I can't violate someone's 4th amendment rights, since I'm not an agent of the government.
I can't seize their stuff. Or go through their personal belongings without permission. Or seize them. Those things are illegal but not due to the 4th amendment.
It was "or else we won't give you the job". Which I agree should be illegal, but the 4th amendment doesn't make it so (well in the exact case in the article it might because it was a government job so it was in fact the government doing the searching, but that's not the general issue I'm talking about).
Because they aren't the government and hence the 4th amendment is irrelevant.
Also note that the 4th amendment doesn't say that the government can't ask to look at your stuff - just that they can't force you to let them (without probable cause/etc). So even if it was relevant it wouldn't stop a potential employer from asking.
Just as fun as reporting their car stolen or that you saw an armed man breaking into their house or reporting a crack house at their address.
You end up getting charged filing those false police reports, wasting police time, perjury, lieing to the police, or whatever you jurisdiction likes to stick on such cases.
And of course if you have all the details required to tell the phone company such a thing you have all the details required to cancel their service which would seem just an simple a way to go to jail for fraud without these changes.
The problem there is that while the US has good university level education, particularly the postgraduate level it has quite poor high school education.
Making it hard to sustain the university level on the back of that high school education. And of course you would also be killing an earner on the export side of the trade balance.
Homeland Security could of course do their job with respect to visas and not let the spies in in the first place. Though of course when all the documentation you have on a person comes from the government you suspect of doing the spying that's going to be a rather hard job. And of course we don't want them to stop our spies in return....
Because obviously they wouldn't do it when the car is parked or anything. No of course they'll just update the software while the car is in motion because they are morons.
It's James Cameron, you might think 3D is stupid but he happens to think it is the greatest thing since color.
He was not just talking about converting Titanic to 3D, but had already done some tests with a few minutes of film, before Avatar was released.
So Cameron wanted to see it in 3D. And since he has more money that God and a track record in film that means other people with even more money are willing to fund his films it will get done. And surprise surprise here it is.
That's a remarkably bad choice if they are figuring in nulear war. Given Pine Gap is 10 miles away and a likely first strike target, since it is (or was, or was thought to be - which is good enough for the other side to hit it) a ballistic lauch detection station and signals intelligence station.
And the first thing you did was add exclusions, isn't the entire idea of a "flat tax" to not have exclusions and their compications and enabling of avoidance.
Of course I think an actually "flat" tax is silly. You want the rate to increase with income level and it doesn't matter what the "rich" think about it because we already have a progressive income tax system so the status quo wins.
Just remove *all* deductions and rebates. Yes all. Need to buy a uniform for your work, that's between you and your employer the government is funding it. Pay interest on your motgage, big whoop that's between you and your bank.
Income tax should be the world's simplest thing. Oh you earned $X, you owe us $Y and an 8 year old with a calculator and the rate table could work it out.
Wealth taxes might work instead, but they have issues with people who are income poor not being able to service the tax on their assets without splitting up an asset that would be better not split up.
A fitted equation is perfectly fine as a model. Chances are it'll fail the first time you test it outside it's creation range though and hence you'll discard it.
Of course models that make rational sense are going to be better - they make intuitive sense and so will get more work done on them. And of course humans like explanations not just predictions.
But Newton's model of gravity: F=G.m1.m2 / r^2 is an example of a model created entirely with a fitted equation that worked just fine (well close enough in enough cases, obviously we've replaced it with a model with better predictive power already).
Without bothering to read the article (or the summary...) I'd punt that the error bars are large enough that being spot on says very little about more recently considered factors other than that the older ones dominate under the conditions of the last couple of decades.
Sure, you won't be driving anyway. And the robot driver will drive as fast as it is programmed to believe is safe (or efficient if that's that's what is actually cared about).
That would completely depend on what assumptions they made.
Were the numbers they used for CO2 production levels under or over what acutally ended up happening? What about any other input variables they used did their estimates match what actually happened?
I don't care enough to look, but I did't claim "they were clearly wrong". You must have checked in order to make that claim so how bad were their estimates of the inputs?
No it gained credence over other models that didn't get things right.
That in itself says nothing about whether it is actually correct in itself just whether it makes good predictions. A simpler model that makes exactly the same predictions would be prefered - that's what Occam's razor actually says after all. If the models make different predictions we don't need the razor we just see which one (if any) matches reality.
"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy
But I guess that would require reading more than one sentence into the article. Then again it's in TFS.
Where does the article talk about 'convicted'?
It doesn't since that as made up by the poster.
Group strip searches are clearly just an excuse to degrade and humiliate people. Strip searching those who are already inmates without some justifiable cause doesn't seem to have any justification other than degrading and humiliating people. But strip searching someone as they join a prison or jail inmate population doesn't seem that strange to me (and yes there will be plenty of innocent people in jail) there's a lot of contraband people want to get in after all.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't violate someone's 4th amendment rights, since I'm not an agent of the government.
I can't seize their stuff. Or go through their personal belongings without permission. Or seize them. Those things are illegal but not due to the 4th amendment.
It was "or else we won't give you the job". Which I agree should be illegal, but the 4th amendment doesn't make it so (well in the exact case in the article it might because it was a government job so it was in fact the government doing the searching, but that's not the general issue I'm talking about).
Because they aren't the government and hence the 4th amendment is irrelevant.
Also note that the 4th amendment doesn't say that the government can't ask to look at your stuff - just that they can't force you to let them (without probable cause/etc). So even if it was relevant it wouldn't stop a potential employer from asking.
Just as fun as reporting their car stolen or that you saw an armed man breaking into their house or reporting a crack house at their address.
You end up getting charged filing those false police reports, wasting police time, perjury, lieing to the police, or whatever you jurisdiction likes to stick on such cases.
And of course if you have all the details required to tell the phone company such a thing you have all the details required to cancel their service which would seem just an simple a way to go to jail for fraud without these changes.
The problem there is that while the US has good university level education, particularly the postgraduate level it has quite poor high school education.
Making it hard to sustain the university level on the back of that high school education. And of course you would also be killing an earner on the export side of the trade balance.
Homeland Security could of course do their job with respect to visas and not let the spies in in the first place. Though of course when all the documentation you have on a person comes from the government you suspect of doing the spying that's going to be a rather hard job. And of course we don't want them to stop our spies in return....
And to get it wrong to boot.
1 kiloton is not equal to 1000 tons of C4, nor is 1 kiloton equal to 1000 tons of HMX.
It's a well known definition and somehow get it wrong.
Have you thought of getting an Atlas? Maybe just browsing google maps?
Here's a helpful starting point: http://maps.google.com/?q=Ireland
Now find Tottenham and Paris and be surprised that they aren't in the bit of the map we know as Ireland.
Because obviously they wouldn't do it when the car is parked or anything. No of course they'll just update the software while the car is in motion because they are morons.
Actually maybe someone else is the moron here.
It's James Cameron, you might think 3D is stupid but he happens to think it is the greatest thing since color.
He was not just talking about converting Titanic to 3D, but had already done some tests with a few minutes of film, before Avatar was released.
So Cameron wanted to see it in 3D. And since he has more money that God and a track record in film that means other people with even more money are willing to fund his films it will get done. And surprise surprise here it is.
So are you claiming it isn't like I said?
And I'm not sure where you pulled the negative interpretation from.
I donated to the watelander 2 one - I'm ust not stupid enough to not know that it's me donating money and them maybe producing a worthwhile game.
Oh sorry, anon coward of course, keep a trolling.
Kikstarter lets people who already have a name get funding for their pet project.
It's not murky.
You give some money. They might produce game.
Crystal clear.
That's a remarkably bad choice if they are figuring in nulear war. Given Pine Gap is 10 miles away and a likely first strike target, since it is (or was, or was thought to be - which is good enough for the other side to hit it) a ballistic lauch detection station and signals intelligence station.
net assets or gross?
And the first thing you did was add exclusions, isn't the entire idea of a "flat tax" to not have exclusions and their compications and enabling of avoidance.
Of course I think an actually "flat" tax is silly. You want the rate to increase with income level and it doesn't matter what the "rich" think about it because we already have a progressive income tax system so the status quo wins.
Just remove *all* deductions and rebates. Yes all. Need to buy a uniform for your work, that's between you and your employer the government is funding it. Pay interest on your motgage, big whoop that's between you and your bank.
Income tax should be the world's simplest thing. Oh you earned $X, you owe us $Y and an 8 year old with a calculator and the rate table could work it out.
Wealth taxes might work instead, but they have issues with people who are income poor not being able to service the tax on their assets without splitting up an asset that would be better not split up.
Assets are easier to hide than income as well.
A fitted equation is perfectly fine as a model. Chances are it'll fail the first time you test it outside it's creation range though and hence you'll discard it.
Of course models that make rational sense are going to be better - they make intuitive sense and so will get more work done on them. And of course humans like explanations not just predictions.
But Newton's model of gravity: F=G.m1.m2 / r^2 is an example of a model created entirely with a fitted equation that worked just fine (well close enough in enough cases, obviously we've replaced it with a model with better predictive power already).
Without bothering to read the article (or the summary...) I'd punt that the error bars are large enough that being spot on says very little about more recently considered factors other than that the older ones dominate under the conditions of the last couple of decades.
Lots of current circuit boards won't work when snapped in half either.
Cracking one can touch two wires/tracks/pins that weren't touching before too.
Sure, you won't be driving anyway. And the robot driver will drive as fast as it is programmed to believe is safe (or efficient if that's that's what is actually cared about).
But what were the worst case input predictions and how do they compare with what actually happened?
And how big are the error bars?
That would completely depend on what assumptions they made.
Were the numbers they used for CO2 production levels under or over what acutally ended up happening? What about any other input variables they used did their estimates match what actually happened?
I don't care enough to look, but I did't claim "they were clearly wrong". You must have checked in order to make that claim so how bad were their estimates of the inputs?
No it gained credence over other models that didn't get things right.
That in itself says nothing about whether it is actually correct in itself just whether it makes good predictions. A simpler model that makes exactly the same predictions would be prefered - that's what Occam's razor actually says after all. If the models make different predictions we don't need the razor we just see which one (if any) matches reality.
are famously bad at sceince and statistics.
And there's no benefit (to the researcher) in replicating a study that's already been done which makes for an obvious problem.
Medical science isn't alone in this of course, it just seems to be worse than most.
They're like hipsters but they've had hip replacements so they prefer a non-hip term.
Because gays are icky.
That is after all the underlying reason for the viewpoint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJ2T023M4I#t=142s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snDU0I3Um2g&feature=player_detailpage#t=317s
Clearly you didn't, since it's in the title of one of the submenus on that front page.
Or you have a retarded definition of "every" or "link".
The bit that says:
But I guess that would require reading more than one sentence into the article. Then again it's in TFS.
It doesn't since that as made up by the poster.
Group strip searches are clearly just an excuse to degrade and humiliate people. Strip searching those who are already inmates without some justifiable cause doesn't seem to have any justification other than degrading and humiliating people. But strip searching someone as they join a prison or jail inmate population doesn't seem that strange to me (and yes there will be plenty of innocent people in jail) there's a lot of contraband people want to get in after all.