I dont know jack shit about material engineering but could it be the cold in the days before takeoff? Cracks?
Supposedly, it was the cold that gave Challenger its fatal problem. The cold caused an O-ring in one of the booster rockets to not expand quickly enough to maintain seal, causing the rocket to leak fuel and explode.
How that ties into STS-113 is anyone's guess. The first loss of control happened at or shortly after re-entry, when I very much doubt that the hull was cold.
From what I hear, the Shuttle doesn't even carry a hardened flight data recorder. Damn shame-I'd love to know what was going on up there for the last thirty seconds before FLoC.
It'll be a loooong time before NASA puts up another manned flight.
Probably ditto ESA and the Russians.
Who are the non-governmental organizations involved in space flight? Are any of them donation-accepting not-for-profit groups?
I'm no pilot. My math classes ended with a very simplified stats class. I can't build the damn things and probably shouldn't be left near the controls, but there has to be some way that I can help keep space flight from dying.
This is Challenger all over again. NASA was grounded for years afterwards and people were scared to go back into space. This is all very very very sad. I am so heart broken, but we all know the risks of going into space. They put thier lives on the line all the time for US ! Later generations will reap the benifits of what these EXPLORERS have gone through.
It's common knowledge too: After an emotionally-intense setback, you have to get back in the saddle ASAP. The longer you wait, the less likely it is that you will ever successfully get back in action.
We can't take counsel only from fear. The (unfortunately most likely dead) astronauts knew this-they KNEW that going into space was a touch risky. They also knew that that there was no end of benefit to humanity which could come from taking that risk.
Let's see...someone who puts himself into harm's way on behalf of the greater society...during the academy, we called them "heroes." And it applies as much to astronauts as to any of my brothers in blue or any firefighter-medic.
Now we need to make their deaths worth it. In the investigation of this incident, someone will see a way to make space flight safer. With the cost that these seven astronauts paid for this lesson, it would be a damn disgrace not to learn it and use it and grow from it.
I don't usually urge partisanship on/., but Congress controls the money. Tell them to get back in the saddle. Our ancestors knew it: there was a big and wonderful world to be explored and won, but it wouldn't be done by the cowards.
So why is region coding enforced despite this? Because American Corporations like it that way.
Don't pin this on us. We (or our fruit-nut-and-flake California bastard stepchild brethren) may write the content, but the hardware generally is assembled around the Pacific Rim by Japanese-owned companies.
Well, unless Phillips and RCA have one hell of a lot more market share in DVD players than anywhere else.
This is the US. We don't do hardware anymore. Christ, we even have to import handguns! The best trucks and SUVs on our roads today could be argued to be Toyotas. (I'd argue it, but about half the GM vehicles sold here now are 50% or greater non-US-or-Canada parts content. My late-80's K-body Chevy may be the only 100%-US truck left on the road...;-)
Personally, I think we should be importing more beer. Ireland, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand are all anybody needs to know about decent beer. I'd be willing to trade Chad Brock or Toby Keith MP3's for any of the above. Let's make global free trade work for us!
Employer contribution to Social Insecurity: 7.some-odd% which they're paying Uncle Sucker instead of you. (Like it'll be around in 30 years when I reach retirement age! HA!)
Vehicle tax, separate from the sales tax you paid when you bought it and separate from the registration fee. In Colorado, it's 2.10% of the original taxable value on a new car. And the emissions tests in the Denver metro area, which can ONLY be performed at a state-owned facility on 1987 and newer, and cost twenty-five bucks.
Firearms, ammunition, and boats carry a Federal excise of 10% or thereabouts. I'm not sure, but I think fishing tackle falls under a similar excise.
Property tax-easy to miss if you're a renter. The poor bastards in Denver pay them to support schools (DPS being the best argument for school choice I've ever seen), the Donkeys' new stadium (because John Elway thought it was a neat idea for someone else to pick up the tab, greedy asshole), the Regional Transportation District (which should be self-supporting with the fares they charge) et cetera.
Thankfully, in my area we just pay property taxes to prop up an utterly-worthless public school system. Were it not for the Jesuits, this area would have third-world-quality education all around. (And I'm Lutheran. I'm not supposed to say that!)
Don't forget the taxes in your phone and utility bills. My Qworst bill for December had enough tax included to pay for my unlisted, Caller ID, and most of my long-distance calls.
I didn't mean that it was wrong to criticize the government during an election, just that the moment it became critical of the government it qualified as election advertising and fell under the scope of the laws governing the election.
We've had similar restrictions for years now. They became a lot more stringent in the last few months with a campaign finance reform act which in effect is an incumbent-protection law. It makes it very difficult to legally spend money or air advertising in the last month of an election cycle, thereby making it incredibly difficult for a challenger to beat an incumbent. (Never underestimate the power of incumbency: A communist prick like Ted Kennedy could win in a conservative state like Colorado if he had the kind of name recognition and legacy status here that he does in Massachusetts.)
I'll be shocked if it passes Constitutional muster. It seems to me that it'll be hard to defend a restriction on who can say what or spend money on saying something about politics, during an election season, in light of a Constitutional provision that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."
But I'm just a crank who seems to think that free speech is mainly about politics, social commentary, and criticism of the government and its officials, and shouldn't include blackout dates.
Canadian political advertising doesn't feature the same level of participation by 'concerned 3rd parties' that you would find in the United States (eg 'Paid for by concerned citizens for...').
Here, they're often shills for one party or another. For example, I'm a member of both the NRA and the Sierra Club, but I'll be honest: It's uncommon for the former to endorse Democrats (there are exceptions: John Dingell and Tom Foley leap to mind) and even less common for the latter to endorse Republicans (rare enough that I can't think of any examples off the top of my head).
For whatever that tells you. I could articulate what I mean by that, but for the four glasses of cheap Cabernet I had with dinner.
Actually it's more open than the U.S. This is a preliminary hearing, which we use in place of grand juries.
Grand juries are fairly uncommon in the US anymore. They consist of private citizens drawn from the jury pool and are mainly used as investigative bodies now, as in: "This is the evidence we have. I'm not sure what it all means. Have a look, subpoena the witnesses you want to question, and when you're done tell me who should be charged, and what with."
In fifteen years as a cop, I think I've been in front of a grand jury all of twice. They're very rare here in Colorado. We've simply decided that preliminary hearings (showing of probable cause to bind someone over for trial, here, anyway) are quicker and easier.
Of course he was charged. Running ads critical of the sitting government, during an election, against the law and advice of the Chief electoral officer is going to get you in trouble.
Holy crap! He said something mean about the government, and did it during ELECTION SEASON??? LYNCH HIM!!!!!
Maybe that does go on in the US, but I've got a buck for anybody who can defend it on slashdot with a straight face.
I've never understood this. Find out my family was dead from the news instead of from a government flunky wouldn't change my degree of grief, and I'd want to know as soon as possible in any case.
I make death notifications about once a month. One way to do them (the way we do) is to have a police officer and a victim's advocate (a volunteer with a counseling/MH background) quietly show up to deliver the news and help the family move to the next step: calling clergy or counselor, etc.
The alternative is to let the press do it, which results in about fifty assholes from the Denver Rocky Mountain Spews camped out on your front lawn asking how it feels to have had your nearest and dearest run over by a tanker truck.
Hell of a way to find out. I've given and been given notifications, and I'd much rather they come from a human being with some compassion over an evil piece-of-shit journalist who is perfectly willing to ignore my humanity in order to get three hundred words filed before dinner.
Yes, but they're really just two different interpretations of The Calling's only song, which is actually a cover of Pearl Jam's one song.
Re:Clarification on International Drivers License.
on
Spammers Busted
·
· Score: 1
An international drivers license is usually only issued on the basis of having a _valid_ national license. Here in the UK you must take a valid UK license to the Post Office (or the AA) to get an International License.
A lot like the US. IDL's are issued here by the AAA on proof of a valid state-issued license. If Colorado were to suspend mine tomorrow, I'd be ineligible for a real IDL.
It is also not valid for the country of issue, and I'm betting most insurance companies won't accept one when insuring your vehicle. So basically, I'd need some form of valid foreign license to get an international license that I could use in the USA, and even then I'd be driving without insurance, which I know is illegal in most if not all states.
Very illegal in mine. We're starting to jail people for it. Christ, all it takes to be legal is $25K in liability coverage.
FWIW, I've been told by both British Airways and Qantas that the UK and Australia will accept foreign DL's (like mine) just so long as they're printed in English, which would lend credence to someone's statement above that the IDL serves mainly as a translation of the driver's original DL.
Speaking now as a traffic cop: Any time someone presents me with an IDL, I want to see his original DL. If that one feels funny, I ask for a passport. It's amazing how many people attend school here, get themselves revoked DUI or suspended for FRA (uninsured vehicle), and try to drive on an IDL.
Mexican and Canadian DL's are now valid here in Colorado. My only issue is that it's impossible to check validity on a Mexican DL, and that plenty of cops can't read Spanish. And both nationalities can legally enter the US without passports, so not much point in asking a Canuckistanian for one.
So I don't see why anyone should fall for this scam...
Look at the rest of your spam. Mine are for penis enlargement drugs, 419 scams, and human growth hormone (either illegal controlled substances, or fake, with no way to know for sure). People who buy from spammers are even dumber than spammers.
One is trespassing and vandalism, the other is theft, oddly enough, neither to me is break-and-enter. I would love to know the opinion of a lawyer.
IAAC, IANAL, but...
My state doesn't have anything titled "Breaking and entering." Instead, we have "Burglary," which is defined as "unlawfully entering into or remaining in any [building, dwelling] with the intent to commit a crime therein other than trespass." The severity of the punishment for burglary depends on whether the property was a dwelling or just a building, and whether the offender was armed or used or threatened force against an occupant.
In your hypothetical situation, they'd both be looking at exactly the same penalty for second degree burglary of a building. One would be looking at a charge of theft and the other of criminal mischief (what we in Colorado call 'criminal damage to property). In practice, the guy tagged with the theft charge will probably end up spending considerably more time in the "custody of the Executive Director of the Department of Public Safety, or his duly-authorized representative."
I think I'd start looking for MPAA (or MPA) payola before I dismissed lightly the idea that the prosecutor was bought.
Maybe, maybe not.
In the US, most prosecutors at the state level are either elected, or are appointed by an elected DA/SA. Campaign contributions MAY be an issue (theoretically, although most DA candidates know that the mere hint of a bad smell will kill their chances.)
At the Federal level, they're largely Federal civil service in the Justice Department. However, the chief prosecutor in each Federal district, the US Attorney, probably has some political ambitions. One of the jokes among American cops is that a US Attorney is really just someone who wants to be a Senator in ten years. Hints about campaign contributions to come might constitute bribery, but I'd be shocked if nobody from the MPAA had ever toyed with the idea.
Private prosecution of public offenses is pretty much dead and gone here.
It's usually illegal for a SA, DA, or US Attorney (or their assistants or deputies) to practice law on their own during their appointments, so that avenue for bribery is closed here.
And in Norway it might not even matter. AIUI, most countries other than the US appoint prosecutors through their version of Civil Service, rather than electing them or having them directly answerable to an elected official. Funnelling campaign contributions to someone who isn't elected and isn't seeking elective office is pretty much impossible.
As for straight cash-under-the-table bribes, they're extremely rare in the Western world.
As for why the prosecutor brought the case...she may not have had a whole lot of choice. Any time a prosecutor is presented with a case, where the facts present do appear to support an allegation of a crime, he'll need to be able to explain himself if he decides against filing. And again, I'm woefully ignorant of Norwegian law and how that part of the canon of ethics is interpreted there.
.. There's no need for a law to force all users to have DRM in their cameras, but a police-spec requirement for legal preclusion of tampering would be useful.
How would you code something to prevent tampering? Admittedly, I'm a dumb-assed cop and no programmer, but I don't know how I could even define "tampering" in language that a compiler could understand.
Police already have legal requirements for speedo calibration in cruisers, and other standardization requirements.
Relatively few. Our policy (one city in Colorado-YMMV) on speedo calibration is to just let the factory do it. (On the Crown Victoria, the factory calibration is good forever so long as either the original tires stay on the car, or the replacements are the exact same size.)
Training requirements are theoretically standardized by state POST boards, but there's a LOT of variability there.
And about the only Federal standard we have (other than what the courts set) is the standards we meet in order to have NCIC access.
I would support police digital enhancement, just as long as it was strictly monitored and reproducible: that is, a secure source image must be used and provided so opposing technical experts could reproduce any enhancement when provided the methodology by prosecutors.
That's not that different from how we do it now. Any time I bring a photo into evidence, you can damn well bet that I can produce the negative for inspection/comparison on demand. Any image manipulation or enhancement needed, I can explain and walk the court through what I did and why I did it.
Unfortunately, without a negative, ultimately I'd have to ask the judge/jury to take my word for it. Our justice system is based on the fact that they're not supposed to do that. They're allowed to use their common sense (well, maybe he COULD have altered the negative with the super-secret machine brought down by the flying saucer aliens, but...) but they're also supposed to understand that "trust me" is just a polite way to say "fuck you."
It's that whole thing about an unaltered and unalterable negative which actually makes photography credible in court. Without it, we have a much harder time making our photos stick. I can start by testifying that the photo accurately represents the scene as I found it, but as long as there are people in this world with the ungodly stupidity to take Alan Dershowitz at face value, I have to plan on needing more than that.
This is just playing with fire. The encrypted cameras sound like a good idea, but I think that you need to have more solid evidence. Video cameras in squad cars is a great example. When you can get a drunk to admit how many beers he has had on video tape while conducting a field sobriety test it is pretty easy to refute his claims in court that he was just driving home from grandma's house and got a little tired.
"Shit, officer, I can't do that when I'm sober!" And thank YOU, sir, for saying that right into my microphone. Turn around, hands behind your back, puke on me and we're gonna have a problem...
The thing is, maintaining a trail of custody for the photos I think would be much harder, therefore easier to refute their validity in court.
I went to a CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) seminar which included this. They haven't had much problem yet with authenticating digital photos for court. So far, most of our judges seem to frown on spewing raw speculation and calling it a defense.
And any time you start messing with anything remotely related to being circumstantial evidence, you might as well just throw the case out the window, cause thats just what the judge is going to do.
Yep. Fingerprints are circumstantial and therefore they suck. All they prove is that Joe Schmuck the Ragman had touched a particular doorknob. (Combined with Joe's statement that he was never in the house, it's a beautiful thing)
Your mailbox and telephone are held out to the public as means to reach you.
No, they're not. Neither my mailing address nor my home phone number are publicly available. I don't WANT the public to reach me. When I go off-duty, I want the public to leave me the hell alone.
And I don't get telemarketing calls much at work either. Being able to answer the phone "BlahBlah Police, this is Senior Officer Knucklehead." gets me added to no-call lists fairly quickly, it being slightly illegal to telespam public safety numbers.
The ad goes on the wall above the urinal in front of the eyes, not IN the urinal. The point is one has something to stare at that's not a brick or tiled wall wall while one wees into the urinal.
And most places just use the sports page out of the paper for this. However, when the Broncos absolutely suck ass this year, I think I'd rather see ads for aluminum siding while recycling my beer.
I wonder if I'm breaking any chinese laws by posting to slashdot?
Probably. You've just suggested that the wise and benevolent Party could ever do something so crass as to censor. That (by some definitions) is slandering them, which is very much a punishable offense.
Considering that I've called the ChiCom government a fascist rathole and an enemy of all civilization, I'm guessing I'll be in the torture cell-excuse me, Glorious People's Re-Education Center-just down the corridor from yours. We can crack In Soviet Russia jokes by Morse Code in between brainwashings.
sorry, but ignorance of the law is not a reason to reach a guilty verdict.
Why should a Russian programmer (working in Russia) know anything about US law? The act was perfectly legal in the place where he did it.
What information are you legally required to provide to a pawnbroker in the state of Colorado? What, exactly, are the elements of the crime of "issuing a bad check" under the Uniform Commercial Code? What is the age of consent in the Phillipines? What is the penalty for speeding 25kph over a posted limit on a public street in Buenos Aires, Argentina?
Well if you consider turning the latest american weaponry over to the sworn enemies of The United States, and her people, that might be treason.
Oh, come on! Everybody does it! Be it anti-aircraft missiles to Iran or nuclear bombs to China, treason is not partisan! It's something the whole family can do!
Based on some of the posts here (my eralier ones included), I would say that this is nearly impossible for most Americans. The ideal way that a gun should be used (only as a last resort after ALL other options for self-defense have been exhausted.) is well-nigh impossible for any human being to do.
Whose ideal?
What I teach (and what the law actually says: see Tennessee v. Garner, California v. Glick, etc.) is that the use of force is justified to control a threat, and the amount of force to be used must be reasonable in light of the threat and the totality of the circumstances. You can't whack someone with a lead-filled flashlight for shoving you. The use of deadly force is ONLY justified (in Colorado, and this is consistent with Federal law) in the face of a threat of death or great bodily injury, or to prevent certain crimes (Rape, arson of an occupied building, armed robbery, and armed burglary)where a reasonable person would deem a lesser level of force to be insufficient to control the threat; or against an intruder of a dwelling who has entered unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime against person or property, and who uses or threatens force against any occupant.
As for this "last resort after ALL other options..." thank God the courts disagree. By your statement, should someone charge me with a knife, I would be required to verbally command him to stop, THEN attempt a control hold, THEN hit or kick him with empty hands, THEN use a baton or pepper spray, and ONLY THEN can I use lethal force.
Are you seeing the problem here? Let's say my assailant is seven yards away when he makes his first threatening move and I begin going up this ladder. I'll be dead from blood loss before I'm halfway through. That's why EVERY police academy and half-smart private instructor in the US teaches a continuum model: The defender (you) can enter the continuum at any level of force which is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances known to you at that time.
See Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-704 and 18-1-704.5, both of which apply equally to the peace officer and the private citizen.
Unless you've had some training which you've not yet mentioned, I doubt you're qualified to have an opinion. You don't win friends by making tactical judgements if you've no real background in the subject. Watching "LAPD: Life on the Beat" doesn't count.
The checklist in anthropology goes something like this: language, food,
The average Bostonian's approach to food probably doesn't include "First, shoot it." Opening day of deer/elk season is a bigger holiday here than New Year's Day. and probably comparable to Christmas.
family, ritual, religion, recreation.
See above about killing cute animals and eating them.
And yes, I AM arguing that as a profound difference. It reflects a greater sense of independence. Group A perceives itself as being able to see to its own needs without a great deal of aid from a government two thousand miles away. Group B does not. Group A will resent any attempt to rob it of its perceived independence. Group B will usually welcome such attempts.
Group A buys its groceries six weeks at a time because Group A has knowledge of periods every year when roads are closed because of bad weather, or when they can't spare the time to go into town to shop. Group B already is in town, in an environment where they might not even have their own bad-weather transportation (the aforementioned pickup truck).
Group A and Group B's musical tastes are probably a little different. If Boston/Baltimore/NYC have that many country stations, I'd be surprised.
Group B looks at the newspapers read by Group A and sees them as being from hick towns of no importance. Group A sees group B's media as being from a different planet, not much more comprehensible than the stuff crunched by SETI@Home.
Group A is probably lacking in formal education. Few members of Group B will know all of the steps involved in turning a live chicken into Sunday Dinner.
When you look at it from this perspective, life in Boston is very different from life in Nairobi, quite different from life in Hanoi, somewhat different from life in Helsinki, similar to life in Berlin, virtually indistinguishable from life in Sydney, and completely indistinguishable from life in Monroe, Louisiana.
So, in other words, Hoisington, Kansas is virtually indistinguishable from Christchurch, New Zealand?
What a relief! No more midwestern winters!
The things that distinguish a culture are typically how they speak and write; what they eat and how they eat it; what their family relationships are like; how they handle events like birth, marriage, and death; how they worship; and what they do for fun.
No. Burr, Hamilton and Davis fought for Democracy.
ALEXANDER Hamilton??? Not likely. He was arguably the very strongest proponent of hereditary aristocracy among the Founding Fathers.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln fought for a Republic.
Washington was certainly no democrat. Remember who appointed Hamilton (see above) as Secretary of the Treasury? (At the time, it was arguably the most powerful post in the cabinet. It very well might still be.)
For what it's worth, Jefferson is usually considered to be the first real democrat in the US.
FDR fought for a Socialist system and broke the Constitution everywhich way in the 30s.
Did he say FDR? No. He just said "Roosevelt." There WERE more than one.
I'm not sure how you define "function" in this context. If it comes to war-- which is what I assume you're talking about, what with the "nuked off the face of the earth" thing and all-- the several states will be utterly defenseless. An occupying force could march into any state capitol in the country, gun down the legislature, and take control with virtually no organized opposition.
You think they'll detail enough troops into Denver to deal with the Colorado National Guard? I'll also remind you, outside of the Denver city and county limits, we have more guns than people. And terrain highly unfavorable to tanks.
And let's not forget something that's even more critical than defense: the economy. Our economy is managed-- to the extent that it's managed at all-- from a central bank in Washington. That bank issues all U.S. currency, and backs it.
So, there are no Federal Reserve Banks in Denver, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, et cetera?
Oh, and your thing about "a radical difference in behavior, speech, mannerism, dress?" Utter crap. There are essentially no cultural differences between any two points in this country, notwithstanding differences that are based on factors that transcend geography,
Come to my neighborhood and say that. We are NOT the same as Easterners. We don't live and die by public transportation. We buy groceries six weeks at a time. We actually have good and functional reasons to drive pickup trucks and SUVs with gun racks, and those reasons do not include the amusement of idiots from Los Angeles or Boston. Where I grew up, everybody ran trotlines or traplines. Thanks to a bunch of self-righteous asses in Boulder, traplines are no longer a legal option here, but that can change too. And there's not too much that Uncle Sam does for us that we can't do better ourselves. Run an army, maybe, although personally I think we should let Europe defend its own oil supply.
You can get on a plane and go from Miami to Houston to Phoenix to San Francisco to Denver to Omaha to Chicago to Detroit to Boston to Richmond to Atlanta and back to Miami and not find any significant differences between any of them.
It helps if you actually get off of the plane. Try listening to Hank Williams, Jr's "A Country Boy Can Survive." That song describes life in some very large parts of the country, and utterly foreign in others.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit.
I'm not sure who said it. But it sure does apply.
It was in "Life-line," a short story published by Robert Heinlein. A man claimed to be able to determine when any person was going to die. Some un-named coalition of life-insurance companies went to court to have him enjoined. The above quote was the judge's response.
Slashdot Mirror
Supposedly, it was the cold that gave Challenger its fatal problem. The cold caused an O-ring in one of the booster rockets to not expand quickly enough to maintain seal, causing the rocket to leak fuel and explode.
How that ties into STS-113 is anyone's guess. The first loss of control happened at or shortly after re-entry, when I very much doubt that the hull was cold.
From what I hear, the Shuttle doesn't even carry a hardened flight data recorder. Damn shame-I'd love to know what was going on up there for the last thirty seconds before FLoC.
Probably ditto ESA and the Russians.
Who are the non-governmental organizations involved in space flight? Are any of them donation-accepting not-for-profit groups?
I'm no pilot. My math classes ended with a very simplified stats class. I can't build the damn things and probably shouldn't be left near the controls, but there has to be some way that I can help keep space flight from dying.
It's common knowledge too: After an emotionally-intense setback, you have to get back in the saddle ASAP. The longer you wait, the less likely it is that you will ever successfully get back in action.
We can't take counsel only from fear. The (unfortunately most likely dead) astronauts knew this-they KNEW that going into space was a touch risky. They also knew that that there was no end of benefit to humanity which could come from taking that risk.
Let's see...someone who puts himself into harm's way on behalf of the greater society...during the academy, we called them "heroes." And it applies as much to astronauts as to any of my brothers in blue or any firefighter-medic.
Now we need to make their deaths worth it. In the investigation of this incident, someone will see a way to make space flight safer. With the cost that these seven astronauts paid for this lesson, it would be a damn disgrace not to learn it and use it and grow from it.
I don't usually urge partisanship on /., but Congress controls the money. Tell them to get back in the saddle. Our ancestors knew it: there was a big and wonderful world to be explored and won, but it wouldn't be done by the cowards.
Don't pin this on us. We (or our fruit-nut-and-flake California bastard stepchild brethren) may write the content, but the hardware generally is assembled around the Pacific Rim by Japanese-owned companies.
Well, unless Phillips and RCA have one hell of a lot more market share in DVD players than anywhere else.
This is the US. We don't do hardware anymore. Christ, we even have to import handguns! The best trucks and SUVs on our roads today could be argued to be Toyotas. (I'd argue it, but about half the GM vehicles sold here now are 50% or greater non-US-or-Canada parts content. My late-80's K-body Chevy may be the only 100%-US truck left on the road...;-)
Personally, I think we should be importing more beer. Ireland, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand are all anybody needs to know about decent beer. I'd be willing to trade Chad Brock or Toby Keith MP3's for any of the above. Let's make global free trade work for us!
Employer contribution to Social Insecurity: 7.some-odd% which they're paying Uncle Sucker instead of you. (Like it'll be around in 30 years when I reach retirement age! HA!)
Vehicle tax, separate from the sales tax you paid when you bought it and separate from the registration fee. In Colorado, it's 2.10% of the original taxable value on a new car. And the emissions tests in the Denver metro area, which can ONLY be performed at a state-owned facility on 1987 and newer, and cost twenty-five bucks.
Firearms, ammunition, and boats carry a Federal excise of 10% or thereabouts. I'm not sure, but I think fishing tackle falls under a similar excise.
Property tax-easy to miss if you're a renter. The poor bastards in Denver pay them to support schools (DPS being the best argument for school choice I've ever seen), the Donkeys' new stadium (because John Elway thought it was a neat idea for someone else to pick up the tab, greedy asshole), the Regional Transportation District (which should be self-supporting with the fares they charge) et cetera.
Thankfully, in my area we just pay property taxes to prop up an utterly-worthless public school system. Were it not for the Jesuits, this area would have third-world-quality education all around. (And I'm Lutheran. I'm not supposed to say that!)
Don't forget the taxes in your phone and utility bills. My Qworst bill for December had enough tax included to pay for my unlisted, Caller ID, and most of my long-distance calls.
We've had similar restrictions for years now. They became a lot more stringent in the last few months with a campaign finance reform act which in effect is an incumbent-protection law. It makes it very difficult to legally spend money or air advertising in the last month of an election cycle, thereby making it incredibly difficult for a challenger to beat an incumbent. (Never underestimate the power of incumbency: A communist prick like Ted Kennedy could win in a conservative state like Colorado if he had the kind of name recognition and legacy status here that he does in Massachusetts.)
I'll be shocked if it passes Constitutional muster. It seems to me that it'll be hard to defend a restriction on who can say what or spend money on saying something about politics, during an election season, in light of a Constitutional provision that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."
But I'm just a crank who seems to think that free speech is mainly about politics, social commentary, and criticism of the government and its officials, and shouldn't include blackout dates.
Canadian political advertising doesn't feature the same level of participation by 'concerned 3rd parties' that you would find in the United States (eg 'Paid for by concerned citizens for...').
Here, they're often shills for one party or another. For example, I'm a member of both the NRA and the Sierra Club, but I'll be honest: It's uncommon for the former to endorse Democrats (there are exceptions: John Dingell and Tom Foley leap to mind) and even less common for the latter to endorse Republicans (rare enough that I can't think of any examples off the top of my head).
For whatever that tells you. I could articulate what I mean by that, but for the four glasses of cheap Cabernet I had with dinner.
Grand juries are fairly uncommon in the US anymore. They consist of private citizens drawn from the jury pool and are mainly used as investigative bodies now, as in: "This is the evidence we have. I'm not sure what it all means. Have a look, subpoena the witnesses you want to question, and when you're done tell me who should be charged, and what with."
In fifteen years as a cop, I think I've been in front of a grand jury all of twice. They're very rare here in Colorado. We've simply decided that preliminary hearings (showing of probable cause to bind someone over for trial, here, anyway) are quicker and easier.
Holy crap! He said something mean about the government, and did it during ELECTION SEASON??? LYNCH HIM!!!!!
Maybe that does go on in the US, but I've got a buck for anybody who can defend it on slashdot with a straight face.
I make death notifications about once a month. One way to do them (the way we do) is to have a police officer and a victim's advocate (a volunteer with a counseling/MH background) quietly show up to deliver the news and help the family move to the next step: calling clergy or counselor, etc.
The alternative is to let the press do it, which results in about fifty assholes from the Denver Rocky Mountain Spews camped out on your front lawn asking how it feels to have had your nearest and dearest run over by a tanker truck.
Hell of a way to find out. I've given and been given notifications, and I'd much rather they come from a human being with some compassion over an evil piece-of-shit journalist who is perfectly willing to ignore my humanity in order to get three hundred words filed before dinner.
They have more than one song?
Yes, but they're really just two different interpretations of The Calling's only song, which is actually a cover of Pearl Jam's one song.
A lot like the US. IDL's are issued here by the AAA on proof of a valid state-issued license. If Colorado were to suspend mine tomorrow, I'd be ineligible for a real IDL.
It is also not valid for the country of issue, and I'm betting most insurance companies won't accept one when insuring your vehicle. So basically, I'd need some form of valid foreign license to get an international license that I could use in the USA, and even then I'd be driving without insurance, which I know is illegal in most if not all states.
Very illegal in mine. We're starting to jail people for it. Christ, all it takes to be legal is $25K in liability coverage.
FWIW, I've been told by both British Airways and Qantas that the UK and Australia will accept foreign DL's (like mine) just so long as they're printed in English, which would lend credence to someone's statement above that the IDL serves mainly as a translation of the driver's original DL.
Speaking now as a traffic cop: Any time someone presents me with an IDL, I want to see his original DL. If that one feels funny, I ask for a passport. It's amazing how many people attend school here, get themselves revoked DUI or suspended for FRA (uninsured vehicle), and try to drive on an IDL.
Mexican and Canadian DL's are now valid here in Colorado. My only issue is that it's impossible to check validity on a Mexican DL, and that plenty of cops can't read Spanish. And both nationalities can legally enter the US without passports, so not much point in asking a Canuckistanian for one.
So I don't see why anyone should fall for this scam...
Look at the rest of your spam. Mine are for penis enlargement drugs, 419 scams, and human growth hormone (either illegal controlled substances, or fake, with no way to know for sure). People who buy from spammers are even dumber than spammers.
IAAC, IANAL, but...
My state doesn't have anything titled "Breaking and entering." Instead, we have "Burglary," which is defined as "unlawfully entering into or remaining in any [building, dwelling] with the intent to commit a crime therein other than trespass." The severity of the punishment for burglary depends on whether the property was a dwelling or just a building, and whether the offender was armed or used or threatened force against an occupant.
In your hypothetical situation, they'd both be looking at exactly the same penalty for second degree burglary of a building. One would be looking at a charge of theft and the other of criminal mischief (what we in Colorado call 'criminal damage to property). In practice, the guy tagged with the theft charge will probably end up spending considerably more time in the "custody of the Executive Director of the Department of Public Safety, or his duly-authorized representative."
Maybe, maybe not.
In the US, most prosecutors at the state level are either elected, or are appointed by an elected DA/SA. Campaign contributions MAY be an issue (theoretically, although most DA candidates know that the mere hint of a bad smell will kill their chances.)
At the Federal level, they're largely Federal civil service in the Justice Department. However, the chief prosecutor in each Federal district, the US Attorney, probably has some political ambitions. One of the jokes among American cops is that a US Attorney is really just someone who wants to be a Senator in ten years. Hints about campaign contributions to come might constitute bribery, but I'd be shocked if nobody from the MPAA had ever toyed with the idea.
Private prosecution of public offenses is pretty much dead and gone here.
It's usually illegal for a SA, DA, or US Attorney (or their assistants or deputies) to practice law on their own during their appointments, so that avenue for bribery is closed here.
And in Norway it might not even matter. AIUI, most countries other than the US appoint prosecutors through their version of Civil Service, rather than electing them or having them directly answerable to an elected official. Funnelling campaign contributions to someone who isn't elected and isn't seeking elective office is pretty much impossible.
As for straight cash-under-the-table bribes, they're extremely rare in the Western world.
As for why the prosecutor brought the case...she may not have had a whole lot of choice. Any time a prosecutor is presented with a case, where the facts present do appear to support an allegation of a crime, he'll need to be able to explain himself if he decides against filing. And again, I'm woefully ignorant of Norwegian law and how that part of the canon of ethics is interpreted there.
How would you code something to prevent tampering? Admittedly, I'm a dumb-assed cop and no programmer, but I don't know how I could even define "tampering" in language that a compiler could understand.
Police already have legal requirements for speedo calibration in cruisers, and other standardization requirements.
Relatively few. Our policy (one city in Colorado-YMMV) on speedo calibration is to just let the factory do it. (On the Crown Victoria, the factory calibration is good forever so long as either the original tires stay on the car, or the replacements are the exact same size.)
Training requirements are theoretically standardized by state POST boards, but there's a LOT of variability there.
And about the only Federal standard we have (other than what the courts set) is the standards we meet in order to have NCIC access.
I would support police digital enhancement, just as long as it was strictly monitored and reproducible: that is, a secure source image must be used and provided so opposing technical experts could reproduce any enhancement when provided the methodology by prosecutors.
That's not that different from how we do it now. Any time I bring a photo into evidence, you can damn well bet that I can produce the negative for inspection/comparison on demand. Any image manipulation or enhancement needed, I can explain and walk the court through what I did and why I did it.
Unfortunately, without a negative, ultimately I'd have to ask the judge/jury to take my word for it. Our justice system is based on the fact that they're not supposed to do that. They're allowed to use their common sense (well, maybe he COULD have altered the negative with the super-secret machine brought down by the flying saucer aliens, but...) but they're also supposed to understand that "trust me" is just a polite way to say "fuck you."
It's that whole thing about an unaltered and unalterable negative which actually makes photography credible in court. Without it, we have a much harder time making our photos stick. I can start by testifying that the photo accurately represents the scene as I found it, but as long as there are people in this world with the ungodly stupidity to take Alan Dershowitz at face value, I have to plan on needing more than that.
"Shit, officer, I can't do that when I'm sober!" And thank YOU, sir, for saying that right into my microphone. Turn around, hands behind your back, puke on me and we're gonna have a problem...
The thing is, maintaining a trail of custody for the photos I think would be much harder, therefore easier to refute their validity in court.
I went to a CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) seminar which included this. They haven't had much problem yet with authenticating digital photos for court. So far, most of our judges seem to frown on spewing raw speculation and calling it a defense.
And any time you start messing with anything remotely related to being circumstantial evidence, you might as well just throw the case out the window, cause thats just what the judge is going to do.
Yep. Fingerprints are circumstantial and therefore they suck. All they prove is that Joe Schmuck the Ragman had touched a particular doorknob. (Combined with Joe's statement that he was never in the house, it's a beautiful thing)
No, they're not. Neither my mailing address nor my home phone number are publicly available. I don't WANT the public to reach me. When I go off-duty, I want the public to leave me the hell alone.
And I don't get telemarketing calls much at work either. Being able to answer the phone "BlahBlah Police, this is Senior Officer Knucklehead." gets me added to no-call lists fairly quickly, it being slightly illegal to telespam public safety numbers.
And most places just use the sports page out of the paper for this. However, when the Broncos absolutely suck ass this year, I think I'd rather see ads for aluminum siding while recycling my beer.
Probably. You've just suggested that the wise and benevolent Party could ever do something so crass as to censor. That (by some definitions) is slandering them, which is very much a punishable offense.
Considering that I've called the ChiCom government a fascist rathole and an enemy of all civilization, I'm guessing I'll be in the torture cell-excuse me, Glorious People's Re-Education Center-just down the corridor from yours. We can crack In Soviet Russia jokes by Morse Code in between brainwashings.
Why should a Russian programmer (working in Russia) know anything about US law? The act was perfectly legal in the place where he did it.
What information are you legally required to provide to a pawnbroker in the state of Colorado? What, exactly, are the elements of the crime of "issuing a bad check" under the Uniform Commercial Code? What is the age of consent in the Phillipines? What is the penalty for speeding 25kph over a posted limit on a public street in Buenos Aires, Argentina?
After all, ignorance of the law is not a reason.
Oh, come on! Everybody does it! Be it anti-aircraft missiles to Iran or nuclear bombs to China, treason is not partisan! It's something the whole family can do!
Whose ideal?
What I teach (and what the law actually says: see Tennessee v. Garner, California v. Glick, etc.) is that the use of force is justified to control a threat, and the amount of force to be used must be reasonable in light of the threat and the totality of the circumstances. You can't whack someone with a lead-filled flashlight for shoving you. The use of deadly force is ONLY justified (in Colorado, and this is consistent with Federal law) in the face of a threat of death or great bodily injury, or to prevent certain crimes (Rape, arson of an occupied building, armed robbery, and armed burglary)where a reasonable person would deem a lesser level of force to be insufficient to control the threat; or against an intruder of a dwelling who has entered unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime against person or property, and who uses or threatens force against any occupant.
As for this "last resort after ALL other options..." thank God the courts disagree. By your statement, should someone charge me with a knife, I would be required to verbally command him to stop, THEN attempt a control hold, THEN hit or kick him with empty hands, THEN use a baton or pepper spray, and ONLY THEN can I use lethal force.
Are you seeing the problem here? Let's say my assailant is seven yards away when he makes his first threatening move and I begin going up this ladder. I'll be dead from blood loss before I'm halfway through. That's why EVERY police academy and half-smart private instructor in the US teaches a continuum model: The defender (you) can enter the continuum at any level of force which is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances known to you at that time.
See Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-704 and 18-1-704.5, both of which apply equally to the peace officer and the private citizen.
Unless you've had some training which you've not yet mentioned, I doubt you're qualified to have an opinion. You don't win friends by making tactical judgements if you've no real background in the subject. Watching "LAPD: Life on the Beat" doesn't count.
The average Bostonian's approach to food probably doesn't include "First, shoot it." Opening day of deer/elk season is a bigger holiday here than New Year's Day. and probably comparable to Christmas.
family, ritual, religion, recreation.
See above about killing cute animals and eating them.
And yes, I AM arguing that as a profound difference. It reflects a greater sense of independence. Group A perceives itself as being able to see to its own needs without a great deal of aid from a government two thousand miles away. Group B does not. Group A will resent any attempt to rob it of its perceived independence. Group B will usually welcome such attempts.
Group A buys its groceries six weeks at a time because Group A has knowledge of periods every year when roads are closed because of bad weather, or when they can't spare the time to go into town to shop. Group B already is in town, in an environment where they might not even have their own bad-weather transportation (the aforementioned pickup truck).
Group A and Group B's musical tastes are probably a little different. If Boston/Baltimore/NYC have that many country stations, I'd be surprised.
Group B looks at the newspapers read by Group A and sees them as being from hick towns of no importance. Group A sees group B's media as being from a different planet, not much more comprehensible than the stuff crunched by SETI@Home.
Group A is probably lacking in formal education. Few members of Group B will know all of the steps involved in turning a live chicken into Sunday Dinner.
When you look at it from this perspective, life in Boston is very different from life in Nairobi, quite different from life in Hanoi, somewhat different from life in Helsinki, similar to life in Berlin, virtually indistinguishable from life in Sydney, and completely indistinguishable from life in Monroe, Louisiana.
So, in other words, Hoisington, Kansas is virtually indistinguishable from Christchurch, New Zealand?
What a relief! No more midwestern winters!
The things that distinguish a culture are typically how they speak and write; what they eat and how they eat it; what their family relationships are like; how they handle events like birth, marriage, and death; how they worship; and what they do for fun.
ALEXANDER Hamilton??? Not likely. He was arguably the very strongest proponent of hereditary aristocracy among the Founding Fathers.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln fought for a Republic.
Washington was certainly no democrat. Remember who appointed Hamilton (see above) as Secretary of the Treasury? (At the time, it was arguably the most powerful post in the cabinet. It very well might still be.)
For what it's worth, Jefferson is usually considered to be the first real democrat in the US.
FDR fought for a Socialist system and broke the Constitution everywhich way in the 30s.
Did he say FDR? No. He just said "Roosevelt." There WERE more than one.
You think they'll detail enough troops into Denver to deal with the Colorado National Guard? I'll also remind you, outside of the Denver city and county limits, we have more guns than people. And terrain highly unfavorable to tanks.
And let's not forget something that's even more critical than defense: the economy. Our economy is managed-- to the extent that it's managed at all-- from a central bank in Washington. That bank issues all U.S. currency, and backs it.
So, there are no Federal Reserve Banks in Denver, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, et cetera?
Oh, and your thing about "a radical difference in behavior, speech, mannerism, dress?" Utter crap. There are essentially no cultural differences between any two points in this country, notwithstanding differences that are based on factors that transcend geography,
Come to my neighborhood and say that. We are NOT the same as Easterners. We don't live and die by public transportation. We buy groceries six weeks at a time. We actually have good and functional reasons to drive pickup trucks and SUVs with gun racks, and those reasons do not include the amusement of idiots from Los Angeles or Boston. Where I grew up, everybody ran trotlines or traplines. Thanks to a bunch of self-righteous asses in Boulder, traplines are no longer a legal option here, but that can change too. And there's not too much that Uncle Sam does for us that we can't do better ourselves. Run an army, maybe, although personally I think we should let Europe defend its own oil supply.
You can get on a plane and go from Miami to Houston to Phoenix to San Francisco to Denver to Omaha to Chicago to Detroit to Boston to Richmond to Atlanta and back to Miami and not find any significant differences between any of them.
It helps if you actually get off of the plane. Try listening to Hank Williams, Jr's "A Country Boy Can Survive." That song describes life in some very large parts of the country, and utterly foreign in others.
I'm not sure who said it. But it sure does apply.
It was in "Life-line," a short story published by Robert Heinlein. A man claimed to be able to determine when any person was going to die. Some un-named coalition of life-insurance companies went to court to have him enjoined. The above quote was the judge's response.