The person to whom you were replying was correct. Miranda Rights are named after Ernesto Miranda, who was convicted on the basis of a confession. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled on his case (and two others which were similar) that the confessions had been coerced and were therefore a violation of the defendant's 5th amendment rights. It is worth noting that Miranda was given another trial (where the confession was not admitted) and he was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape and served 11 years.
Your comment about his death is correct, also. It is certainly ironic that the suspect in the murder of the person for whom Miranda rights are named invoked those rights, and, in light of the lack of evidence, was freed.
Actually, the US has been doing exactly this sort of thing for some time. Or have you forgotten about Manuel Noriega? The US actually sent in troops to arrest the leader of a foreign nation and bring him to trial in the US for violations of US law. He is still in prison. I doubt if Noriega's actions were legal in Panama, but he wasn't arrested for violations of Panamanian law.
Another submitter noted that today is the 25th anniversary of the landing of the Viking 1 Mars probe.
Today is the 32nd anniversary of the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon. While the Viking 1 lander was significant, it's pretty hard to beat the first landing by any human being on another world ever. I guess it must be ancient history or something.
Sure, we've all heard that the Teamsters have some history of corruption, but why would they bother with the Boy Scouts of America? Wait - I get it! Corrupting our youth! What levels of evil will they not stoop to?
If I totally reverse-engineer the Intel chip, and don't pay royalties, I get sued.
No. Where do you think the PC clones came from? The IBM BIOS was clean-room reverse engineered. When IBM sued, they lost in the Supreme Court. This is the reason that software licenses now say that you aren't purchasing an actual copy of the software. If you actually own the copy, then you can do anything you want with it. Since you only have a license to use the software is certain ways, they prohibit you from reverse engineering, and put financial penalties in the license for violating the reverse engineering parts.
If they say they cannot enforce all the laws of this country without taking "pro-active" measures, then you may know by that sign that THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWS.
The Roman historian Tacitus probably said it best in Annales - "Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges" In English, "The more corrupt the state, the more numrous its laws"
Note that the original inhabitants of Bikini atoll still cannot return to their islands because of the contamination. OTOH, in Hiroshima they used to take all the schoolchildren out each year with Geiger counters to find radioactive debris from the bomb. They had to stop about 20 years ago because they couldn't find any radioactive rocks any more. The difference is between surface (or subsurface) and aerial detonations. High air bursts produce very little fallout. Surface and subsurface bursts produce enormous amounts.
Historically, there have been times when it was unlawful to be wandering about off your own property after dark. The legal term (in English) was "noctavigation".
The researchers employed a novel technique that used a virus tagged with a green-glowing jellyfish protein to visualize the feeding circuit in the brain of a mouse.
The nutritional results are interesting, although practical application in humans is years away. The interesting thing is the use of more stuff from those green-glowing jellyfish. They've used it in plants and monkeys, and now viruses. Who would have thought that glowing jellyfish could end up being so useful?
To see how active the sun has been for the last 2+ days try the NOAA site. There was an X1 flare today, which should provide plenty of aurora material in a day or so.
Drug companies may actually have to share profits if valuable genetic material is used as the basis for a pharmaceutical.
In return for the right to use the material as they see fit and not potentially share any profits with you, I'm sure they'll have no problem at all with doing anything reasonable to ensure your privacy.
Probably the scariest part of this is the dreaded "Law of Unintended Consequences". If the only thing given up was the potential profits some drug manufacturer might be able to make from something derived from my DNA, there would be no problem. The potential benefits of these discoveries far outweigh any hypothetical money I don't have. What other uses are there which this type of legal change might affect? Big Brother type things might be least of our worries.
According to the current best measurement (Hipparcos), Sirius is 8.60 light years away. (I'm severely nit picking, I know) The rest of your post is exactly correct. There's a good reason that "astronomical" is used as an adjective to mean "so large as to defy comprehension". The distances to objects, even in our solar system, are so great that travel to any of them by any means takes years. Pluto is less than 1/1000 of a light year away. The Voyager 2 mission took 12 years to reach Neptune (which was farther from the Sun than Pluto at the time). At that pace it would take over 100,000 years to reach Sirius. Even allowing for continuous acceleration between the stars, probes will take centuries to reach their destinations.
Without going into the details, the resolution of a optical system is proportional to the aperture. So the resolution from these two telescopes put together is equal to a single telescope that's as big as the two telescopes plus the distance between them. The amazing thing here is that they've optically linked the light between the two telescopes so this will work. Just combining the two images won't do the trick.
And for the anal-retentive among us, strictly speaking, the above is only approximation. There is considerable complexity in how much resolution the system has (and in what directions). The explanation is meant for those with no background at all in optics.
Here's a photograph of the same area taken with an optical telescope (the DSS Sky Survey). Although the poster meant to say too hot for a visual observation (the X-ray emitting material is invisible to the human eye), there are also significant errors on the Harvard CHANDRA page. The main, central elliptical galaxy in Hickson 62 is not NGC 4761, but NGC 4778. NGC 4761 is a fainter nearby spiral (labelled "c"). Also, comparing the CHANDRA image, it would appear that it has accidentally been mirrored right-to-left. NGC 4761 should be the pink blob at about the 2 o'clock position about halfway out in the greenish X-ray cloud.
At magnitude 12.5, the brightest galaxy in this group (NGC 4778) should be visible in a 6-inch telescope under good conditions. An 8- or 10-inch telescope should be capable of showing the brightest 3 galaxies in the group.
Assuming the aiming problems can be overcome, yes. Sorta. The biggest problem with this is that if I'm going to nuke some city and I think they have anti-missile defenses, I will detonate a high altitude burst to generate an EMP, disabling most defenses you might have. Then (shortly) will follow the real attack. The EMP burst can be done in low orbit, putting it probably out of the reach of most anti-missile defenses.
There are a ton of other ways, most cheaper than that, for getting around or disabling anti-nuke defenses.
could this become a feasable way to get pico-satelites in orbit?
Well, maybe. Have you ever seen a meteor? That's what hapens when a gravel or sand sized particle hits the upper atmosphere at 20 - 70 km per sec. If you could shield it enough it might work. There are probably some serious engineering issues to overcome to make it practical, though.
est is the entire word. It mostly consisted of seminars conducted by Werner Erhart to "elevate human potential". The Skeptics Dictionary has a nice article on it. They also have a ton of additional links which I won't reproduce here. The first est seminar was in 1971, and the last was in 1991, and about 700,000 people took the seminars.
Is there anybody left who still believes that the US Judiciary is unbiased? Honestly, the question we need to evaluate is whether they are fair and reasonable. Regrettably, with issues such as DeCSS, the Judiciary seems to weigh in more and more often with the side with the most money. And, unfortunately, since the Supremes aren't answerable to anybody and can't be impeached, we don't have any real way of limiting outrageous judicial conduct.
It's way not new. Back in the mid 70's the University of Colorado was using a laser to transmit data from the computer center to the engineering building printer more than a mile away. Most of the time it worked well, but when it was snowing heavily you couldn't get print.
No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have evolved from the same programs that guided the development of earlier animals. Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors. There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation.
From a scientist, the last statement is not put well. Certainly, evolution explains the observations well (and even predicted them), but to make the statement that there is "no other possible explanation" leaves these scientists looking no less dogmatic than the creationists. Of course, the creationists will not drop their case (no evidence imaginable would disprove it to them), but real scientists should always keep in mind that there may be alternatives which haven't been thought of yet which might explain things a bit better. And the real job of a scientist is to keep looking for that better idea.
Yeah, the sample size is too small for good statistical results. But we're talking about an 8 year old here. The fact that it occurred to her at that age to have something resembling a statistical sampling is impressive. I've seen way too many science fair projects by people 10 or 12 years old who seemed to think that a single data point was adequate for each of the samples.
As far as the "teachers" go, they've probably been frightened into political correctness in everything they do. What they did was a bad thing, but they probably get punished when they don't react this way, too.
You raise a good point. Programming (coding) is not an art any more than the skill involved in painting or sculpture is an art. The results are art. The act of a painter moving a paint-laden brush about over a canvas isn't (ordinarily) art (let's not worry about performance artist painters), but the results on the canvas afterward is. Similarly, the act of coding a program is not art, but the resulting program is. And, just as paintings vary considerably in how good they are as art, so do programs vary over a large range. Also, just as individual tastes in paintings or sculpture vary, so they will with programs.
Slashdot Mirror
The person to whom you were replying was correct. Miranda Rights are named after Ernesto Miranda, who was convicted on the basis of a confession. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled on his case (and two others which were similar) that the confessions had been coerced and were therefore a violation of the defendant's 5th amendment rights. It is worth noting that Miranda was given another trial (where the confession was not admitted) and he was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape and served 11 years.
Your comment about his death is correct, also. It is certainly ironic that the suspect in the murder of the person for whom Miranda rights are named invoked those rights, and, in light of the lack of evidence, was freed.
Actually, the US has been doing exactly this sort of thing for some time. Or have you forgotten about Manuel Noriega? The US actually sent in troops to arrest the leader of a foreign nation and bring him to trial in the US for violations of US law. He is still in prison. I doubt if Noriega's actions were legal in Panama, but he wasn't arrested for violations of Panamanian law.
Another submitter noted that today is the 25th anniversary of the landing of the Viking 1 Mars probe.
Today is the 32nd anniversary of the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon. While the Viking 1 lander was significant, it's pretty hard to beat the first landing by any human being on another world ever. I guess it must be ancient history or something.
Sure, we've all heard that the Teamsters have some history of corruption, but why would they bother with the Boy Scouts of America? Wait - I get it! Corrupting our youth! What levels of evil will they not stoop to?
If I totally reverse-engineer the Intel chip, and don't pay royalties, I get sued.
No. Where do you think the PC clones came from? The IBM BIOS was clean-room reverse engineered. When IBM sued, they lost in the Supreme Court. This is the reason that software licenses now say that you aren't purchasing an actual copy of the software. If you actually own the copy, then you can do anything you want with it. Since you only have a license to use the software is certain ways, they prohibit you from reverse engineering, and put financial penalties in the license for violating the reverse engineering parts.
If they say they cannot enforce all the laws of this country without taking "pro-active" measures, then you may know by that sign that THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWS.
The Roman historian Tacitus probably said it best in Annales - "Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges"
In English, "The more corrupt the state, the more numrous its laws"
Note that the original inhabitants of Bikini atoll still cannot return to their islands because of the contamination. OTOH, in Hiroshima they used to take all the schoolchildren out each year with Geiger counters to find radioactive debris from the bomb. They had to stop about 20 years ago because they couldn't find any radioactive rocks any more. The difference is between surface (or subsurface) and aerial detonations. High air bursts produce very little fallout. Surface and subsurface bursts produce enormous amounts.
Historically, there have been times when it was unlawful to be wandering about off your own property after dark. The legal term (in English) was "noctavigation".
You are aware, of course, that during World War 2 the United States had an income tax of 100% on all income over $50,000?
This site includes satellite images of both north and south poles so you can see where the aurora is visible.
The researchers employed a novel technique that used a virus tagged with a green-glowing jellyfish protein to visualize the feeding circuit in the brain of a mouse.
The nutritional results are interesting, although practical application in humans is years away. The interesting thing is the use of more stuff from those green-glowing jellyfish. They've used it in plants and monkeys, and now viruses. Who would have thought that glowing jellyfish could end up being so useful?
To see how active the sun has been for the last 2+ days try the NOAA site. There was an X1 flare today, which should provide plenty of aurora material in a day or so.
To see if auroras are visible at this moment try the Auroral Activity Report page.
The article is pretty clear on this.
Drug companies may actually have to share profits if valuable genetic material is used as the basis for a pharmaceutical.
In return for the right to use the material as they see fit and not potentially share any profits with you, I'm sure they'll have no problem at all with doing anything reasonable to ensure your privacy.
Probably the scariest part of this is the dreaded "Law of Unintended Consequences". If the only thing given up was the potential profits some drug manufacturer might be able to make from something derived from my DNA, there would be no problem. The potential benefits of these discoveries far outweigh any hypothetical money I don't have. What other uses are there which this type of legal change might affect? Big Brother type things might be least of our worries.
Of course, at 61-cm resolution, you won't be able to tell whether somebody is clothed or nude, but the best part is all in the mind anyway.
According to the current best measurement (Hipparcos), Sirius is 8.60 light years away. (I'm severely nit picking, I know) The rest of your post is exactly correct. There's a good reason that "astronomical" is used as an adjective to mean "so large as to defy comprehension". The distances to objects, even in our solar system, are so great that travel to any of them by any means takes years. Pluto is less than 1/1000 of a light year away. The Voyager 2 mission took 12 years to reach Neptune (which was farther from the Sun than Pluto at the time). At that pace it would take over 100,000 years to reach Sirius. Even allowing for continuous acceleration between the stars, probes will take centuries to reach their destinations.
Without going into the details, the resolution of a optical system is proportional to the aperture. So the resolution from these two telescopes put together is equal to a single telescope that's as big as the two telescopes plus the distance between them. The amazing thing here is that they've optically linked the light between the two telescopes so this will work. Just combining the two images won't do the trick.
And for the anal-retentive among us, strictly speaking, the above is only approximation. There is considerable complexity in how much resolution the system has (and in what directions). The explanation is meant for those with no background at all in optics.
Here's a photograph of the same area taken with an optical telescope (the DSS Sky Survey). Although the poster meant to say too hot for a visual observation (the X-ray emitting material is invisible to the human eye), there are also significant errors on the Harvard CHANDRA page. The main, central elliptical galaxy in Hickson 62 is not NGC 4761, but NGC 4778. NGC 4761 is a fainter nearby spiral (labelled "c"). Also, comparing the CHANDRA image, it would appear that it has accidentally been mirrored right-to-left. NGC 4761 should be the pink blob at about the 2 o'clock position about halfway out in the greenish X-ray cloud.
At magnitude 12.5, the brightest galaxy in this group (NGC 4778) should be visible in a 6-inch telescope under good conditions. An 8- or 10-inch telescope should be capable of showing the brightest 3 galaxies in the group.
Could this shoot down incoming nukes?
Assuming the aiming problems can be overcome, yes. Sorta. The biggest problem with this is that if I'm going to nuke some city and I think they have anti-missile defenses, I will detonate a high altitude burst to generate an EMP, disabling most defenses you might have. Then (shortly) will follow the real attack. The EMP burst can be done in low orbit, putting it probably out of the reach of most anti-missile defenses.
There are a ton of other ways, most cheaper than that, for getting around or disabling anti-nuke defenses.
could this become a feasable way to get pico-satelites in orbit?
Well, maybe. Have you ever seen a meteor? That's what hapens when a gravel or sand sized particle hits the upper atmosphere at 20 - 70 km per sec. If you could shield it enough it might work. There are probably some serious engineering issues to overcome to make it practical, though.
est is the entire word. It mostly consisted of seminars conducted by Werner Erhart to "elevate human potential". The Skeptics Dictionary has a nice article on it. They also have a ton of additional links which I won't reproduce here. The first est seminar was in 1971, and the last was in 1991, and about 700,000 people took the seminars.
Is there anybody left who still believes that the US Judiciary is unbiased? Honestly, the question we need to evaluate is whether they are fair and reasonable. Regrettably, with issues such as DeCSS, the Judiciary seems to weigh in more and more often with the side with the most money. And, unfortunately, since the Supremes aren't answerable to anybody and can't be impeached, we don't have any real way of limiting outrageous judicial conduct.
It's way not new. Back in the mid 70's the University of Colorado was using a laser to transmit data from the computer center to the engineering building printer more than a mile away. Most of the time it worked well, but when it was snowing heavily you couldn't get print.
...except, of course, for quintessence . Current research seems to indicate that this is actually the strongest force at the largest scales.
No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have evolved from the same programs that guided the development of earlier animals. Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors.
There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation.
From a scientist, the last statement is not put well. Certainly, evolution explains the observations well (and even predicted them), but to make the statement that there is "no other possible explanation" leaves these scientists looking no less dogmatic than the creationists. Of course, the creationists will not drop their case (no evidence imaginable would disprove it to them), but real scientists should always keep in mind that there may be alternatives which haven't been thought of yet which might explain things a bit better. And the real job of a scientist is to keep looking for that better idea.
Yeah, the sample size is too small for good statistical results. But we're talking about an 8 year old here. The fact that it occurred to her at that age to have something resembling a statistical sampling is impressive. I've seen way too many science fair projects by people 10 or 12 years old who seemed to think that a single data point was adequate for each of the samples.
As far as the "teachers" go, they've probably been frightened into political correctness in everything they do. What they did was a bad thing, but they probably get punished when they don't react this way, too.
You raise a good point. Programming (coding) is not an art any more than the skill involved in painting or sculpture is an art. The results are art. The act of a painter moving a paint-laden brush about over a canvas isn't (ordinarily) art (let's not worry about performance artist painters), but the results on the canvas afterward is. Similarly, the act of coding a program is not art, but the resulting program is. And, just as paintings vary considerably in how good they are as art, so do programs vary over a large range. Also, just as individual tastes in paintings or sculpture vary, so they will with programs.