Shh. If you tell people that they won't know that this has been known since we started agriculture. As a useful tip: Planting tobacco plants mixed with plants that are sensitive to pest infestations will help minimize it.
Dill keeps away rabbits. There's a whole "Amateur scientist" Thing with this. I grow a lot of stuff, and I still constantly finding out new things. The issue is that it's regional... what works here might not work 50 miles away. The Internet is not good at disseminating such specific information. The best suggestion I have is to know other people in your area that do the same thing. Especially old people... Farmers almanac is good to. But keep in mind, there's a lot of BS in both sources as well so be skeptical.
True, but a lot of the requests come from politicians with dodgy pasts and paedophiles. I expect Muslims to get in on the act soon as well (I'm sure they'll say "it's not relevant that I called for the subjugation of non-muslims and women now I'm running for Bradford council"!).
While I agree with your conclusion (That these take downs are bad) I dislike your argumentum ad metum reasoning.
By your reasoning it would "ok" if 'the innocent' had the ability to remove information about themselves from the Internet. Then you go on to describe groups of people you dislike that should not be allowed to remove information from the Internet, almost as punishment. The goals of the petitioners are irrelevant. We are all equal, weather you feel we're good or bad shouldn't affect your argument.
A better argument would be "To shed light on the unsavory, we should retain the Internet as a whole. If we allow the innocent to remove information about themselves, we also will have to allow the guilty."
Now there is no reason to disparage large groups of people.
Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.
You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.
Umm.. you do know that I am talking about the confiscation and inspection of electronics in your possession as you legally cross a border into the US?
lol... no I didn't.:-D No seriously, I thought you were intentionally making a non sequitur in the vein of "Oh look, the government fixed one random problem, how about this unrelated one?" and... wow... that's god damned funny.
I thought the same until I tried it. No. At worst you'd need a super charger. Basically that just pushes more air into the chamber. But if you're not drag racing or anything its not that much help. In rock crawling you actually dont want that much horse power. You're in 4 Wheel low gear, creeping over rocks very slowly. The sports more about your suspension than anything. Lots of power usually = lots of broken parts.
I could imagine an engine designed specifically for a gas like this using a factory super charger like you see on some diesel vehicles, but I'm not an engine designer and not into horsepower. I like the mechanics of it all. High articulated suspension is super fun. It's like an erector set you can drive up mountains.
Here's an site that describes a lot of it. It's about suspension (the focus of the hobby) and not engines: http://www.fourwheeler.com/how... It really is about making the vehicle as agile as possible. Big SUVs like hummers are laughed at.
to regulate that then really you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on
No you don't. My choices are mine to make. My intelligence is my own concern. It's none of the governments buisness if I make choices that are detrimental to my health.
the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice!
You have a solution looking for a problem. It's none of the states business if people are fat. People have been doing unhealthy things since the romans used arsenic as makeup (and long before.) Society hasn't fallen appart. I realize the "powers that be" feel that they could squeeze more work out of us for less money if they took all the joy out of our lives, but you what? Fuck them.
It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.
Events unfold in time, but time itself doesn't move. Substitute space for time to make the absurdity clearer: "Is space moving forwards or backwards?" Space isn't moving, we move through space.
Since you're being pedantic, so can I. Space can travel. It moves all the time. It warps and contorts, and acts very much like a "thing" Time also warps and contorts. So if you want to get all picky, the article is still correct:-p
For the conversion from Ammonia to Hydrogen: Nitrogen. Ammonia is NH3, so you'd get mostly Hydrogen and a byproduct of 1 nitrogen atom. Nitrogen is already 78% of the earths atmosphere, and not a greenhouse gas. So it's not bad... at all.
Once you have the hydrogen, you mix it with oxygen and light it. (assuming you don't use it in a fuel cell) You can literally put hydrogen into a normal combustion engine and it will run on it. Hydrogen is 3x as energy dense as gasoline. So it works fantastically well. Newer cars with computers would need some modification. But if you're using an old carborated engine it works great. What comes out the exhaust is water. I've actually experimented with this. I have a "Rock crawler" (imagine a mini-monster truck) and one thing we're always dealing with is when trying to go up or down extreme angles gasoline engines tend not to work so hot. They like to be level. Hydrogen doesn't care if its upside down. I eventually went with natural gas. Hydrogen is hard to get in remote areas. But you can get a natural gas tank filled just about anywhere. But yea, if I could create it from stored ammonia I'd probably go back to it. The engine ran a lot better on it than natural gas.
You're talking theory and we're talking reality here. "In theory" your catalytic converter should never ware out. They told us when they made them mandatory decades ago that they'd never ware out. But in practice, I end up replacing one every 5yrs or so. During the intended reaction they don't undergo any permanent chemical change. But that requires what they're reacting with to be 100% pure. Which is impossible. All kinds of stuff gets into fuel, the catalyst corrodes and we end up having to replace it.
However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone
But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.
SCOTUS did not, nor will it ever prevent law enforcement from searching you if they have probable cause. If they see you dial a number on your phone, and then see a bomb go off across the street while you smile and flip off the bank you just blew up, they will have probable cause and be fully justified in searching your phone. What this ruling says however, is that they can't walk onto the street before the blast and just search every phone of every person that just so happens to be there. They need reason to suspect you personally. They can't just blanket declare that all phones are suspicious.
Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional
Says who? The precedent suggests otherwise. I don't really care for the concept myself, but I can recognize a compelling state interest when I see one. You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....
Sorry, you're wrong. They have an end-run around that as well. You're required by law to have a license to drive. To get a licenses you must first sign an agreement that you agree to submit to any request by law enforcement to a breathalyzer. If you refuse, you agree to give up your license. If you end up at a chekcpoint you are not required to submit to the breathalyze, but you will lose your license if you don't. This is why you see DA's that get pulled over refuse the test. It's the smart thing to do. You are going to lose your license anyway, at least you can get away without a fine or criminal charge.
The defacto result is, the check point IS a search of every vehicle that happens to go down that road. It's a search for a very specific thing... alcohol, but it's still a warantless search of your person. The evidence might not end up being able to be used against you in a legal proceeding, but it definitely will get used against you.
If you can only express your right to unreasonable searches when you're not breaking the law (which is the case in checkpoints) then you never really had that right in the first place.
It might be really cheap and thin, e.g. Eiffel Tower with venetian blinds to block the wind when needed?
$160 million per mile would mean it would cost less than $5 per cubic yard to build. Does that even sound remotely plausible? That would mean it would have to take less than a total of 1 man hour per cubic yard to build, even without materials. lol
If we criminalized collection of data without specific field level consent, we could end this invasion of privacy.
No you wouldn't. I deal with marketing software all the time. They get around it very easily. They don't log your name or any "directly" identifying information. Keep in mind, they don't care who you are... They just want to sell you stuff. So to remain in compliance with the law, you log all the data in an "anonymized" database. You log identifiable information like name, phone, email in a different database and make it "secure" Then you wait... at some point they will click a link or request some info that, by the legal definition, puts them in the status of "a person asking to be marketed to" or whatever... Usually something like "click her for more info!" it asks for their email, they provide it... you use all that "anonymized" data to generate a marketing attempt, you link that marketing attempt to their account data using the email address they just provide you and create an "opportunity" to make a sale. Then either something as simply as your general spam email gets sent out, or maybe they'll even get a phone call or site visit. Because the email address is the real link and is transient you can claim all the traffic data is kept to "better maintain the site" or whatever.
Then you destroy the link between their web activity, and the customer record. The web activity can be linked to THEM very easily. Via cookies is the simplest, but you can also do it via hundreds of other data points. It's all very easy and there are prepackaged marketing platforms out there that do it all for you. Because the customer record is not linked directly to this data, you can keep as much detail as you want about the persons browsing activity without violating any privacy laws or regulations. This is the metadata everyone talks about...
You can keep all their identification data in a separate database. Because it's separate, its just considered "Contact info" and in there you can store previous purchases, things like that.
As awful as all that sounds, there is a bright side. If the data were to get stolen, it would be a lot hard to exploit.
Actually, I am terrified of New Orleans. My mothers side of the family lives in Biloxi. I went once, aint going back. Chicago is Martha Stewarts living-room in comparison.
ok, so he doesn't mention a length... but lets just start with one mile.
The internal volume of 1000' * 165' * 5280' = 871,200,000 cubic feet That's 32 million cubic yards. Concrete, the most basic thing you'd have to make it out of averages about $75 per cubic yard. So this thing would cost $2.4 billion dollars, per mile, to build.
This doesn't even factor in grading, paying workers, rerouting highways, etc... Oh, and you'd likely consume all the concrete in the US, driving up the price and crash industries all over the country because of it.
Time is not dark matter however. We understand time, and time dilatation. As crazy as it is, we have that part figured out. Time is another dimension, like length, width, etc... but it is treated a tad different, but this is a very deep subject, you might as well read on it from smarter people than I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Time does not have mass, though it affects mas.
Dark matter however behaves a lot like other matter. Don't let physisists fool you. They are very guarded group. But we pretty much have dark matter figured out. Things we know pretty much for sure about dark matter: There's a LOT of it. It's everywhere. It clumps together just like dust in a house. It's diffuse... so while there's a lot of it, it's very spread out. we can't see it for some reason. Most of the ways we know to detect particles do not work on it. The only way we know it even exists is because it still interacts gravitationally with normal matter.
So we pretty much know what it is, we can describe it well enough already. We just need to find direct evidence of it and give it a proper name.
There's still a chance that we made some silly error, but that grows increasingly unlikely every day.
Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.
You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.
Business leaders get nearly slave labor. People can't report illegal activity protest poor conditions. Democrats get to pretend to fight for the little guy. They offer amnesty because they know it will kill the issue, continuing the problem and giving them more political capital because they're seen as doing the right thing... even though they aren't doing anything really. Republicans get to pretend they care about the American worker, by keeping the foreigners out. But what they are really doing is keeping those workers (who are already here) in the shadows... there-by assuring that they wont even make minimum wage and making them an even greater threat to American jobs. To perpetuate the issue, every time it comes up they suggest we put the military on the border, witch they know is completely impossible.
The driver was an imminent threat to the general prublic by driving with undue care and attention or by operrerating an usafe vehicle (Ie burn tout head light, tail light, etc...).
No. That doesn't make sense.
However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone. Just like they can pull you over, bring in a dog for no reason, claim the dog "alerted" on your car and then search it anyway. It's just a matter of a few DA's to come up with something that will pass some friendly judges scrutiny, do it a few times and only bring those cases to those friendly judges to avoid getting an unfavorable ruling... then later start using it on everyone and when questioned on it they'll claim "There is a set precede in law, used in dozens of cases, that shows this is a legitimate and justifiable search" and viola.
Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional, but they convict people using them every day.
If it requires a login/password and a user account, how is that "publicly transmitting"?
Would the judge also declare that when I'm watching Netflix via wi-fi, I'm also "publicly transmitting"?
And that's exactly why Aereo lost. They claimed that the copyright law didn't cover them because they were just an equipment provider. But they weren't... you could log into their service, you could store data there... etc... they were like a cable TV provider and therefor covered by the law. SCOTUS made it very clear their ruling applies directly to Aereo, and it wasn't a broad ruling against the entire concept.
Drones crash more often then their manned counterparts. Even the military ones which are top of the line have issues with this.
really? Evidence please?
Do they crash more than land vehicles? Because that's how the package will likely be delivered if there's no drone. What do you think would hurt more? a 5lb drone 50ft over your head doing 20mph? or a 3000lb UPS truck on the freeway?
Well.....I guess that's one museum I'll never be visiting.
You've never been to Chicago have you? There are murders, but they almost entirely gang on gang. Hell, most of them aren't even gangs, they're just teenagers being idiots. I've lived nearby, visited often and never felt threated or gotten mugged. The part of the city where all the museums are (I'm assuming that's where this will go) is very nice and well policed. Also, thanks to the supreme court, you can carry a handgun for protection now!
If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.
Ah... the age old myth. So you realize, that bullshit was started by marketing firms on the behalf of employers right? Your reasoning played out: "Find the job you love, then you'll work for free!!" That's also the where the idea of a "Career" came from. "Well, my career is in computers, so even though I could make more helping my wife with her bakery, that would end my career!"
Bullshit all around. It's all intended to keep you working cheep because you like what you're doing, and afraid to leave because it would hurt your career. My ass.
I don't care if you're paying me to nail Scarlett Johansen. You're paying me, and expect a lot. When my shift is over, she'd better spoon with a pillow or something because I'm going home.
My Piano keyboard has MORE keys than my computer keyboard. Have you people seen these things lately? It's got your standard 88 keys, 20 trigger pads, 4 analog controllers, 9 analog sliders, 8 analog turny nobs, and a dozen or so buttons like "Select" "pause" etc...
Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?
Stop policing it with government employees. Allow anyone to fly, then give the airlines API access to the list and tell them in a not-so-subtle way that they are responsible for anything that would happen should they allow any of those people on the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Shh. If you tell people that they won't know that this has been known since we started agriculture. As a useful tip: Planting tobacco plants mixed with plants that are sensitive to pest infestations will help minimize it.
Dill keeps away rabbits. There's a whole "Amateur scientist" Thing with this. I grow a lot of stuff, and I still constantly finding out new things. The issue is that it's regional... what works here might not work 50 miles away. The Internet is not good at disseminating such specific information. The best suggestion I have is to know other people in your area that do the same thing. Especially old people... Farmers almanac is good to. But keep in mind, there's a lot of BS in both sources as well so be skeptical.
True, but a lot of the requests come from politicians with dodgy pasts and paedophiles. I expect Muslims to get in on the act soon as well (I'm sure they'll say "it's not relevant that I called for the subjugation of non-muslims and women now I'm running for Bradford council"!).
While I agree with your conclusion (That these take downs are bad) I dislike your argumentum ad metum reasoning.
By your reasoning it would "ok" if 'the innocent' had the ability to remove information about themselves from the Internet. Then you go on to describe groups of people you dislike that should not be allowed to remove information from the Internet, almost as punishment. The goals of the petitioners are irrelevant. We are all equal, weather you feel we're good or bad shouldn't affect your argument.
A better argument would be "To shed light on the unsavory, we should retain the Internet as a whole. If we allow the innocent to remove information about themselves, we also will have to allow the guilty."
Now there is no reason to disparage large groups of people.
Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.
You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.
Umm .. you do know that I am talking about the confiscation and inspection of electronics in your possession as you legally cross a border into the US?
lol... no I didn't. :-D
No seriously, I thought you were intentionally making a non sequitur in the vein of "Oh look, the government fixed one random problem, how about this unrelated one?" and... wow... that's god damned funny.
I thought the same until I tried it. No. At worst you'd need a super charger. Basically that just pushes more air into the chamber. But if you're not drag racing or anything its not that much help. In rock crawling you actually dont want that much horse power. You're in 4 Wheel low gear, creeping over rocks very slowly. The sports more about your suspension than anything. Lots of power usually = lots of broken parts.
I could imagine an engine designed specifically for a gas like this using a factory super charger like you see on some diesel vehicles, but I'm not an engine designer and not into horsepower. I like the mechanics of it all. High articulated suspension is super fun. It's like an erector set you can drive up mountains.
Here's an site that describes a lot of it. It's about suspension (the focus of the hobby) and not engines:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how...
It really is about making the vehicle as agile as possible. Big SUVs like hummers are laughed at.
to regulate that then really you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on
No you don't. My choices are mine to make. My intelligence is my own concern. It's none of the governments buisness if I make choices that are detrimental to my health.
the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice!
You have a solution looking for a problem. It's none of the states business if people are fat. People have been doing unhealthy things since the romans used arsenic as makeup (and long before.) Society hasn't fallen appart. I realize the "powers that be" feel that they could squeeze more work out of us for less money if they took all the joy out of our lives, but you what? Fuck them.
It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.
Me to. /high five :-)
Events unfold in time, but time itself doesn't move. Substitute space for time to make the absurdity clearer: "Is space moving forwards or backwards?" Space isn't moving, we move through space.
Since you're being pedantic, so can I. Space can travel. It moves all the time. It warps and contorts, and acts very much like a "thing" Time also warps and contorts. So if you want to get all picky, the article is still correct :-p
For the conversion from Ammonia to Hydrogen: Nitrogen.
Ammonia is NH3, so you'd get mostly Hydrogen and a byproduct of 1 nitrogen atom.
Nitrogen is already 78% of the earths atmosphere, and not a greenhouse gas. So it's not bad... at all.
Once you have the hydrogen, you mix it with oxygen and light it. (assuming you don't use it in a fuel cell)
You can literally put hydrogen into a normal combustion engine and it will run on it.
Hydrogen is 3x as energy dense as gasoline. So it works fantastically well. Newer cars with computers would need some modification. But if you're using an old carborated engine it works great.
What comes out the exhaust is water.
I've actually experimented with this. I have a "Rock crawler" (imagine a mini-monster truck) and one thing we're always dealing with is when trying to go up or down extreme angles gasoline engines tend not to work so hot. They like to be level. Hydrogen doesn't care if its upside down. I eventually went with natural gas. Hydrogen is hard to get in remote areas. But you can get a natural gas tank filled just about anywhere. But yea, if I could create it from stored ammonia I'd probably go back to it. The engine ran a lot better on it than natural gas.
You're talking theory and we're talking reality here.
"In theory" your catalytic converter should never ware out. They told us when they made them mandatory decades ago that they'd never ware out.
But in practice, I end up replacing one every 5yrs or so. During the intended reaction they don't undergo any permanent chemical change. But that requires what they're reacting with to be 100% pure. Which is impossible. All kinds of stuff gets into fuel, the catalyst corrodes and we end up having to replace it.
I lost the password in a hard drive crash.
But that's not what this case was about. He admitted to knowing the password, and refused to provide it. I've no problem with this ruling.
But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.
SCOTUS did not, nor will it ever prevent law enforcement from searching you if they have probable cause. If they see you dial a number on your phone, and then see a bomb go off across the street while you smile and flip off the bank you just blew up, they will have probable cause and be fully justified in searching your phone. What this ruling says however, is that they can't walk onto the street before the blast and just search every phone of every person that just so happens to be there. They need reason to suspect you personally. They can't just blanket declare that all phones are suspicious.
Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional
Says who? The precedent suggests otherwise. I don't really care for the concept myself, but I can recognize a compelling state interest when I see one. You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....
Sorry, you're wrong. They have an end-run around that as well. You're required by law to have a license to drive. To get a licenses you must first sign an agreement that you agree to submit to any request by law enforcement to a breathalyzer. If you refuse, you agree to give up your license. If you end up at a chekcpoint you are not required to submit to the breathalyze, but you will lose your license if you don't. This is why you see DA's that get pulled over refuse the test. It's the smart thing to do. You are going to lose your license anyway, at least you can get away without a fine or criminal charge.
The defacto result is, the check point IS a search of every vehicle that happens to go down that road. It's a search for a very specific thing... alcohol, but it's still a warantless search of your person. The evidence might not end up being able to be used against you in a legal proceeding, but it definitely will get used against you.
If you can only express your right to unreasonable searches when you're not breaking the law (which is the case in checkpoints) then you never really had that right in the first place.
The author coated it at $160mil / mile
It might be really cheap and thin, e.g. Eiffel Tower with venetian blinds to block the wind when needed?
$160 million per mile would mean it would cost less than $5 per cubic yard to build. Does that even sound remotely plausible? That would mean it would have to take less than a total of 1 man hour per cubic yard to build, even without materials. lol
If we criminalized collection of data without specific field level consent, we could end this invasion of privacy.
No you wouldn't. I deal with marketing software all the time. They get around it very easily. They don't log your name or any "directly" identifying information. Keep in mind, they don't care who you are... They just want to sell you stuff. So to remain in compliance with the law, you log all the data in an "anonymized" database. You log identifiable information like name, phone, email in a different database and make it "secure" Then you wait... at some point they will click a link or request some info that, by the legal definition, puts them in the status of "a person asking to be marketed to" or whatever... Usually something like "click her for more info!" it asks for their email, they provide it... you use all that "anonymized" data to generate a marketing attempt, you link that marketing attempt to their account data using the email address they just provide you and create an "opportunity" to make a sale. Then either something as simply as your general spam email gets sent out, or maybe they'll even get a phone call or site visit. Because the email address is the real link and is transient you can claim all the traffic data is kept to "better maintain the site" or whatever.
Then you destroy the link between their web activity, and the customer record. The web activity can be linked to THEM very easily. Via cookies is the simplest, but you can also do it via hundreds of other data points. It's all very easy and there are prepackaged marketing platforms out there that do it all for you. Because the customer record is not linked directly to this data, you can keep as much detail as you want about the persons browsing activity without violating any privacy laws or regulations. This is the metadata everyone talks about...
You can keep all their identification data in a separate database. Because it's separate, its just considered "Contact info" and in there you can store previous purchases, things like that.
As awful as all that sounds, there is a bright side. If the data were to get stolen, it would be a lot hard to exploit.
Actually, I am terrified of New Orleans. My mothers side of the family lives in Biloxi. I went once, aint going back. Chicago is Martha Stewarts living-room in comparison.
Having a bunch of cowardly little men with mechanical penis running around to be a positive thing for the city.
It's not. It doesn't need to be. It's a constitutional right that no-one has to justify to you. That's how rights work.
ok, so he doesn't mention a length... but lets just start with one mile.
The internal volume of 1000' * 165' * 5280' = 871,200,000 cubic feet
That's 32 million cubic yards.
Concrete, the most basic thing you'd have to make it out of averages about $75 per cubic yard.
So this thing would cost $2.4 billion dollars, per mile, to build.
This doesn't even factor in grading, paying workers, rerouting highways, etc...
Oh, and you'd likely consume all the concrete in the US, driving up the price and crash industries all over the country because of it.
Good luck!
Because time doesn't impact mass.
Actually, mass and time are directly related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Time is not dark matter however. We understand time, and time dilatation. As crazy as it is, we have that part figured out.
Time is another dimension, like length, width, etc... but it is treated a tad different, but this is a very deep subject, you might as well read on it from smarter people than I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Time does not have mass, though it affects mas.
Dark matter however behaves a lot like other matter. Don't let physisists fool you. They are very guarded group. But we pretty much have dark matter figured out. Things we know pretty much for sure about dark matter:
There's a LOT of it.
It's everywhere.
It clumps together just like dust in a house.
It's diffuse... so while there's a lot of it, it's very spread out.
we can't see it for some reason. Most of the ways we know to detect particles do not work on it. The only way we know it even exists is because it still interacts gravitationally with normal matter.
So we pretty much know what it is, we can describe it well enough already. We just need to find direct evidence of it and give it a proper name.
There's still a chance that we made some silly error, but that grows increasingly unlikely every day.
Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.
You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.
Business leaders get nearly slave labor. People can't report illegal activity protest poor conditions.
Democrats get to pretend to fight for the little guy. They offer amnesty because they know it will kill the issue, continuing the problem and giving them more political capital because they're seen as doing the right thing... even though they aren't doing anything really.
Republicans get to pretend they care about the American worker, by keeping the foreigners out. But what they are really doing is keeping those workers (who are already here) in the shadows... there-by assuring that they wont even make minimum wage and making them an even greater threat to American jobs. To perpetuate the issue, every time it comes up they suggest we put the military on the border, witch they know is completely impossible.
The driver was an imminent threat to the general prublic by driving with undue care and attention or by operrerating an usafe vehicle (Ie burn tout head light, tail light, etc...).
No. That doesn't make sense.
However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone. Just like they can pull you over, bring in a dog for no reason, claim the dog "alerted" on your car and then search it anyway. It's just a matter of a few DA's to come up with something that will pass some friendly judges scrutiny, do it a few times and only bring those cases to those friendly judges to avoid getting an unfavorable ruling... then later start using it on everyone and when questioned on it they'll claim "There is a set precede in law, used in dozens of cases, that shows this is a legitimate and justifiable search" and viola.
Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional, but they convict people using them every day.
If it requires a login/password and a user account, how is that "publicly transmitting"?
Would the judge also declare that when I'm watching Netflix via wi-fi, I'm also "publicly transmitting"?
And that's exactly why Aereo lost. They claimed that the copyright law didn't cover them because they were just an equipment provider. But they weren't... you could log into their service, you could store data there... etc... they were like a cable TV provider and therefor covered by the law. SCOTUS made it very clear their ruling applies directly to Aereo, and it wasn't a broad ruling against the entire concept.
Drones crash more often then their manned counterparts. Even the military ones which are top of the line have issues with this.
really? Evidence please?
Do they crash more than land vehicles? Because that's how the package will likely be delivered if there's no drone.
What do you think would hurt more?
a 5lb drone 50ft over your head doing 20mph?
or
a 3000lb UPS truck on the freeway?
Well.....I guess that's one museum I'll never be visiting.
You've never been to Chicago have you?
There are murders, but they almost entirely gang on gang. Hell, most of them aren't even gangs, they're just teenagers being idiots. I've lived nearby, visited often and never felt threated or gotten mugged. The part of the city where all the museums are (I'm assuming that's where this will go) is very nice and well policed. Also, thanks to the supreme court, you can carry a handgun for protection now!
If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.
Ah... the age old myth. So you realize, that bullshit was started by marketing firms on the behalf of employers right?
Your reasoning played out: "Find the job you love, then you'll work for free!!"
That's also the where the idea of a "Career" came from.
"Well, my career is in computers, so even though I could make more helping my wife with her bakery, that would end my career!"
Bullshit all around. It's all intended to keep you working cheep because you like what you're doing, and afraid to leave because it would hurt your career. My ass.
I don't care if you're paying me to nail Scarlett Johansen. You're paying me, and expect a lot. When my shift is over, she'd better spoon with a pillow or something because I'm going home.
My Piano keyboard has MORE keys than my computer keyboard. Have you people seen these things lately? It's got your standard 88 keys, 20 trigger pads, 4 analog controllers, 9 analog sliders, 8 analog turny nobs, and a dozen or so buttons like "Select" "pause" etc...
Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?
Stop policing it with government employees. Allow anyone to fly, then give the airlines API access to the list and tell them in a not-so-subtle way that they are responsible for anything that would happen should they allow any of those people on the plane.