Part of the issue is that the only thing the military branches ever promise you in a contract is training. They don't promise that you'll end up in a job that ever requires that training, but they will give you a chance to complete that training. So you could be trained as a bus driver, which you signed up for, and then shipped off to another tech school to be a radio man.
I'm pretty sure that most pilots these days are officers. And that actually does give them a lot of leeway as they don't sign up in the same way that enlistees do. They can resign their commisions and such while enlistees have to sell their souls in four to six year chunks.
I always liked my spacepens but I think it was more to do with the novelty than the superior writing characteristics. The ink is some kind of rubber and the ballpoint is groved to shear of bits of this rubber ink. So the stuff never truely dries as you said. And mine always seemed to attract dust and lint to the tip leading to annoying globs.
I've never heard of a good way to fool a drug dog where they can actually get the scent although I can imagine some ways to throw off the LE handlers. Such as seeding a huge area with false positive materials, such that the handlers get sick of the dog alerting over nothing and give up before getting to the real stuff.
Vacuum sealed on it's own probably wouldn't be enough. You'd want to hermetically seal the stash and then clean the exterior thoroughly enough that there are no traces left. That would probably require several stages in different locations using fresh transport between each stage.
You could try and deter the dogs with some kind of very high frequency noise. But that would probably just draw extra scrutiny from the officers themselves.
Technically no you can not see black or hear silence. Your eyes and ears are simply reporting lack of signal and your brain interprets it the way that it does.
If something must simply be the possible subject of proselytizing to be a religion then your definition of religion is wonky. You might as well say that if something has a building with a steeple dedicated to it then it must be a religion.
I thought I remembered a case from a fwe years ago where a guy was arrested because he tried to leave after refusing the various forms of inspection. The whole security line and inspection area was deemed some kind of one way, such that once you entered you were not allowed to leave without undergoing a search. Has that changed in the last few years?
Either way I thought the video demonstrated that she did not in fact impede the flow of passengers through the check point.
We, the jury, did not find the accused person's actions reasonable for self defense because the threats were purely verbal and could not have been acted on at that time.
But we did not find the charge of attempted murder reasonable because the only evidence that the accused was attempting to kill one of the victims was testimony from the other victim. That evidence was not collaborated in any other way, they could have presented more bullet casings or testimony from other witnesses but such was not presented.
Honestly I was a bit surprised because I expected to have to point these things out to my fellow jurors in deliberation. Instead when we took the initial vote to see where were we all stood on the charges all but one or two people agreed on the two charges before us. It really has given me much more confidence in my fellow human beings and their capacity to sit as impartial jurors.
"That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If your self-defense was legal, you're not responsible. If your self-defense wasn't legal, you are responsible. What's legal? Who decides? Being legal depends on acting "reasonably". What's reasonable? Who decides? Being legal depends on the facts. What are the facts? Who decides?'
I just finished jury duty so I can tell you exactly who decides that. The jury does. They are the finders of fact. That means they review all of the evidence presented to them and decide what the facts of the case are. And one of the most critical facts in our system is that the accused is always innocent until proven guilty. So while people often say you have to prove self defense in court it is actually the opposite. The prosecution has to prove exactly what they charge happened, and that usually includes proving that whatever defense is being used isn't valid because of the evidence.
I just sat on a case where a man was found guilty of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder. The prosecution did not make much of a case and in fact the only reason the accused was found guilty of anything was that he testified himself to having shot the two men and not giving them any warning while he was in a position of strength over them when there had only been verbal threats thus far.
Last time I heard when Zimmerman was asked he said he regretted what had happened but not his personal actions. He has claimed from the start that he was in fear of losing his life. I would rather risk ending my assailants life than gamble on losing my own when on the recieving end of a beating that is potentially fatal. Spending time in prison requires that you still be alive, and staying alive is on most people list of critical priorities.
You are correct, but there is a heavier burden on the prosecutor to prove every element of the crime they accuse, which is second degree murder I believe. In the state of Florida that includes proving that the shooting was criminal in nature, which means disproving self defense.
I saw a man convicted of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder Monday because the state completely failed to try and make a case that the accused was trying to murder the other guy. They had one witness who had been shot himself and whose testimony varied in major ways from his sworn statement, say that the accused fired more shots at him and the other victim. But they presented no other evidence to support this, not even pictures of the car that by all rights should have had extra holes in it. The only reason he was convicted at all was that in court the accused admitted to having shot both men without warning because he felt his life was threatened. The Jury found that fear basically unreasonable because the accused was sitting behind the other two in a car where he was the only armed individual.
Are you aware that by invading and occupying their nation and proceding to carry out our own war of terror there and in the neighboring countries, that we have given direct credence to their claims of our nations bad behaviour?
I'm not saying we should not have gone to Afghanistan. But Iraq was definitely a bad decision which led to a loss of focus on Afghanistan. Which lead to losing considerable ground and initiative such that a decade later we are in a quagmire. We're basically creating another situation like Israel and Palestine where every time we kill a few civilians along with a SUSPECT, we give our enemies a boost in recruitment.
If it were a war wouldn't we need to be taking POW's then and treating them as such?
One of the important aspects of the use of drones is that not only does it lessen the risk of death for our troops but it means we can carry the fight further than would be possible otherwise. For instance we don't have enough special forces troops to achieve the same results. We couldn't use regular infantry units to violate other nations borders just to kill a couple suspected terrorists.
If there were no juvie record seperation you likely wouldn't have people not getting jobs because of childhood foolishness. Because we have historically done the sealing ofthose records though we probably would have a period of time where unsealing them would cause some social strife but I don't think it would be all that long lived. And it might actually cut down on some of the stupid stuff kids do. I probably heard the statement "We're kids, what could they do?" in conversations about various idiotic stunts we talked about. And while I managed to never get in trouble with the law I have a number of friends who spent time in jail and prison. What you are worried about is a symptom from our existing system.
Having to get the records unsealed creates extra expense and waste in the system.
That doesn't mean we should keep it in the arsenal of Justice. Every accused criminal should be tried on the merits of their own case and not by and arbitrary rule that has such large consequences. Another good arbitrary rule is that a person with an IQ of 60 and lower is legally retarded and hence protected by a large body of laws and precedents. That sounds good until you realize that it means a person with an IQ of 61 gets treated exactly the same as an individual with an IQ of 150. A prime example of that case was some guy in Texas that last I heard they were trying to execute, I mean seriously, it costs more to kill him than to just keep him locked up indefinitely and he's borderline retarded but they insisted on putting him to death.
I agree that statements of fact about anothers actions and words should be allowed. But it gets fuzzy when they start paraphrasing and quoting out of context.
I think one of my primary issues here though is that politicians seem to only want to talk about the other guy. Which is bollocks, when I listen to a speech from Romney I want to hear about his specific plans, not all about the failings of another politician. If he wants to bring those things up as part of the explanation of why his plan is better that is fine but it had better not take up most of his time.
It would probably depend on the definition of civility. I haven't bothered to watch the debates because I already had low expectations from watching others in the past. But in the articles I have read recently they cited specific examples of candidates interrupting each other and such. To me that is a violation of civility in a situation where each person is given a time to speak.
Honestly I don't care for the sealing of juvie records at all. A person's history will almost always be of some relevance if and when they commit crimes later in life. People understand that children act differently than adults and a jury should be fully able to interpret whether or not past crimes are relevant, if the judge even lets it get to them. The other thing that should be done away with is statutory minimums and the seperate laws for minors and adults.
Looking at wikipedia for household income for the united states it would appear that to qualify for the top 1% you'd need to be making 350K to 500K, depending on which economist you like, as income on an annual basis.
Which reminds me that a coupel years ago I remember reading an article about a family that was trying to say they were just upper middle class and not rich. Their income was around 300K and they had problems managing their bills, so they just had to be middle class. That level of income puts them in the 98th percentile. Which I guess just helps prove the point that you don't have to be smart to make a lot of money.
It's been a little more than a decade but when I lived in Mountain View the single bedroom appartment I lived in was 1200 a month without utilities. I'd hate to see what the rent is now for a larger family apartment or home.
I think what I would really like to see in a political debate is some of the rules I've seen implemented in couples communications classes. One of them that you mentioned is putting words in the mouth of the other person. Another good one is interrupting or making fun of the other person's opinion. I'd like to see a debate format where the rules require 100% civility and any violations means you lose time in which to respond to the next question, or maybing all questions from that point on. So say each candidate gets 120 seconds per question to respond. If a candidate speaks out of turn, makes a claim about possible future actions of another candidate or party, they then forfeit 30 seconds per infraction on the next question.
The school I attended I think required 4 math, 3 science, 4 english, 1 language, a couple art/music, maybe 3 social studies. It was long enough ago that I'm pretty fuzzy on the exact details. But I do remember that I had 1 or 2 classes each semester of my choosing that weren't required for anything, and I took every computer related class that I could.
I atteneded a vocational school for my final two years of high school for of all things Law Enforcement. A few of my non-lab classes were dumbed down a bit. For instance I had to take an applied math course, which was basically some algebra I mixed with geometry and home economics style math. Even though that class was a joke for me I have met any number of people since then that could have really used such a class. So I don't know that it's necessarily the schools so much that drive children to be so narrowly focused as it is the kids themselves not trying and parents not encouraging them to learn about other things. Because even in the specialized schools there are plenty of general studies classes required for graduation, or at least there was in the school I attended.
My Father who would have been in highschool in the late 50's early 60's used to talk about making zip guns and knives in shop class. He said the funny thing was that there was no shortage of gangs and such since it was a steel town near a border. But no one ever brought violence into the school, they killed a few police officers at football games though.
It should be noted though that even if the power source which is energizing your EV is comparatively dirty, its waste is being produced at a single point. So it's waste can be controlled much more easily than thousands of individual polluting vehicles.
The Milwaukee group is the one that uses compost. I hadn't read up on it in awhile but they mix it with Coir, fiber from coconut husks, that they put in pots. The pots are placed in large trays where the water flows through pretty shallowly it would appear. The Coir wicks up the needed water. I imagine they might have some sediment build up but the system doesn't have a whole lot of small choke points that could get plugged up and their water flows seem to be pretty slow so solids should settle out pretty well.
I think the point is that red worms would exist more rarely in nature. But if you intend to do composting and want quick throughput so that you need less space for your compost pile, then the red worms are a better choice. And if you want throughput to be even higher you'll need to breed them.
We're talking compost here, which is used as a fertilizer, you don't normally plant anything in a pot that only has high nutrient compost. When I was a kid we had chickens, so we we used chicken shit as fertilizer. We had to be cautious because the plants could actually get nitrogen burn if you put too much of it down.
I'm unimformed on the differences of the quality of the produce produced by the systems. But from my understanding one of the problems with purely hydroponic systems is that balancing the nutrients and byproducts in the water can be very challenging and that the system needs to be purged and started fresh from time to time. Also various plants have different nutrient requirements and getting them to grow productively together in a purely hydroponic system can be difficult if not impossible. A solution that people have found is to use composted dirt at least in part as the growing medium to help balance the nutrients and toxicity of the water. My favorite approach is when they use fish to get nutrients into the water, naturally existing bacteria to process the amonia from the fish into nitrates, more bacterias to make the nitrates into nitrogen, plants in grow beds to make the nitrogen and other fish waste into produce.
growingpower.org in Milwaukee has a very neat setup for this. And theurbanfarmingguys.com have done some cool stuff as well.
Beat me to it, I was gonna post that link but you got there first. So instead I'll go with www.theurbanfarmingguys.com I'm particularly interested in the idea of Aquaponics. That is raising fish for protein and using the fish's waste and water to grow plants in a cyclic self sustaining system. I think the only major constant input in a system like that is the fish food, which you could grow yourself in the form of duckweed.
The Dervaes family is successful for a couple reasons that a large part of the population wouldn't be able to leverage. Mainly they live in a climate that allows for year round growing without the extensive use of greenhouses. And while they are farming in a very small area it is actually more space than many city dwellers have access too, that is when the zoning laws even allow it.
I read about some Lady whose house was surrounded by more than 100 varieties of vegetables, herbs and such that she used to support herself. Someone got a bug up their butt and she ended up fighting the city in court over whether or not she could keep it up. While her court case was still pending the city sent out workers and pulled everything up while she was away from her home.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the issue is that the only thing the military branches ever promise you in a contract is training. They don't promise that you'll end up in a job that ever requires that training, but they will give you a chance to complete that training. So you could be trained as a bus driver, which you signed up for, and then shipped off to another tech school to be a radio man.
I'm pretty sure that most pilots these days are officers. And that actually does give them a lot of leeway as they don't sign up in the same way that enlistees do. They can resign their commisions and such while enlistees have to sell their souls in four to six year chunks.
I always liked my spacepens but I think it was more to do with the novelty than the superior writing characteristics. The ink is some kind of rubber and the ballpoint is groved to shear of bits of this rubber ink. So the stuff never truely dries as you said. And mine always seemed to attract dust and lint to the tip leading to annoying globs.
I've never heard of a good way to fool a drug dog where they can actually get the scent although I can imagine some ways to throw off the LE handlers. Such as seeding a huge area with false positive materials, such that the handlers get sick of the dog alerting over nothing and give up before getting to the real stuff.
Vacuum sealed on it's own probably wouldn't be enough. You'd want to hermetically seal the stash and then clean the exterior thoroughly enough that there are no traces left. That would probably require several stages in different locations using fresh transport between each stage.
You could try and deter the dogs with some kind of very high frequency noise. But that would probably just draw extra scrutiny from the officers themselves.
Technically no you can not see black or hear silence. Your eyes and ears are simply reporting lack of signal and your brain interprets it the way that it does.
If something must simply be the possible subject of proselytizing to be a religion then your definition of religion is wonky. You might as well say that if something has a building with a steeple dedicated to it then it must be a religion.
I thought I remembered a case from a fwe years ago where a guy was arrested because he tried to leave after refusing the various forms of inspection. The whole security line and inspection area was deemed some kind of one way, such that once you entered you were not allowed to leave without undergoing a search. Has that changed in the last few years?
Either way I thought the video demonstrated that she did not in fact impede the flow of passengers through the check point.
Just to clarify:
We, the jury, did not find the accused person's actions reasonable for self defense because the threats were purely verbal and could not have been acted on at that time.
But we did not find the charge of attempted murder reasonable because the only evidence that the accused was attempting to kill one of the victims was testimony from the other victim. That evidence was not collaborated in any other way, they could have presented more bullet casings or testimony from other witnesses but such was not presented.
Honestly I was a bit surprised because I expected to have to point these things out to my fellow jurors in deliberation. Instead when we took the initial vote to see where were we all stood on the charges all but one or two people agreed on the two charges before us. It really has given me much more confidence in my fellow human beings and their capacity to sit as impartial jurors.
"That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If your self-defense was legal, you're not responsible. If your self-defense wasn't legal, you are responsible. What's legal? Who decides? Being legal depends on acting "reasonably". What's reasonable? Who decides? Being legal depends on the facts. What are the facts? Who decides?'
I just finished jury duty so I can tell you exactly who decides that. The jury does. They are the finders of fact. That means they review all of the evidence presented to them and decide what the facts of the case are. And one of the most critical facts in our system is that the accused is always innocent until proven guilty. So while people often say you have to prove self defense in court it is actually the opposite. The prosecution has to prove exactly what they charge happened, and that usually includes proving that whatever defense is being used isn't valid because of the evidence.
I just sat on a case where a man was found guilty of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder. The prosecution did not make much of a case and in fact the only reason the accused was found guilty of anything was that he testified himself to having shot the two men and not giving them any warning while he was in a position of strength over them when there had only been verbal threats thus far.
Last time I heard when Zimmerman was asked he said he regretted what had happened but not his personal actions. He has claimed from the start that he was in fear of losing his life. I would rather risk ending my assailants life than gamble on losing my own when on the recieving end of a beating that is potentially fatal. Spending time in prison requires that you still be alive, and staying alive is on most people list of critical priorities.
You are correct, but there is a heavier burden on the prosecutor to prove every element of the crime they accuse, which is second degree murder I believe. In the state of Florida that includes proving that the shooting was criminal in nature, which means disproving self defense.
I saw a man convicted of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder Monday because the state completely failed to try and make a case that the accused was trying to murder the other guy. They had one witness who had been shot himself and whose testimony varied in major ways from his sworn statement, say that the accused fired more shots at him and the other victim. But they presented no other evidence to support this, not even pictures of the car that by all rights should have had extra holes in it. The only reason he was convicted at all was that in court the accused admitted to having shot both men without warning because he felt his life was threatened. The Jury found that fear basically unreasonable because the accused was sitting behind the other two in a car where he was the only armed individual.
Are you aware that by invading and occupying their nation and proceding to carry out our own war of terror there and in the neighboring countries, that we have given direct credence to their claims of our nations bad behaviour?
I'm not saying we should not have gone to Afghanistan. But Iraq was definitely a bad decision which led to a loss of focus on Afghanistan. Which lead to losing considerable ground and initiative such that a decade later we are in a quagmire. We're basically creating another situation like Israel and Palestine where every time we kill a few civilians along with a SUSPECT, we give our enemies a boost in recruitment.
If it were a war wouldn't we need to be taking POW's then and treating them as such?
One of the important aspects of the use of drones is that not only does it lessen the risk of death for our troops but it means we can carry the fight further than would be possible otherwise. For instance we don't have enough special forces troops to achieve the same results. We couldn't use regular infantry units to violate other nations borders just to kill a couple suspected terrorists.
If there were no juvie record seperation you likely wouldn't have people not getting jobs because of childhood foolishness. Because we have historically done the sealing ofthose records though we probably would have a period of time where unsealing them would cause some social strife but I don't think it would be all that long lived. And it might actually cut down on some of the stupid stuff kids do. I probably heard the statement "We're kids, what could they do?" in conversations about various idiotic stunts we talked about. And while I managed to never get in trouble with the law I have a number of friends who spent time in jail and prison. What you are worried about is a symptom from our existing system.
Having to get the records unsealed creates extra expense and waste in the system.
That doesn't mean we should keep it in the arsenal of Justice. Every accused criminal should be tried on the merits of their own case and not by and arbitrary rule that has such large consequences. Another good arbitrary rule is that a person with an IQ of 60 and lower is legally retarded and hence protected by a large body of laws and precedents. That sounds good until you realize that it means a person with an IQ of 61 gets treated exactly the same as an individual with an IQ of 150. A prime example of that case was some guy in Texas that last I heard they were trying to execute, I mean seriously, it costs more to kill him than to just keep him locked up indefinitely and he's borderline retarded but they insisted on putting him to death.
I agree that statements of fact about anothers actions and words should be allowed. But it gets fuzzy when they start paraphrasing and quoting out of context.
I think one of my primary issues here though is that politicians seem to only want to talk about the other guy. Which is bollocks, when I listen to a speech from Romney I want to hear about his specific plans, not all about the failings of another politician. If he wants to bring those things up as part of the explanation of why his plan is better that is fine but it had better not take up most of his time.
It would probably depend on the definition of civility. I haven't bothered to watch the debates because I already had low expectations from watching others in the past. But in the articles I have read recently they cited specific examples of candidates interrupting each other and such. To me that is a violation of civility in a situation where each person is given a time to speak.
Honestly I don't care for the sealing of juvie records at all. A person's history will almost always be of some relevance if and when they commit crimes later in life. People understand that children act differently than adults and a jury should be fully able to interpret whether or not past crimes are relevant, if the judge even lets it get to them. The other thing that should be done away with is statutory minimums and the seperate laws for minors and adults.
Looking at wikipedia for household income for the united states it would appear that to qualify for the top 1% you'd need to be making 350K to 500K, depending on which economist you like, as income on an annual basis.
Which reminds me that a coupel years ago I remember reading an article about a family that was trying to say they were just upper middle class and not rich. Their income was around 300K and they had problems managing their bills, so they just had to be middle class. That level of income puts them in the 98th percentile. Which I guess just helps prove the point that you don't have to be smart to make a lot of money.
It's been a little more than a decade but when I lived in Mountain View the single bedroom appartment I lived in was 1200 a month without utilities. I'd hate to see what the rent is now for a larger family apartment or home.
I think what I would really like to see in a political debate is some of the rules I've seen implemented in couples communications classes. One of them that you mentioned is putting words in the mouth of the other person. Another good one is interrupting or making fun of the other person's opinion. I'd like to see a debate format where the rules require 100% civility and any violations means you lose time in which to respond to the next question, or maybing all questions from that point on. So say each candidate gets 120 seconds per question to respond. If a candidate speaks out of turn, makes a claim about possible future actions of another candidate or party, they then forfeit 30 seconds per infraction on the next question.
The school I attended I think required 4 math, 3 science, 4 english, 1 language, a couple art/music, maybe 3 social studies. It was long enough ago that I'm pretty fuzzy on the exact details. But I do remember that I had 1 or 2 classes each semester of my choosing that weren't required for anything, and I took every computer related class that I could.
I atteneded a vocational school for my final two years of high school for of all things Law Enforcement. A few of my non-lab classes were dumbed down a bit. For instance I had to take an applied math course, which was basically some algebra I mixed with geometry and home economics style math. Even though that class was a joke for me I have met any number of people since then that could have really used such a class. So I don't know that it's necessarily the schools so much that drive children to be so narrowly focused as it is the kids themselves not trying and parents not encouraging them to learn about other things. Because even in the specialized schools there are plenty of general studies classes required for graduation, or at least there was in the school I attended.
My Father who would have been in highschool in the late 50's early 60's used to talk about making zip guns and knives in shop class. He said the funny thing was that there was no shortage of gangs and such since it was a steel town near a border. But no one ever brought violence into the school, they killed a few police officers at football games though.
It should be noted though that even if the power source which is energizing your EV is comparatively dirty, its waste is being produced at a single point. So it's waste can be controlled much more easily than thousands of individual polluting vehicles.
The Milwaukee group is the one that uses compost. I hadn't read up on it in awhile but they mix it with Coir, fiber from coconut husks, that they put in pots. The pots are placed in large trays where the water flows through pretty shallowly it would appear. The Coir wicks up the needed water. I imagine they might have some sediment build up but the system doesn't have a whole lot of small choke points that could get plugged up and their water flows seem to be pretty slow so solids should settle out pretty well.
I think the point is that red worms would exist more rarely in nature. But if you intend to do composting and want quick throughput so that you need less space for your compost pile, then the red worms are a better choice. And if you want throughput to be even higher you'll need to breed them.
We're talking compost here, which is used as a fertilizer, you don't normally plant anything in a pot that only has high nutrient compost. When I was a kid we had chickens, so we we used chicken shit as fertilizer. We had to be cautious because the plants could actually get nitrogen burn if you put too much of it down.
I'm unimformed on the differences of the quality of the produce produced by the systems. But from my understanding one of the problems with purely hydroponic systems is that balancing the nutrients and byproducts in the water can be very challenging and that the system needs to be purged and started fresh from time to time. Also various plants have different nutrient requirements and getting them to grow productively together in a purely hydroponic system can be difficult if not impossible. A solution that people have found is to use composted dirt at least in part as the growing medium to help balance the nutrients and toxicity of the water. My favorite approach is when they use fish to get nutrients into the water, naturally existing bacteria to process the amonia from the fish into nitrates, more bacterias to make the nitrates into nitrogen, plants in grow beds to make the nitrogen and other fish waste into produce.
growingpower.org in Milwaukee has a very neat setup for this. And theurbanfarmingguys.com have done some cool stuff as well.
Beat me to it, I was gonna post that link but you got there first. So instead I'll go with www.theurbanfarmingguys.com I'm particularly interested in the idea of Aquaponics. That is raising fish for protein and using the fish's waste and water to grow plants in a cyclic self sustaining system. I think the only major constant input in a system like that is the fish food, which you could grow yourself in the form of duckweed.
The Dervaes family is successful for a couple reasons that a large part of the population wouldn't be able to leverage. Mainly they live in a climate that allows for year round growing without the extensive use of greenhouses. And while they are farming in a very small area it is actually more space than many city dwellers have access too, that is when the zoning laws even allow it.
I read about some Lady whose house was surrounded by more than 100 varieties of vegetables, herbs and such that she used to support herself. Someone got a bug up their butt and she ended up fighting the city in court over whether or not she could keep it up. While her court case was still pending the city sent out workers and pulled everything up while she was away from her home.