there was a conspiracy to obfuscate all of the facts about the assassination.
Every part of the response - during the shooting, the autopsy, the analysis of the shooting, official hearing, etc - was incompetent. People had no idea what happened, no idea what they were doing, so they screwed everything up and tried to fix things up after the official narrative emerged.
In addition, supposedly several members of Kennedy's Administration believed that Oswald was working for Castro. And they believed that if that was revealed, there would be an unstoppable public demand for an invasion of Cuba, which they knew would trigger a war with Russia. So they tried to quash speculation, in the stupid clumsy arrogant way of authorities (particularly at the time), which succeeded only in making things worse.
Put it all together, and it created enough noise onto which conspiracy nuts can project any scenario they want. Shooter on the grassy knoll, the driver shot Kennedy, the following Secret Service (no CIA!) agent accidentally/deliberately shot Kennedy, or that Governor Connally shot Kennedy because he was having an affair with the First Lady and JFK had just found out... CIA, LBJ, the mob, etc...
he question is, why was there such an effort to confuse the whole story? To create confusion and doubt in the minds of Americans?
Conspiracy theories make money. Books, lectures, movies, TV specials. And believing conspiracy theories makes you feel... like you're inside the secret circle. Better than the sheeple around you.
Why not pass a regulation on phones -- they have bluetooth, it's not like they couldn't make them disable when a certain device is present... that goes into the car. Failure to use the device would be easier to detect.
How about just making it "negligent driving" if you have an accident when using a phone? So if you kill someone in an accident, it's negligent homicide. And you are 100% responsible for costs/damages in non-fatal accidents, even if you would otherwise have right of way if you weren't using your phone.
Why not punish the people who actually cause accidents?
I'd go further, the only time the extra foot or so of height is going to let you see someone texting is when waiting at lights, stuck in traffic, or travelling side-by-side on multi-laned straight roads in smooth uniform traffic.
Only the latter situation is actually remotely dangerous to glance down at a phone (in case someone ahead emergency brakes), but still about the least dangerous of all possible traffic conditions. So even if it makes a difference, you may end up training people to only avoid using their phone when it is safe to do so. Surely the opposite of what you want.
I love how people pick and choose their "facts" on these "issues". The police pulled a guy over, smelled pot,
You repeated the troopers' claim without qualification, immediately after calling the description of those claims, "facts".
I understand that you are trying to back away from your comment now, but the implication was clear.
And the attitude you displayed is why illegal searches and claims of "resisting arrest" go unchallenged in courts. People like you falsely equate claims made by police and other authority figures as "facts" (even when there is evidence or witnesses disputing those claims). It's incredibly dangerous because it allows abuses of power to go unchallenged. As others have pointed out, "smelled marijuana" is a loophole you can drive a truck through, and is therefore routinely abused by police with the full cooperation of the courts, and the acquiescence of media and jurors.
The "intent" clause exists to ensure the law can't be used against people who can afford quality defence. Without it, people who matter might object to the law.
He has also already lost the car, which will be auctioned off, even if the charges are dropped. Unless he sues the city or state and is able to prove to the satisfaction of the court or jury that the vehicle wasn't used to transport drugs.
"For no reason"? The problem is that police always say it's for their safety, or to reduce a threat, or some other excuse. Always, "in accordance with their training". They never admit that they used tasers or pepper spray out of frustration or as a coercive measure, or as an ad hoc punishment, there's always a "reason"
This is why the use of encryption and obfuscation products needs to be universal, and on by default, not just even if you don't need it, but especially when you don't need it.
It allows treaty nations to seek redress in international courts. So it allows signatory nations to punish and/or restrict US companies (Google/Microsoft/etc) for cooperating with routine NSA/CIA monitoring in violation with the treaty, and if/when the US takes the matter to the WTO court, it allows signatories to use the treaty to justify their unilateral trade restrictions against US companies.
Since those companies cannot refuse to comply with secret warrants in the US, and they cannot refuse to comply with treaty nations' laws, their only way out of the bind is to stop operating in treaty countries. This increases the political pressure within the US against the monitoring, since those US companies (and hence their rented politicians) care more about being locked out of foreign markets than they care about teh terrists.
Put it another way, if it didn't matter, why is the US pushing so hard to change it?
i wonder how we manage to have a revolution back in the 1700's since we didn't have telephones or the internet.
There was also no system where horses and wagons had to display numbers, and those numbers could be read by automatic systems on every major trail and on most Sheriff's horses, and which were stored forever by the British administrators for later data-mining. There was no system where long-distance commercial carriages required travellers to show photo-ID, and which were stored in a database, which could also be reported to the British administrators based on a secret warrant. There was also no system which images and stored the address details of every single piece of territorial mail.
There was, however, the unlimited legal power of British Regulars to stop and search anyone, for any reason. Which was why the US founders included a clearly worded right of privacy/security as part of the US Constitution to prevent that situation from ever recurring. So at least you have that advantage. Right? Right?
Social network accounts (twitter/facebook/google/blogger) are used to automate login to other sites. If you don't want anyone other that the giant social network and their monetised advertising networks tracking you across 3rd party sites, you need to lock down the traffic between twitter/etc, you, and the 3rd party sites.
Ah. Different bit. That an attachment point for the Canadarm's or Dextre's "latching end effector".
[I suspect the reason it's on the Cupola was to allow the Canadarm to grab and move the Cupola into position during initial installation, rather than to allow it or Dextre to attach there now.]
White A-frame with a silver tube on top? "Orbiter keel trunnion", and associated yoke, for attaching the modules to the payload bay of the Space Shuttle orbiter during launch.
This is like me claiming to have a grade of 100.5 percent on one of my courses.
Not quite. The score Musk used was counting down to zero (combined risk of passenger death.) The NHTSA converts that to a star score, where lower risk percentage gives a higher star score. But the risk-percentage is finer grained than integer 1-through-5, so Musk worked out their conversion factor. A 5 star rating starts at anything below 10% combined risk. The Model S was given 7%, which Musk converted to 5.4 stars.
[I actually get 5.6 stars, not 5.4.
NHTSA ratings system: 2 stars: P > 20% 3 stars: 20% > P > 15% 4 stars: 15% > P > 10% 5 stars: 10% > P
(Where P is the combined probability of passenger death in all the tests.)
...produces a slope of -20, and a height of +7.
So if the Model S got a probability of 7%, then the decimalised rating is 5.6 stars. Not sure what Musk did to get 5.4.]
The individual tests apparently give a probability of death/injury. They are combined to give an overall probability of passenger death. Model S scored 7%. Lower is better. Anything which gets 10% or below on the combined risk score gets 5 stars.
Musk created a conversion factor for the star rating from NHTSA's cut-offs (p>20% = 2 stars; 20%>p>15% = 3 stars; 15%>p>10% = 4 stars; p10% = 5 stars) to allow him to convert the percentage risk score into a decimal star score, turning 7% into 5.4 stars. It's the sort of thing any real nerd would do when given a database of 380 individual scores.
Slashdot Mirror
there was a conspiracy to obfuscate all of the facts about the assassination.
Every part of the response - during the shooting, the autopsy, the analysis of the shooting, official hearing, etc - was incompetent. People had no idea what happened, no idea what they were doing, so they screwed everything up and tried to fix things up after the official narrative emerged.
In addition, supposedly several members of Kennedy's Administration believed that Oswald was working for Castro. And they believed that if that was revealed, there would be an unstoppable public demand for an invasion of Cuba, which they knew would trigger a war with Russia. So they tried to quash speculation, in the stupid clumsy arrogant way of authorities (particularly at the time), which succeeded only in making things worse.
Put it all together, and it created enough noise onto which conspiracy nuts can project any scenario they want. Shooter on the grassy knoll, the driver shot Kennedy, the following Secret Service (no CIA!) agent accidentally/deliberately shot Kennedy, or that Governor Connally shot Kennedy because he was having an affair with the First Lady and JFK had just found out... CIA, LBJ, the mob, etc...
he question is, why was there such an effort to confuse the whole story? To create confusion and doubt in the minds of Americans?
Conspiracy theories make money. Books, lectures, movies, TV specials. And believing conspiracy theories makes you feel... like you're inside the secret circle. Better than the sheeple around you.
Motorcycle cops.
Kennedy was in the first limo, preceded by a motorcycle escort. The Secret Service cars followed.
I guess there's some irony is wondering how many of the sites being recommended here are being posted by shills for those sites.
Why not pass a regulation on phones -- they have bluetooth, it's not like they couldn't make them disable when a certain device is present... that goes into the car. Failure to use the device would be easier to detect.
How about just making it "negligent driving" if you have an accident when using a phone? So if you kill someone in an accident, it's negligent homicide. And you are 100% responsible for costs/damages in non-fatal accidents, even if you would otherwise have right of way if you weren't using your phone.
Why not punish the people who actually cause accidents?
I'd go further, the only time the extra foot or so of height is going to let you see someone texting is when waiting at lights, stuck in traffic, or travelling side-by-side on multi-laned straight roads in smooth uniform traffic.
Only the latter situation is actually remotely dangerous to glance down at a phone (in case someone ahead emergency brakes), but still about the least dangerous of all possible traffic conditions. So even if it makes a difference, you may end up training people to only avoid using their phone when it is safe to do so. Surely the opposite of what you want.
Its about sending a message
Isn't that what got us into this mess?
You're not allowed to have the key to your own gun safe?
Install a tracker, pick up the whole network.
From your original comment:
I love how people pick and choose their "facts" on these "issues".
The police pulled a guy over, smelled pot,
You repeated the troopers' claim without qualification, immediately after calling the description of those claims, "facts".
I understand that you are trying to back away from your comment now, but the implication was clear.
And the attitude you displayed is why illegal searches and claims of "resisting arrest" go unchallenged in courts. People like you falsely equate claims made by police and other authority figures as "facts" (even when there is evidence or witnesses disputing those claims). It's incredibly dangerous because it allows abuses of power to go unchallenged. As others have pointed out, "smelled marijuana" is a loophole you can drive a truck through, and is therefore routinely abused by police with the full cooperation of the courts, and the acquiescence of media and jurors.
The "intent" clause exists to ensure the law can't be used against people who can afford quality defence. Without it, people who matter might object to the law.
"Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car."
I love how people pick and choose their "facts" on these "issues".
Probably because what you are calling a "fact", other people would call a "claim made by police without proof".
It's people like you that make the jury system almost worthless.
He has also already lost the car, which will be auctioned off, even if the charges are dropped. Unless he sues the city or state and is able to prove to the satisfaction of the court or jury that the vehicle wasn't used to transport drugs.
Make sure you have a "carry concealed" permit for the pistol, otherwise you might otherwise face charges anyway.
If the compartment was lockable, wouldn't it count as a "gun safe"?
use of stun guns repeatedly for no reason
"For no reason"? The problem is that police always say it's for their safety, or to reduce a threat, or some other excuse. Always, "in accordance with their training". They never admit that they used tasers or pepper spray out of frustration or as a coercive measure, or as an ad hoc punishment, there's always a "reason"
This is why the use of encryption and obfuscation products needs to be universal, and on by default, not just even if you don't need it, but especially when you don't need it.
It allows treaty nations to seek redress in international courts. So it allows signatory nations to punish and/or restrict US companies (Google/Microsoft/etc) for cooperating with routine NSA/CIA monitoring in violation with the treaty, and if/when the US takes the matter to the WTO court, it allows signatories to use the treaty to justify their unilateral trade restrictions against US companies.
Since those companies cannot refuse to comply with secret warrants in the US, and they cannot refuse to comply with treaty nations' laws, their only way out of the bind is to stop operating in treaty countries. This increases the political pressure within the US against the monitoring, since those US companies (and hence their rented politicians) care more about being locked out of foreign markets than they care about teh terrists.
Put it another way, if it didn't matter, why is the US pushing so hard to change it?
i wonder how we manage to have a revolution back in the 1700's since we didn't have telephones or the internet.
There was also no system where horses and wagons had to display numbers, and those numbers could be read by automatic systems on every major trail and on most Sheriff's horses, and which were stored forever by the British administrators for later data-mining. There was no system where long-distance commercial carriages required travellers to show photo-ID, and which were stored in a database, which could also be reported to the British administrators based on a secret warrant. There was also no system which images and stored the address details of every single piece of territorial mail.
The lack of technology in the 1700's cut both ways.
There was, however, the unlimited legal power of British Regulars to stop and search anyone, for any reason. Which was why the US founders included a clearly worded right of privacy/security as part of the US Constitution to prevent that situation from ever recurring. So at least you have that advantage. Right? Right?
Social network accounts (twitter/facebook/google/blogger) are used to automate login to other sites. If you don't want anyone other that the giant social network and their monetised advertising networks tracking you across 3rd party sites, you need to lock down the traffic between twitter/etc, you, and the 3rd party sites.
Insightful?
AKA FRGF "flight releasable grapple fixture", sayeth the wikipedia
Ah. Different bit. That an attachment point for the Canadarm's or Dextre's "latching end effector".
[I suspect the reason it's on the Cupola was to allow the Canadarm to grab and move the Cupola into position during initial installation, rather than to allow it or Dextre to attach there now.]
White A-frame with a silver tube on top? "Orbiter keel trunnion", and associated yoke, for attaching the modules to the payload bay of the Space Shuttle orbiter during launch.
Article did not contain the review I expected. Would not read again. 0 stars.
This is like me claiming to have a grade of 100.5 percent on one of my courses.
Not quite. The score Musk used was counting down to zero (combined risk of passenger death.) The NHTSA converts that to a star score, where lower risk percentage gives a higher star score. But the risk-percentage is finer grained than integer 1-through-5, so Musk worked out their conversion factor. A 5 star rating starts at anything below 10% combined risk. The Model S was given 7%, which Musk converted to 5.4 stars.
[I actually get 5.6 stars, not 5.4.
NHTSA ratings system:
2 stars: P > 20%
3 stars: 20% > P > 15%
4 stars: 15% > P > 10%
5 stars: 10% > P
(Where P is the combined probability of passenger death in all the tests.)
...produces a slope of -20, and a height of +7.
So if the Model S got a probability of 7%, then the decimalised rating is 5.6 stars. Not sure what Musk did to get 5.4.]
The individual tests apparently give a probability of death/injury. They are combined to give an overall probability of passenger death. Model S scored 7%. Lower is better. Anything which gets 10% or below on the combined risk score gets 5 stars.
Musk created a conversion factor for the star rating from NHTSA's cut-offs (p>20% = 2 stars; 20%>p>15% = 3 stars; 15%>p>10% = 4 stars; p10% = 5 stars) to allow him to convert the percentage risk score into a decimal star score, turning 7% into 5.4 stars. It's the sort of thing any real nerd would do when given a database of 380 individual scores.