And if the government were to repeal all criminal law, we'd have no criminals at all. But that would hardly be a good idea.
You are legally entitled to defend yourself, but this must be done proportionately. Shooting a fleeing kid in the back is not proportionate self-defence. Revenge is not proportional self-defense. Where is the intelligence in now allowing vastly disproportionate responses to perceived attempts at crime? Well if you honestly can't see it, I'm not going to be able to point it out to you.
Yeah it could be awarded on an ongoing basis, with a never-ending powerstruggle of posting karma-whoring posts. No doubt the top users would be accounts held by many people, operating in a shift system.
Would be kinda... sad. But I guess, it is/.!
Hell, even the UK's new (stupid!) rotating cylindrical street signs seem to run Windows XP.
Spotted one a few weeks ago showing a big popup about how updates had been downloaded and windows needed to be restarted.
Not really, no.
The principle is that you gain the inverse momentum change to that which you expel... Momentum is mass times velocity, and a piss weights a lot more than a fart.
The only issue I see (apart from the inevitable so-called moral objections) is that if all pictures that are "deemed legal" by such a lineup process are then able to be used to test the legality of others, such a system is prone to slippage over time, due to the accumulation of tiny differences. If the first set of "approved pictures" are entirely non-raunchy, then over time some very-slightly-raunchy pictures will be compared to these, and deemed legal. As defense lawyers are always likely to choose the "most extreme" pictures possible, to bolster their client's chances, these will be used almost exclusively to test future cases, until some slighly-raunchy pictures are approved, and so on.
One partial solution would be a periodic review that has the unenviable job of looking over all pictures approved by this process, and the authority to say whether or not they can be used as "test pieces" in future line-ups. Even that would only slow the rate of slippage, not halt it altogether.
Another useful feature might be random selection of pictures, or even better computer selection, whereby pictures will be selected based on similarity to the "offending" image - but I appreciate thats got no chance of receiving endorsement.
Ah come on, it would be funny. I'd do it if I could be bothered getting the necessary expertise.
Getting the media in an uproar, keeping so many IT guys edgy... and then come april 1st, nothing happens except several million people have the words "HA HA" overlaid on their display for the duration of the day.
My own pet theory (based on nothing but speculation) is that come April 1st, nothing will happen. And then someone will wave their hand and say "hey, I made conflicker" and get rich from interviews, while the rest of us giggle at the hilarity of this massively-hyped april fool.
Adaptive optics would be the way to go.
And realise that your images of area 51 have the camera and target within the same atmospheric layer, making the problem considerably more trivial.
Yep, land, deploy the mirror, then leave again, leaving behind nothing but a flag and the lower stage of a LEM... hell, if they could have done that with robots, there'd have been no point in sending the astronauts.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the government were to repeal all criminal law, we'd have no criminals at all. But that would hardly be a good idea.
You are legally entitled to defend yourself, but this must be done proportionately. Shooting a fleeing kid in the back is not proportionate self-defence. Revenge is not proportional self-defense. Where is the intelligence in now allowing vastly disproportionate responses to perceived attempts at crime? Well if you honestly can't see it, I'm not going to be able to point it out to you.
Good luck on that if you're not armed. I mean, if you actually need to arrest someone
UK police generally do a good job. Of arresting people while not being armed, i mean.
those that attempt to protect themselves
...by becoming criminals themselves? Their own bloody fault.
Everyone knows that the queen doesn't have an iPod, she has a wePod!
Ok fine, BST. Meh.
There's a filter? Or am I missing a joke again
Yeah it could be awarded on an ongoing basis, with a never-ending powerstruggle of posting karma-whoring posts. No doubt the top users would be accounts held by many people, operating in a shift system. ... sad. But I guess, it is /.!
Would be kinda
Hell, even the UK's new (stupid!) rotating cylindrical street signs seem to run Windows XP.
Spotted one a few weeks ago showing a big popup about how updates had been downloaded and windows needed to be restarted.
Looks like someone (GP) forgot about daylight saving. Its 15:34 GMT, 14:34 UTC
James Siberius Kirk
I hope that's an attempt at humor... if not, kindly hand over your license
For kicks: Later TNG > Enterprise > Voyager > Early TNG > DS9 > TOS
For giggles: Enterprise > TNG > TOS > Voyager > DS9
At least, thats the way I roll.
American English or International English?
Fixed that for you.
For sake of argument: they could regret taking the picture, and experience mental trauma due to other people watching it
Not really, no. The principle is that you gain the inverse momentum change to that which you expel... Momentum is mass times velocity, and a piss weights a lot more than a fart.
In case the first one breaks? You have to have a back up crapper, as the alternative is having it all floating round the room with you...
Do many people still play that game? Cos I used to love it
Then you have to define harm.
So ... simulate a paedophile?
The only issue I see (apart from the inevitable so-called moral objections) is that if all pictures that are "deemed legal" by such a lineup process are then able to be used to test the legality of others, such a system is prone to slippage over time, due to the accumulation of tiny differences. If the first set of "approved pictures" are entirely non-raunchy, then over time some very-slightly-raunchy pictures will be compared to these, and deemed legal. As defense lawyers are always likely to choose the "most extreme" pictures possible, to bolster their client's chances, these will be used almost exclusively to test future cases, until some slighly-raunchy pictures are approved, and so on.
One partial solution would be a periodic review that has the unenviable job of looking over all pictures approved by this process, and the authority to say whether or not they can be used as "test pieces" in future line-ups. Even that would only slow the rate of slippage, not halt it altogether.
Another useful feature might be random selection of pictures, or even better computer selection, whereby pictures will be selected based on similarity to the "offending" image - but I appreciate thats got no chance of receiving endorsement.
Ah come on, it would be funny. I'd do it if I could be bothered getting the necessary expertise.
... and then come april 1st, nothing happens except several million people have the words "HA HA" overlaid on their display for the duration of the day.
Getting the media in an uproar, keeping so many IT guys edgy
My own pet theory (based on nothing but speculation) is that come April 1st, nothing will happen. And then someone will wave their hand and say "hey, I made conflicker" and get rich from interviews, while the rest of us giggle at the hilarity of this massively-hyped april fool.
This experiment has proved that iron fertilization is not going to work as a carbon storage strategy
...unless we first kill off all macroscopic life in the ocean. Then it'd be made of win!
Adaptive optics would be the way to go. And realise that your images of area 51 have the camera and target within the same atmospheric layer, making the problem considerably more trivial.
Yep, land, deploy the mirror, then leave again, leaving behind nothing but a flag and the lower stage of a LEM... hell, if they could have done that with robots, there'd have been no point in sending the astronauts.