They don't owe depositors anything unless the contracts they signed said they would guarantee X amount or value of bitcoin. The $60m in liabilities might somehow be related to their own loss of bitcoins since the value of 100,000 BTC is just shy of $60m.
It's almost as though the ATF planned this operation to confirm what the high level officials were saying. That's conspiracy though and that certainly could never happen.
The other thing to consider is that they would have had a choice of a rescue mission or an attempting repair but probably not both (using the repair once the rescue fails). As you pointed out, and barring being able to get further supplies to the shuttle Columbia would have been limited to one space walk if Atlantis were to arrive before suffocation occured. So that means if sufficient visual data could not be gathered via satellite imagery, then that one space walk would need to be conducted to inspect the location. So unless the space walker carried everything that he could possibly use to patch the damage further space walks to patch would need to be delayed until after it was shown Atlantis was not an option. If they performed the repair after assessing the damage CO2 scrubbers wouldn't last long enough for Atlantis to arrive and if they waited until Atlantis failed the crew performing the repair would have been suffering from the effects of a 3.5% CO2 concentration instead of normal 2% for quite some time. I have no idea how that might negatively impact any potential repairs.
I'm also not certain a rescue would have been a good idea given the complexity and danger inherent. The one thing you don't do is put rescuers in needless danger and create more victims.
I didn't realize the orbit was out of reach from Russia's launch sites. I always assumed the soyuz wasn't an option because it would require at minimum two launches to rescue the entire Columbia crew.
The lack of spacesuits was a key problem for any rescue plan. I saw some suggestions that they could rescue part of the crew and reduce the strain on life support but that's the problem. Every time they cycle the airlock they lose critical supplies for life support. It doesn't really help the problem and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem and leave even less time for the survivors that could be rescued at the time.
That's the primary reason why the shuttle was really considered the only viable solution. It was the only craft which could be launched and retrieve all seven Columbia astronauts at the same time. Any other solution would require multiple craft in quick succession or flying in close proximity. The complications of those operations are greatly increased.
The only wrong choice they made was to not do a good inspection for damage. Inspecting the damage would have at least them attempt an Apollo 13 style repair and have a chance. I don't think a rescue mission was ever feasible because of the risks and time constraints. A lot of people suggest "launch a soyuz" but that is really saying "rescue four of the astronauts". Maybe that would have been acceptable but the survivors guilt would have been tremendous.
Your conclusion is incorrect. The other case you should read is Georgia v. Randolph. That requires all occupants to grant consent for a search to occur. This case basically states that consent can be asked for multiple times and if you aren't physically present but previously denied consent that denial no longer matters.
If there are two residents physically present then both residents must grant consent. What this case does is allow the police to come back when the person(s) denying consent are gone and get consent to a search from the remaining parties.
It's not legal consent for a search. Georgia v. Rodriguez requires consent of all parties and that case hasn't been contradicted by this case.
What this case does is establish that the police can just keep coming back and asking for consent and as soon as you, the denier of consent, are absent all your previous denies of consent no longer matter and as long as all remaining occupants grant consent the search is permitted.
It requires that the police have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority over the home. That usually means owner and the person with their name on the lease.
The only thing about this case that I find troubling is that it appears police can come back after you deny consent and ask again. If you're not physically present then your previous denial of consent no longer applies.
Children typically don't own property. So no, a child cannot grant consent to search. Any evidence gathered during that search would be inadmissable. The police have to have a reasonable belief that the person granting authority has common authority which usually means holds legal rights to the residence.
So police knock on a door and a burglar answers. He grants consent to a search. That's probably okay. So police knock on a door when a party is going on, some guy answers the door and grants consent to the search. That's not okay because it's not reasonable to assume that of the thirty people present, it was definitely the owner who answered the door. So police knock on a door and a a man's brother answers the door and identifies himself as the owner's brother, that he's visiting from out of town, and he grants consent. This is not okay because it's obvious that the man is not the owner of the residence.
This isn't legal advice, it's just my understanding.
This case is basically a rehash of Georgia v. Randolph with one twist. The police gained consent after one resident denied it by returning when the resident was absent from the property.
With Georgia v. Randolph all residents needed to grant consent but it left open the question, not asked until this case, of how long denial of consent would persist. The answer to that question is, "Until the police come back."
Illinois v. Rodriguez It requires that the police have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority for the property.
Georgia v. Randolph It requires that the police gain the consent of all individuals with common authority who are physically present to grant consent.
This case Permits the police to come back, after you've denied consent, when you are absent from the property and enter for a search with the consent of another party.
The part that bothers me is the requirement that you must be present every time the police show up to deny consent.
There's one part of the decision with which I'm a bit uncomfortable. I don't like that the police can just keep coming back repeatedly asking for consent and if you're not present, despite having denied consent before, they can now search.
Illinois v. Rodriguez requires the police to have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority. If they show up during a party and whoever answers the door grants consent for the to come in, that's not reasonable to conduct a search. It's reasonable to ask for the owner. If a child answers and grants consent that is not reasonable that the child owns the property and has common authority.
Georgia v. Randolph required that all people with common authority who are physically present in the home grant consent for the police to perform a search.
This case allows the police to swing and miss multiple times and just keep coming back until the person denying consent is gone.
Illinois v. Rodriguez established that it need to be reasonable for the police to believe the person granting consent has common authority over the home.
Georgia v. Randolph established that all people physically present with common authority must grant consent for a search, barring extenuating circumstances that would make it reasonable for police to believe the destruction of evidence or something of that nature would occur.
What this case established is that consent to search a home can be asked multiple times and if a person that denies consent is not present one of those times another party with common authority who grants consent permits the police to search.
4 year olds don't have common authority over their parents property and it isn't reasonable for the police to believe that minors do. So no, a four year old can never grant consent to a search and any police searching done of a home with the consent of a 4 year old would be a slam dunk to get toss out.
You need to have common authority over a residence to grant consent to a search. This was established in Illinois v. Rodriguez however it did permit searches if it was reasonable for the police to believe the person granting consent had common authority over the residence.
Georgia v Randolph required the consent of all parties with common authority that are physically present to consent to a search for it to be valid.
Now instead of there being two items. Every player has a chance to get an item when a boss is killed. So unless those terrible idiot players cause wipes, they're nothing more than a warm body being dragged along for the ride.
That's funny. I would say my experience with MMOs would suggest the exact opposite. There's a lot of players who have leveled from 1-cap who have no idea how to play their class, no idea of their proper rotations, and no idea how to properly select gear. Someone starting at max level is not going to be all that different.
I'm not sure that hard core raiders are the intended audience. The problem with rerolling is that you're substituting player A with character 1 for player A with character 2. That only fixes issues when the problem is class makeup. If you're problem is you lost a raider then this feature only helps if one of your current raiders is rerolling in order to bring in a new recruit.
Blizzard has been pursuing this course ever since they released bind on account gear in WotLK which increased the rate at which you gain experience as well as make the gear have stats that scale with level. They've been making leveling easier and less time consuming. I would say that after a new expansion pack comes out players will reach the new level cap within 3 days to 3 weeks. That's just one expansion pack. The cost of this service is 4 months subscription. I would say that the casual player could level a new character to the cap in 2 months so what it amounts to for the target demographic is paying $30 to be able to experience end game content now rather than in two months.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the Daily Show has lambasted it.
They don't owe depositors anything unless the contracts they signed said they would guarantee X amount or value of bitcoin. The $60m in liabilities might somehow be related to their own loss of bitcoins since the value of 100,000 BTC is just shy of $60m.
It's almost as though the ATF planned this operation to confirm what the high level officials were saying. That's conspiracy though and that certainly could never happen.
I agree with you entirely.
The other thing to consider is that they would have had a choice of a rescue mission or an attempting repair but probably not both (using the repair once the rescue fails). As you pointed out, and barring being able to get further supplies to the shuttle Columbia would have been limited to one space walk if Atlantis were to arrive before suffocation occured. So that means if sufficient visual data could not be gathered via satellite imagery, then that one space walk would need to be conducted to inspect the location. So unless the space walker carried everything that he could possibly use to patch the damage further space walks to patch would need to be delayed until after it was shown Atlantis was not an option. If they performed the repair after assessing the damage CO2 scrubbers wouldn't last long enough for Atlantis to arrive and if they waited until Atlantis failed the crew performing the repair would have been suffering from the effects of a 3.5% CO2 concentration instead of normal 2% for quite some time. I have no idea how that might negatively impact any potential repairs.
I'm also not certain a rescue would have been a good idea given the complexity and danger inherent. The one thing you don't do is put rescuers in needless danger and create more victims.
I didn't realize the orbit was out of reach from Russia's launch sites. I always assumed the soyuz wasn't an option because it would require at minimum two launches to rescue the entire Columbia crew.
The lack of spacesuits was a key problem for any rescue plan. I saw some suggestions that they could rescue part of the crew and reduce the strain on life support but that's the problem. Every time they cycle the airlock they lose critical supplies for life support. It doesn't really help the problem and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem and leave even less time for the survivors that could be rescued at the time.
That's the primary reason why the shuttle was really considered the only viable solution. It was the only craft which could be launched and retrieve all seven Columbia astronauts at the same time. Any other solution would require multiple craft in quick succession or flying in close proximity. The complications of those operations are greatly increased.
The only wrong choice they made was to not do a good inspection for damage. Inspecting the damage would have at least them attempt an Apollo 13 style repair and have a chance. I don't think a rescue mission was ever feasible because of the risks and time constraints. A lot of people suggest "launch a soyuz" but that is really saying "rescue four of the astronauts". Maybe that would have been acceptable but the survivors guilt would have been tremendous.
Your conclusion is incorrect. The other case you should read is Georgia v. Randolph. That requires all occupants to grant consent for a search to occur. This case basically states that consent can be asked for multiple times and if you aren't physically present but previously denied consent that denial no longer matters.
No.
If there are two residents physically present then both residents must grant consent. What this case does is allow the police to come back when the person(s) denying consent are gone and get consent to a search from the remaining parties.
It's not legal consent for a search. Georgia v. Rodriguez requires consent of all parties and that case hasn't been contradicted by this case.
What this case does is establish that the police can just keep coming back and asking for consent and as soon as you, the denier of consent, are absent all your previous denies of consent no longer matter and as long as all remaining occupants grant consent the search is permitted.
Illinois v. Rodriguez
It requires that the police have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority over the home. That usually means owner and the person with their name on the lease.
The only thing about this case that I find troubling is that it appears police can come back after you deny consent and ask again. If you're not physically present then your previous denial of consent no longer applies.
Children typically don't own property. So no, a child cannot grant consent to search. Any evidence gathered during that search would be inadmissable. The police have to have a reasonable belief that the person granting authority has common authority which usually means holds legal rights to the residence.
So police knock on a door and a burglar answers. He grants consent to a search. That's probably okay.
So police knock on a door when a party is going on, some guy answers the door and grants consent to the search. That's not okay because it's not reasonable to assume that of the thirty people present, it was definitely the owner who answered the door.
So police knock on a door and a a man's brother answers the door and identifies himself as the owner's brother, that he's visiting from out of town, and he grants consent. This is not okay because it's obvious that the man is not the owner of the residence.
This isn't legal advice, it's just my understanding.
This case is basically a rehash of Georgia v. Randolph with one twist. The police gained consent after one resident denied it by returning when the resident was absent from the property.
With Georgia v. Randolph all residents needed to grant consent but it left open the question, not asked until this case, of how long denial of consent would persist. The answer to that question is, "Until the police come back."
Illinois v. Rodriguez
It requires that the police have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority for the property.
Georgia v. Randolph
It requires that the police gain the consent of all individuals with common authority who are physically present to grant consent.
This case
Permits the police to come back, after you've denied consent, when you are absent from the property and enter for a search with the consent of another party.
The part that bothers me is the requirement that you must be present every time the police show up to deny consent.
There's one part of the decision with which I'm a bit uncomfortable. I don't like that the police can just keep coming back repeatedly asking for consent and if you're not present, despite having denied consent before, they can now search.
Illinois v. Rodriguez requires the police to have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority. If they show up during a party and whoever answers the door grants consent for the to come in, that's not reasonable to conduct a search. It's reasonable to ask for the owner. If a child answers and grants consent that is not reasonable that the child owns the property and has common authority.
Georgia v. Randolph required that all people with common authority who are physically present in the home grant consent for the police to perform a search.
This case allows the police to swing and miss multiple times and just keep coming back until the person denying consent is gone.
Illinois v. Rodriguez established that it need to be reasonable for the police to believe the person granting consent has common authority over the home.
Georgia v. Randolph established that all people physically present with common authority must grant consent for a search, barring extenuating circumstances that would make it reasonable for police to believe the destruction of evidence or something of that nature would occur.
What this case established is that consent to search a home can be asked multiple times and if a person that denies consent is not present one of those times another party with common authority who grants consent permits the police to search.
4 year olds don't have common authority over their parents property and it isn't reasonable for the police to believe that minors do. So no, a four year old can never grant consent to a search and any police searching done of a home with the consent of a 4 year old would be a slam dunk to get toss out.
You need to have common authority over a residence to grant consent to a search. This was established in Illinois v. Rodriguez however it did permit searches if it was reasonable for the police to believe the person granting consent had common authority over the residence.
Georgia v Randolph required the consent of all parties with common authority that are physically present to consent to a search for it to be valid.
They changed loot.
Now instead of there being two items. Every player has a chance to get an item when a boss is killed. So unless those terrible idiot players cause wipes, they're nothing more than a warm body being dragged along for the ride.
That's funny. I would say my experience with MMOs would suggest the exact opposite. There's a lot of players who have leveled from 1-cap who have no idea how to play their class, no idea of their proper rotations, and no idea how to properly select gear. Someone starting at max level is not going to be all that different.
I'm not sure that hard core raiders are the intended audience. The problem with rerolling is that you're substituting player A with character 1 for player A with character 2. That only fixes issues when the problem is class makeup. If you're problem is you lost a raider then this feature only helps if one of your current raiders is rerolling in order to bring in a new recruit.
Blizzard has been pursuing this course ever since they released bind on account gear in WotLK which increased the rate at which you gain experience as well as make the gear have stats that scale with level. They've been making leveling easier and less time consuming. I would say that after a new expansion pack comes out players will reach the new level cap within 3 days to 3 weeks. That's just one expansion pack. The cost of this service is 4 months subscription. I would say that the casual player could level a new character to the cap in 2 months so what it amounts to for the target demographic is paying $30 to be able to experience end game content now rather than in two months.
It's been done before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...