nash equilibrium, with the drive for each genders best strategy being something we've inherited from ancestors.
... it works :)
No amount of PC in the world is going to change those strategies, as they have been refined over tens of thousands of years, and the only males who survived were those who excuted
In short, because the male had very little invested in the process of making kids (no 9-month wait, can have as many as there are women) the males best strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, and if few women are available, then to have intercourse with those few as often as possible to tip the odds in their favour (other males will be also having intercourse with those few females, leading to an escalating arms-race-ish situation where the male with the most progeny is the one who can get it up the most, meaning more of those progeny having the trait of higher libido. Repeat this over a few thousand generations, and we then have the male libido much higher than the female one, such as it is today).
Because the girl has so much invested in the offspring (can only have one a year, limited to perhaps 10 or less in a lifetime *and* has to take care of them), the females best strategy is to find a male to settle down with who will help her raise the children and find a male to impregnate her (with good genes). Very rarely are both the males the same person. Males settle down with a women hoping that the clandestine impregnations are too rare to impregnate her and that his regular intercourse with her tips the odds in his favour. Females, as a response, develop resistance to their male and their body tends to start killing sperm cells from the regular partner, so that her clandestine liasons have a higher chance of resulting in a child.
Science, bitches
I got my book into the KDP thingy ... the biggest thing is that you can make your book available for free for 5 days, hence I now got my book available for free on amazon until tonight.
The worst part of using amazon is that your book is effectively "lost" in the hundreds of thousands of crap that is there. Even doing a verbatim search for the title of my book doesn't result in a showing on the first page, you have to go to it directly like this. I was hoping to get a few reviews, but no go - for every 5000 downloads you can expect one review.
so was uMaD
And you're too stupid to realise that the constitution where I am is not the same as the US constitution.