The 1st amendment protects people from the government not indivuduals or corporations... the same goes with all amendments..
Usually true. However, the Thirteenth Amendment states: Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
This amendment IS a restriction on private entities.
There is one other thing to watch for in the coming years. Historically, in the US, private entities have functioned in a quasi-governmental capactity-if nothing else, look at the history of labor relations in the US. Companies would have company police.
While these company police were frequently Pinkertons, private individuals, they would occasionally receive law enforcement commissions to give them more power. (The usual commission was as a 'special' deputy sheriff or deputy city marshall.) In theory, these commissions gave the officers the duties of peace officers, but in practice it mostly gave them peace officer powers to use in the service of their private employers. (The exemption from city ordinances re: wearing guns in public alone made it worthwhile for some of the companies to cultivate sheriffs as allies)
I'm expecting, within the next 10-15 years, the US judiciary will begin to see private entities behaving in quasi-governmental roles as being bound by the same restrictions as the government.
All we need to do is enforce reckless driving laws. If someone's not paying attention, weaving, not signalling, tailgating - why don't they just get the ticket they deserve.
Problem:
At least in Colorado, Careless Driving is a $56 ticket and four points on the license, and consists of driving "without due regard to conditions, such as road surface, traffic, pedestrians, light, visibility, weather, wildlife, and others."
Reckless Driving is driving "with a wanton and willful disregard of a known risk," eight points, and theoretically worth up to a year in jail. You just have to convince some senile jackass in a black muumuu to actually put the hammer on a reckless driver.
Where those things become a problem is, both are misdemeanor traffic offenses, rather than civil infractions. Therefore, the defendant has a right to a jury trial, and it's not easy to convince a jury that cellphone use, by itself, is wanton and willful disregard.
That being said, most of my stops end up with a verbal warning only. But if the driver did a moving violation while on a cellphone, I'm going to give him a very hard time.
We should be concentrating on getting every classroom connected to the internet
So the kiddies can be downloading pr0n instead of learning to read?
and giving laptops to the homeless so they can get the skills necessary to seek proper employment before we concentrate on such a silly endeavor as this.
Maybe we should also give the homeless a place to plug the laptops in to recharge?
..except technology isn't a magic bullet
on
C.S.I.
·
· Score: 1
This weekly science detection mystery is a long-overdue nod to the debt that contemporary law enforcement owes to technology, which probably solves more crimes these days than old-fashioned gumshoeing.
Hardly.
The last traffic accident I investigated, I solved by talking to people and untangling what they said. I also used a steel tape measure and a drag sled, a very high-tech item consisting mainly of an old tire filled with redi-mix concrete. Neat for speed determination, which allowed me to actually charge the chargeable driver.
My last burglary? Again, talking to people. Comparing the entry and items taken with other burglaries in the same area and at the same time of day. Getting descriptions from witnesses. (Okay, I cheated. I also lifted fingerprints, which has been in law enforcement use for about a century, and used an AFIS terminal, which was new during the Nixon administration. None of which would have done squat without talking to the witnesses)
There are noteworthy technologies in common LE use. There are wireless networks, which give every car NCIC access. There are 800 MHz radios. There are now user-friendly databases which we can use for tracking our reports and FI cards. There are GIS systems which can be used for crime analysis. There are radar and laser for speed enforcement. Fingerprints can be lifted by cyanoacrilate deposition or by laser, and compared with the FBI's database. And its hard to argue with the Intoxylizer as being useful.
And I'd happily trade them all for a ballistic vest and shoes which are comfortable for an entire shift in the summertime.
New technologies have their places. However, we can still write our reports at a typewriter, communicate on commercial VHF, and bust speeders using stopwatches or by pacing them. Law enforcement in the US is fundamentally about interacting with people. It's about talking to them, getting their stories, looking for incongruities, observing their mannerisms, etc. At the core, it's about looking into the hearts of people and seeing whatever is there to be seen.
I have yet to see a computer capable of doing that as well as the average bluesuit.
Would you really have government run by a bunch of people like Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond, and Richard Stallman.
And wouldn't that be just what we need? Some guy in DC insisting that the senate call him the GNU/President, or he'll have the GNU/Secret Service whack them all?
If the ST cast in every series is going to spend half the episode agonizing about the Prime Directive, they need some new situation:
Kirk: "Should I maybe not have sex with the green alien chick?"
McCoy: "Maybe doing surgery while completely drunk isn't such a hot idea?"
Picard: "I'm gonna smack the crap out of the next alien who gives me heat about being bald."
Janeway: "Maybe there's still someone here in the Delta Quadrant who doesn't think I'm some bull dagger Katharine Hepburn wanna-be."
Or they could just complete their descent into hell. All ST needs now is Jar-Jar Binks.
Pepper Spray was once designed as non-lethal crowd control, but has been connected with teh deaths of thjousands of americans since police began widely usung it
Crap.
Pepper spray was first introduced into law enforcement use in the 1960's to replace Mace, which had been associated with blindness in rare cases.
In all that time, there have been fewer than a dozen deaths associated with the pepper. One or two are thought to have been heart attacks, and the remainder had severe pre-existing respiratory conditions.
You can take away the police' less-lethal weapons like pepper and batons, like my department did for a little while after the Rodney King videotape came out. However, when you do that you leave an officer no room for escalation between bare hands and deadly force.
Here in Colorado, we have a law called the "Make My Day" law. Basically it says that you can use any force, including lethal force if someone is breaking into your home without getting in trouble with the law.
Close, but not quite.
"Make My Day" requires the occupant to act against a person who ENTERS illegally (not just refuses to leave), has the specific intent to commit a crime against person or property, and uses force against an occupant.
Without violence threatened by your intruder, it doesn't apply.
(On the off chance anyone cares, the law itself is at CRS 18-1-704.5)
The major exception was the search for his own name and address ( "9414 Talisman"). I expect someone might ego-surf once in a while, but doing this several times per year look suspicious.
When I first became a cop and had to be certified on the use of CCIC/NCIC, I would query myself almost weekly. I still run my own name and random name through agency records for FI checks and master name reference, if only to ensure that I still know how.
It's hard to imagine the FBI would actively discourage their people from doing similar, for the training benefits.
address, etc.).
Actually, the FBI doesn't polygraph its people. They claim it will destroy the "community of trust"
That's really odd. Damn near every single other LE agency in the US does, even if only during the pre-employment screening and Internal Affairs crap. Forgetting the polygraph would be about as common as forgetting to see an applicant's credit history.
As for beating the box, forget it. The interviewer will know that you're screwing with him. Never mind that a half-assed veteran street cop watching the videotape of the interview may even be more accurate than the machine.
If that is true, why do all other democracies manage to stay free without private gun ownership?
Which ones? The one in South Australia? The one in the UK that passed RIP, and where it's legal to hold people in jail without charging them or letting them have a lawyer? The one in Germany that has essentially banned fringe political parties? The one in Japan where confessions extracted by torture do not get excluded from trials?
If you want to talk about free countries, first you have to find some.
How do you want to fight a government Apache gunship with your shotgun and revolver?
Ask the Afghans. Look at the Balkans. It's awful hard to use air power, tanks, and nuclear weapons in your own cities.
If some people renting a house commit a crime in it (such as exchanging child porn), you don't hold the landlord liable.
Criminally liable? Maybe, maybe not. That depends upon whether the landlord was either a conspirator or an accessory.
HOWEVER, the house can then be declared a Public Nuisance. If the landlord knew of the violation, or reasonably could have been expected to know of it, and failed to stop it, he then forfeits the house.
That's the Colorado law. In some states, the forfeiture law is Strict Liability, which means the house is forfeitable regardless of what the landlord did or didn't know, or how hard he tried to prevent crimes from taking place on the property. The law only cares that the house was a Public Nuisance.
A crime (corpus delecti) must have:
An Injury
A criminal cause (not an accident or act-of-god)
Wrong. Legally, a crime must have a violation of statute prohibiting certain conduct and establishing a penalty.
Example: Operating an uninsured motor vehicle may not have an injury by itself, but it's still defined as a crime in my state and is still good for up to one year in jail.
Yes, but NAPSTER is not the one making and distributing millions of copies of music. The service is merely telling others where to access the computers of those who are. Please don't confuse the two.
Irrelevant. A distinction without a difference.
Let me give an example: I can legally tell you where a drug dealer is, what he's selling and for how much. I can even give you a ride to the street corner he's standing at. I cannot, however, buy or sell the drugs themselves.
Also irrelevant. That means that you don't get charged with the actual sale or purchase. Instead, you get hit for conspiracy to commit one of the above. To knowingly (which includes "reasonably should have known" the way juries usually see it) facilitate a crime makes one a conspirator in this and most other states. Or would you rather I just typed in my state's general conspiracy statute?
Also, bear in mind that civil remedies are usually a lot harder for a defendant to beat. The standard of proof is lower, the dollar penalties can be greater, and there is no legal right to court-appointed counsel.
last i checked, it's not illegal for me to go around telling people where to buy drugs. nor is it illegal to write a book telling people how to make pipe bombs.
Care to bet?
Telling someone where to buy illegal drugs can be criminal conspiracy, depending upon circumstances. As for the pipe bomb books, have a look at some of the lawsuits that Paladin Press has lost over the years. Publishing a book about how to be an assassin made them civilly liable for an assassination committed by a reader.
"Nudge, nudge, wink wink" is not a defense under US law. Handing someone info knowing that they will likely use that info to commit crimes is chargeable as conspiracy.
If that idealistic fool Wilson hadn't butted his way into World War I, then we would have had a far more equitable peace treaty thus preventing the humiliation of Germany and the rise of Hitler.
Actually, Germany got screwed at France' insistence and over Wilson's objections. IOW, the unwashed degenerates brought it on themselves. Had France shown any sense and built a legitimate defense instead of the Maginot line, followed by going to sleep, getting conquered, and ending up collaborating in the Vichy government...
No, I'm not bitter. I merely consider roughly 97% of Europe to be unfit for occupation by human beings.
Unfortunately here we've got the minor issue of the first ammendment. Bothersome thing. Makes it very difficult to pass any laws dealing with this sort of thing.
Your argument has been tried and it has failed. In the 1990's, the Congress passed a large telecom bill that contained the so-called "Junk Fax Law," now residing at 47 USC 227. This law made it a civil tort to send unsolicited bulk faxes. Its constitutionality was challenged in the federal Ninth Circuit courts, and upheld. Thus far, the USSC has not reviewed the law.
A spam law will not likely be any different than the junk fax law, or the law about telemarketing to cellphones.
FWIW, the USSC already did review these sorts of issues back when they were mostly about paper mail, in the 1960's. The case was called _Rowan v. United States Postal Service_ and the ruling was that a sender of a communication does NOT have a constitutionally-protected right to do so over the wishes of the recipient.
. It'd be a lot easier to prove the spammer was intentionally breaking the law if there were a single federally maintained do not call list...
Really? It seems just as easy for the spammer to introduce confirmation that he did indeed have the recipient's permission to send the mail. Make confirmation an affirmative defense, like self-defense or "Choice of Evils" and you've managed to keep the Freddies from starting a new bureaucracy fully capable of fucking up a wet dream.
The consumer is the one responsible for paying sales tax.
True. Some retailers are already collecting it on website sales, too. I just ordered several books from Calibre Press in Illinois, to be shipped to my address in Colorado. CP did collect the CO state sales tax.
Right or wrong, I can't find anyone else carrying most of their titles so it's either play with them or do without.
Last I heard we had the human genome completed. Why all of a sudden move on to the plant.
It ain't finished. The Human Genome Project still has an awful lot of the human genome that isn't sequenced and that they don't understand. The reason for researchers to work on this plant is that it a: may be a little simpler than humans; and b: has a very fast generation time: months at the outside in the lab, vs. 20-30 year generations for humans. Shorter generations mean that whatever crops up can be recognized and assessed sooner.
We were all hyped with what the discovery could do to medicine and how it would change our lives.
Changes don't happen overnight. We've known what virii were for decades, but still don't have a cure for any viral diseases. We have some understanding of how fusion works, but we still burn coal. And we know how to make a stable OS but 90%-plus of the desktops in the US still use Windows.
It seems as if they just filed it away and moved on. I for one would like to see some real life applications to what these scientists are doing.
There's more than one team working in genetics right now. In the US there are easily a few hundred research universities with genetics labs, not counting CDC, NIH, and some very fine labs overseas. They're not all going to be working on the exact same things.
(And just how much information is there per base pair? Is my translation of four nucleotides to 4 possible states (2 bits) correct?)
If you want to think of one base as being the same as two bits with four possible states, that's fine. In class, they told us to think of it more as an alphabet with four letters, but that's just another way to visualize the unvisualizable.
What makes it tricky is that it's a group of three bases together that actually expresses for anything. Therefore, out of your three-bit word you can express up to 64 different items. Each "word" codes for one amino acid, and there are only twenty-odd of them known. Whatever makes a protein more unique than the steak I'm grilling now is the number of amino acids present and the order they're in.
And if I got anything wrong, it's because I'm an ecologist and not a geneticist, but/. never does anything on centrarchid feeding behavior.
That is like a police officer getting pissed off about having to write tickets because it makes him feel bad.
That's why we usually don't have to write. I've never written one that made me feel bad.
This is more like listening to a cop bitch about having to work weekends and wear blue polyester. It's part of the job, fer chrissakes.
Pick out Katz and get him into some Rocky Mountains resort. And get every TV set and VCR out of his hands. Strict rest, mountain air, and walks in the open under the cold breeze of winter. At night three water cups of good Russian vodka and sleep, sleep, sleep.
Not sure that vodka is the best thing. Any half-decent bourbon on the rocks will do Katz far better.
That being said, I agree. Send him by sometime in May. I've got a spare flyrod or six and I guarantee that a six-pound rainbow on a five-weight will shake him out of his rut.
Or make it next autumn and pheasants. We can, after all, use many different methods to lighten up this gentleman.
IANAL, but my understanding is that in the US, "probable cause" is what is necessary to get a warrant, not what is necessary to go without a warrant.
Almost correct. "Probable Cause" is required for the issuance of most warrants(save administrative searches, I'll get there in a moment). However, a police officer may conduct warrantless searches in the face of exigent circumstances. That means that either the public safety will be endangered or the evidence will likely be destroyed if the officer takes the time to swear out a warrant.
Administrative searches are searches that are limited in scope for regulatory purposes, rather than for criminal purposes. Inspection of records of firearms dealers, pawnbrokers, and pharmacies handling controlled substances are fairly typical examples.
The BSA crap being what it is, I don't know what I'd do. It sounds like a civil dispute, and in my state the only cops who are allowed to get involved in those are sheriffs and their deputies. A city cop like me would not be involved at all, except to prevent a breach of the peace.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually true. However, the Thirteenth Amendment states:
Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
This amendment IS a restriction on private entities.
There is one other thing to watch for in the coming years. Historically, in the US, private entities have functioned in a quasi-governmental capactity-if nothing else, look at the history of labor relations in the US. Companies would have company police.
While these company police were frequently Pinkertons, private individuals, they would occasionally receive law enforcement commissions to give them more power. (The usual commission was as a 'special' deputy sheriff or deputy city marshall.) In theory, these commissions gave the officers the duties of peace officers, but in practice it mostly gave them peace officer powers to use in the service of their private employers. (The exemption from city ordinances re: wearing guns in public alone made it worthwhile for some of the companies to cultivate sheriffs as allies)
I'm expecting, within the next 10-15 years, the US judiciary will begin to see private entities behaving in quasi-governmental roles as being bound by the same restrictions as the government.
Problem:
At least in Colorado, Careless Driving is a $56 ticket and four points on the license, and consists of driving "without due regard to conditions, such as road surface, traffic, pedestrians, light, visibility, weather, wildlife, and others."
Reckless Driving is driving "with a wanton and willful disregard of a known risk," eight points, and theoretically worth up to a year in jail. You just have to convince some senile jackass in a black muumuu to actually put the hammer on a reckless driver.
Where those things become a problem is, both are misdemeanor traffic offenses, rather than civil infractions. Therefore, the defendant has a right to a jury trial, and it's not easy to convince a jury that cellphone use, by itself, is wanton and willful disregard.
That being said, most of my stops end up with a verbal warning only. But if the driver did a moving violation while on a cellphone, I'm going to give him a very hard time.
So the kiddies can be downloading pr0n instead of learning to read?
and giving laptops to the homeless so they can get the skills necessary to seek proper employment before we concentrate on such a silly endeavor as this.
Maybe we should also give the homeless a place to plug the laptops in to recharge?
Hardly.
The last traffic accident I investigated, I solved by talking to people and untangling what they said. I also used a steel tape measure and a drag sled, a very high-tech item consisting mainly of an old tire filled with redi-mix concrete. Neat for speed determination, which allowed me to actually charge the chargeable driver.
My last burglary? Again, talking to people. Comparing the entry and items taken with other burglaries in the same area and at the same time of day. Getting descriptions from witnesses. (Okay, I cheated. I also lifted fingerprints, which has been in law enforcement use for about a century, and used an AFIS terminal, which was new during the Nixon administration. None of which would have done squat without talking to the witnesses)
There are noteworthy technologies in common LE use. There are wireless networks, which give every car NCIC access. There are 800 MHz radios. There are now user-friendly databases which we can use for tracking our reports and FI cards. There are GIS systems which can be used for crime analysis. There are radar and laser for speed enforcement. Fingerprints can be lifted by cyanoacrilate deposition or by laser, and compared with the FBI's database. And its hard to argue with the Intoxylizer as being useful.
And I'd happily trade them all for a ballistic vest and shoes which are comfortable for an entire shift in the summertime.
New technologies have their places. However, we can still write our reports at a typewriter, communicate on commercial VHF, and bust speeders using stopwatches or by pacing them. Law enforcement in the US is fundamentally about interacting with people. It's about talking to them, getting their stories, looking for incongruities, observing their mannerisms, etc. At the core, it's about looking into the hearts of people and seeing whatever is there to be seen.
I have yet to see a computer capable of doing that as well as the average bluesuit.
And wouldn't that be just what we need? Some guy in DC insisting that the senate call him the GNU/President, or he'll have the GNU/Secret Service whack them all?
Kirk: "Should I maybe not have sex with the green alien chick?"
McCoy: "Maybe doing surgery while completely drunk isn't such a hot idea?"
Picard: "I'm gonna smack the crap out of the next alien who gives me heat about being bald."
Janeway: "Maybe there's still someone here in the Delta Quadrant who doesn't think I'm some bull dagger Katharine Hepburn wanna-be."
Or they could just complete their descent into hell. All ST needs now is Jar-Jar Binks.
Crap.
Pepper spray was first introduced into law enforcement use in the 1960's to replace Mace, which had been associated with blindness in rare cases.
In all that time, there have been fewer than a dozen deaths associated with the pepper. One or two are thought to have been heart attacks, and the remainder had severe pre-existing respiratory conditions.
You can take away the police' less-lethal weapons like pepper and batons, like my department did for a little while after the Rodney King videotape came out. However, when you do that you leave an officer no room for escalation between bare hands and deadly force.
Close, but not quite.
"Make My Day" requires the occupant to act against a person who ENTERS illegally (not just refuses to leave), has the specific intent to commit a crime against person or property, and uses force against an occupant.
Without violence threatened by your intruder, it doesn't apply.
(On the off chance anyone cares, the law itself is at CRS 18-1-704.5)
When I first became a cop and had to be certified on the use of CCIC/NCIC, I would query myself almost weekly. I still run my own name and random name through agency records for FI checks and master name reference, if only to ensure that I still know how.
It's hard to imagine the FBI would actively discourage their people from doing similar, for the training benefits. address, etc.).
That's really odd. Damn near every single other LE agency in the US does, even if only during the pre-employment screening and Internal Affairs crap. Forgetting the polygraph would be about as common as forgetting to see an applicant's credit history.
As for beating the box, forget it. The interviewer will know that you're screwing with him. Never mind that a half-assed veteran street cop watching the videotape of the interview may even be more accurate than the machine.
Which ones? The one in South Australia? The one in the UK that passed RIP, and where it's legal to hold people in jail without charging them or letting them have a lawyer? The one in Germany that has essentially banned fringe political parties? The one in Japan where confessions extracted by torture do not get excluded from trials?
If you want to talk about free countries, first you have to find some.
How do you want to fight a government Apache gunship with your shotgun and revolver?
Ask the Afghans. Look at the Balkans. It's awful hard to use air power, tanks, and nuclear weapons in your own cities.
Criminally liable? Maybe, maybe not. That depends upon whether the landlord was either a conspirator or an accessory.
HOWEVER, the house can then be declared a Public Nuisance. If the landlord knew of the violation, or reasonably could have been expected to know of it, and failed to stop it, he then forfeits the house.
That's the Colorado law. In some states, the forfeiture law is Strict Liability, which means the house is forfeitable regardless of what the landlord did or didn't know, or how hard he tried to prevent crimes from taking place on the property. The law only cares that the house was a Public Nuisance.
An Injury
A criminal cause (not an accident or act-of-god)
Wrong. Legally, a crime must have a violation of statute prohibiting certain conduct and establishing a penalty.
Example: Operating an uninsured motor vehicle may not have an injury by itself, but it's still defined as a crime in my state and is still good for up to one year in jail.
Irrelevant. A distinction without a difference.
Let me give an example: I can legally tell you where a drug dealer is, what he's selling and for how much. I can even give you a ride to the street corner he's standing at. I cannot, however, buy or sell the drugs themselves.
Also irrelevant. That means that you don't get charged with the actual sale or purchase. Instead, you get hit for conspiracy to commit one of the above. To knowingly (which includes "reasonably should have known" the way juries usually see it) facilitate a crime makes one a conspirator in this and most other states. Or would you rather I just typed in my state's general conspiracy statute?
Also, bear in mind that civil remedies are usually a lot harder for a defendant to beat. The standard of proof is lower, the dollar penalties can be greater, and there is no legal right to court-appointed counsel.
Care to bet?
Telling someone where to buy illegal drugs can be criminal conspiracy, depending upon circumstances. As for the pipe bomb books, have a look at some of the lawsuits that Paladin Press has lost over the years. Publishing a book about how to be an assassin made them civilly liable for an assassination committed by a reader.
"Nudge, nudge, wink wink" is not a defense under US law. Handing someone info knowing that they will likely use that info to commit crimes is chargeable as conspiracy.
Wouldn't that be a hoot? But I have a hard time seeing George or Bonnie as pacifists, given how they like to wave guns around.
Actually, Germany got screwed at France' insistence and over Wilson's objections. IOW, the unwashed degenerates brought it on themselves. Had France shown any sense and built a legitimate defense instead of the Maginot line, followed by going to sleep, getting conquered, and ending up collaborating in the Vichy government...
No, I'm not bitter. I merely consider roughly 97% of Europe to be unfit for occupation by human beings.
Your argument has been tried and it has failed. In the 1990's, the Congress passed a large telecom bill that contained the so-called "Junk Fax Law," now residing at 47 USC 227. This law made it a civil tort to send unsolicited bulk faxes. Its constitutionality was challenged in the federal Ninth Circuit courts, and upheld. Thus far, the USSC has not reviewed the law.
A spam law will not likely be any different than the junk fax law, or the law about telemarketing to cellphones.
FWIW, the USSC already did review these sorts of issues back when they were mostly about paper mail, in the 1960's. The case was called _Rowan v. United States Postal Service_ and the ruling was that a sender of a communication does NOT have a constitutionally-protected right to do so over the wishes of the recipient.
. It'd be a lot easier to prove the spammer was intentionally breaking the law if there were a single federally maintained do not call list...
Really? It seems just as easy for the spammer to introduce confirmation that he did indeed have the recipient's permission to send the mail. Make confirmation an affirmative defense, like self-defense or "Choice of Evils" and you've managed to keep the Freddies from starting a new bureaucracy fully capable of fucking up a wet dream.
True. Some retailers are already collecting it on website sales, too. I just ordered several books from Calibre Press in Illinois, to be shipped to my address in Colorado. CP did collect the CO state sales tax.
Right or wrong, I can't find anyone else carrying most of their titles so it's either play with them or do without.
Italian food is damn good, no doubt. But that entire continent would be improved by a lot of green chile sauce, corn tortillas, and the like.
Or they need cayenne pepper, andouille, etc.
But as food goes, France is a benighted backwater that thinks if you use cream sauce nobody will notice that the meat is actually insects.
It ain't finished. The Human Genome Project still has an awful lot of the human genome that isn't sequenced and that they don't understand. The reason for researchers to work on this plant is that it a: may be a little simpler than humans; and b: has a very fast generation time: months at the outside in the lab, vs. 20-30 year generations for humans. Shorter generations mean that whatever crops up can be recognized and assessed sooner.
We were all hyped with what the discovery could do to medicine and how it would change our lives.
Changes don't happen overnight. We've known what virii were for decades, but still don't have a cure for any viral diseases. We have some understanding of how fusion works, but we still burn coal. And we know how to make a stable OS but 90%-plus of the desktops in the US still use Windows.
It seems as if they just filed it away and moved on. I for one would like to see some real life applications to what these scientists are doing.
There's more than one team working in genetics right now. In the US there are easily a few hundred research universities with genetics labs, not counting CDC, NIH, and some very fine labs overseas. They're not all going to be working on the exact same things.
If you want to think of one base as being the same as two bits with four possible states, that's fine. In class, they told us to think of it more as an alphabet with four letters, but that's just another way to visualize the unvisualizable.
What makes it tricky is that it's a group of three bases together that actually expresses for anything. Therefore, out of your three-bit word you can express up to 64 different items. Each "word" codes for one amino acid, and there are only twenty-odd of them known. Whatever makes a protein more unique than the steak I'm grilling now is the number of amino acids present and the order they're in.
And if I got anything wrong, it's because I'm an ecologist and not a geneticist, but /. never does anything on centrarchid feeding behavior.
This is more like listening to a cop bitch about having to work weekends and wear blue polyester. It's part of the job, fer chrissakes.
Not sure that vodka is the best thing. Any half-decent bourbon on the rocks will do Katz far better.
That being said, I agree. Send him by sometime in May. I've got a spare flyrod or six and I guarantee that a six-pound rainbow on a five-weight will shake him out of his rut.
Or make it next autumn and pheasants. We can, after all, use many different methods to lighten up this gentleman.
Almost correct. "Probable Cause" is required for the issuance of most warrants(save administrative searches, I'll get there in a moment). However, a police officer may conduct warrantless searches in the face of exigent circumstances. That means that either the public safety will be endangered or the evidence will likely be destroyed if the officer takes the time to swear out a warrant.
Administrative searches are searches that are limited in scope for regulatory purposes, rather than for criminal purposes. Inspection of records of firearms dealers, pawnbrokers, and pharmacies handling controlled substances are fairly typical examples.
The BSA crap being what it is, I don't know what I'd do. It sounds like a civil dispute, and in my state the only cops who are allowed to get involved in those are sheriffs and their deputies. A city cop like me would not be involved at all, except to prevent a breach of the peace.