Well, the "only" problem you have with that idea, is miscarriage of justice.
Not only have you now killed an innocent person, but because no one looks into solved crimes (unless it's something like serial murders), you're also letting the actual criminal off the hook forever.
If, instead, you allow appeals, you have a chance to overturn the conviction, and the case is reopened.
But here's one to ponder.
Suppose John Doe is convicted and executed for raping and murdering a child. Before his arrest, John Doe was married and a father of three and he had a high paying job, say 250,000 dollars a year, his wife being a stay at home mother.
As a result of his arrest and conviction, the wife and kids had to move out of the house, as she not only didn't have a job, didn't have qualifications to get a job that could pay for it, but all the neighbours hated her and the kids, because "obviously she knew he was weird".
Five years after his execution (say 15 - 20 years after his conviction), it is proven in court that someone else committed the rape and murder.
In the case of someone who wasn't executed, you can go in and pay them restitutions for their pain and suffering, but what do you do now? Do you charge the police and justice system with negligent homicide?
And just how do you plan to go about saying "I'm sorry for killing your father, painting him as a paedophile rapist and murderer and getting you and your family outcast from society at large"?
The AAPS is a fringe group with less than 3000 doctors.
I don't know or care who the AAPS is, but saying "less than 3000 doctors" makes it seem like that's a really really low number, and I don't think it is.
With 3,000 doctors and an average number of doctors per capita in the US of 2.3, that's enough to service 1.3 million people. Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana and Rhode Island all have a smaller population than that.
Of course, when you compare it to the 300 million people in the US, 1 million isn't a lot, but neither is the population of either of the aforementioned states, and I don't think you'd be that quick to dismiss their concerns.
That being said, I personally believe that not being vaccinated is a rather idiotic and outright selfish thing to do if you aren't allergic to it - herd immunity and all that.
The same phenomena is why earth-bound telescopes [of similar size] don't hold a candle to space telescopes such as the Hubble
Fixed that for you.
In the wavelengths that can be observed through the atmosphere, the Keck Observatory is going to blow Hubble away for several reasons:
* Each of the Keck telescopes has a 10 meter mirror - Hubble has a 2.4 meter mirror. That gives Keck a massive 16 times advantage in collecting area (76 m^2 vs 4.5 m^2). * The Keck telescopes can be linked together via interferometry, giving it a virtual 85 meter mirror (sort of - interferometry is a bit strange). * Keck can be easily updated and improved, the Hubble cannot.
However, Hubble has advantages over Keck and every other earth bound telescope - no atmosphere to contend with.
Our atmosphere may be turbulent, but that's not the main problem with it (it's pretty much solvable via adaptable mirrors) is its opacity or rather lack thereof.
Our atmosphere has very limited opacity to certain EM wavelengths (primarily radio and visible light), so if you want to observe stuff outside of that opacity range, you have to go outside the atmosphere.
Now - even if we somehow managed to put a Keck sized observatory into space, it'd still be beat out by Earth bound telescopes, simply due to ease of size construction, deployment, maintenance and interferometry.
That probably won't change until we're able to put decent sized telescopes into the Earth-Moon and later Earth-Sun L4 and L5 points, allowing for a massive 665,000 km and 255,000,000 km respectively virtual mirror for those. If we go out to the Sun-Neptune L4 and L5, we're looking at a 7.8 billion km virtual mirror.
Now, I'm not an expert on sharks, but I'm pretty sure that as one of the most successful predatory species in history, the only countries in the world, that are devoid of sharks, are landlocked countries.
Now, just because some hicks believe that only man eating sharks are sharks, does not make it so. For instance the whale shark lives off of plankton and similar sized foods, but it's still a shark.
There are close to 500 species of sharks and only about a handful are known man-eaters (great white, tiger, bull primarily), so just because we Europeans enjoy a more civil tone with our shark neighbours, doesn't mean they aren't here. Well, civil is a bit much - after all, we kill and eat loads of them, they just choose not to return the favour.
After all - if we only judged the presence of something by its violent attacks, one would think that the US was nothing more than the home of murderers, rapists and other violent offenders, even though there are hundreds of million non-violent people living there.
But why brine at one point and the human body at another?
Picking water is arbitrary, sure, but at least it is the same thing used at both points of the scale.
When you then realise that water isn't just used as a base for temperature, but for mass as well (1 litre being defined as the mass of a volume of water measuring 1000 cm^3), and it starts to be even less random (though still arbitrary), and adds in more consistency.
Granted, I don't know exactly what the consequences would be, if you were to replace water with something else (someone suggested mercury), but at least it's easier to work out than picking two random and unrelated pieces of information. Three, actually, as you now need a different thing for imperial weights as well in order for the comparison to be fair.
Speaking of imperial weights - do you even know what their bases are? The grain started as an actual grain, but which type? Was it dry or did it still retain water? Was it grain from a great harvest or a crappy one?
At least with metric, sure, it's arbitrary that it's based on water, but it's the same type and amount of water each and every time.
As for base-10 vs base-16 I suspect that one is simply because we have ten fingers. If we had eight or sixteen, I think those would be our base numbers.
Get your violent inspiration from the classics, such as the bible.
Stone people to death for such heinous crimes as having the audacity to wear cloth made from more than one material. Feel free to commit genocide simply because people believe in another God than you. Kill all the males of said cities, and claim the women as your wives or slaves.
Or pick from the New Testament. Has lots of niceties:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. - Luke 12:49-51
I tried OpenOffice of several versions, over the years, and all of them were buggy. The latest one, for example, corrupted the watermark in the document. This is unacceptable
I agree - unacceptable. However - try being in a situation where you are sending documents to an intermediary who translates the document into your client's language (and vice versa of course), and ending up with the document describing the 100 million euro project, CRASHING Word, as soon as the document crosses 100 pages.
Then imagine calling Microsoft's quite expensive business support, asking for help, and flat out being told, that this is a known issue for documents that traverse different language installations, and that there is no forthcoming fixes for this bug, and that the work around is to keep the documents below 100 pages.
At that point, it either becomes a beaurocratic nightmare to keep track of every piece of the 2,500+ page document, OR you simply instate a simple rule of always opening the document in Open Office, saving it in Word format again, and then opening it in Word, after which there were NO crashing issues with the large document. A few layout issues, but no one really cared about that.
Granted, that was about 10 years ago now, and I have no idea why the hell that work around turned out to work, but THAT is a horrible type of bug. It is a show stopper, and quite frankly much worse than a watermark corruption issue.
Now, do competing suites have issues? Yes, they do. But for some reason the relatively trivial issues that they have always trumps the game stopping bugs that probably still exist in MS Office, simply because "that's what everyone uses".
And this applies to all the dominant pieces of software. Doesn't matter what they are.
And in case you hadn't noticed, I seriously hate that attitude.
Considering the number of NBA players in any given year, the likelihood of anyone ever being an NBA player is approaching zero, no matter their height.
I think you mean T+3 hours. T-3 hours indicates the future.
That being said - at what point is it okay to talk politics? 12 hours after someone shot someone else? 24 hours? Three days? A week? A month? A year? A decade?
Because, believe it or not, the US has seen no less than 17 mass shootings this year, including this one. That's roughly once every 21 days, so if you want people to wait more than a month to discuss politics, then that will never happen. But the first one on that list is from July, so that's 17 shootings in six months, so closer to once every 11 days.
Even worse than that - in the US there are 87 gun deaths a day. That's more than once every 20 minutes on average - so again, if we have to wait more than 15 minutes before talking politics, then that can never happen either.
What you may want to wonder, is why a country like Switzerland, where every household is legally required to have a rifle, has less than one fifth the amount of shooting homicides per capita (0.58/100,000) of the US (2.98).
But back to my original point - how long SHOULD you wait before talking gun policy? And does the distance to a crime matter? Does the amount of news coverage it gets matter?
You bitching about it being "too soon" isn't helpful. Tell us when, exactly, it is okay to talk about gun policy, without stepping on your toes.
The thing is, the networks are using your resources to send this to you, and in exchange for the right to do so without interference from other things, they have to live up to certain requirements.
This is just an additional requirement tacked on in response to quite honestly horrific behaviour on their part.
Think of it as being told to turn down the volume at an excessively loud party, because it's pissing off your neighbours.
If the officers didn't have Tasers, would they have pulled their gun and shot her instead?
No? Then they shouldn't have used a Taser - no exceptions.
I can't believe that this isn't the law. They have no way of knowing, if the target is going to die as a result of the Tasering. What happens if the current runs across a pace maker? Insulin pump? Other life saving medical equipment?
Pepper spray has similar issues, but at a slightly less violent level. In my opinion pepper spray should only be used, if the officers would have used a night stick if they didn't have the spray. I.e. not on non-violent protesters sitting in the street rtc.
Again, I really don't understand why this is not the law already.
If you assert that God's non-falsifiability is sufficient reason to believe in God, then the non-falsifiability of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also sufficient reason to believe in the FSM.
Why go with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, when you have Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Unicorns, Big Foot, The Loch Ness Monster, Verruca Gnomes, The Hair Loss Fairy and the Eater of Socks.
Get the cell numbers of every single member of the board as well as managers for the company.
Send every one of them an SMS complaining about their plan to spam you.
If one person does it - no big deal.
It 100,000 people does it, well, it's not a big hit on each individual sending the message, but 100,000 messages might just crash their phone. But with a little bit of luck, they're each paying something like 25 cents to receive a text message.
She seriously makes a half million USD per year AND has a private account in the trading system that returns 3% PER DAY.
Does she make 500,000 dollars a year? Don't know, don't care.
Does her private account return 3% per day? No.
On average a year contains 250 trading days. 3%/day for 250 days is 1.03^250 = 1,619.22% in a year.
If the trader mentioned put in 100$ of her 500,000$/year salary into her traders account at the end of 2009, she'd come out of 2010 with $161,900. By the end of 2011, those 161,900 dollars would have become 262 million dollars. And by the end of 2012 those 262 million dollars would have become 424 billion dollars. End of 2013 her account will be worth 686 trillion.
Just for reference, in 2011 the entire world's GDP was about 69 trillion.
End of 2014: 1,110 quadrillion. End of 2015: 1,798 quintillion. End of 2016: 2,911 sextillion dollars.
Or put another way - by January 1st 2017, she'd be able to give every single person on the planet more than 300 trillion dollars each.
The conclusion is REALLY simple: You are either full of shit or an unbelievably stupid idiot for believing her claim - and I know which one applies to the mods who modded you interesting.
Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar. a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages. b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, long term gains only.
Humans do not cause global warming a) Do nothing, no upfront costs, no long term gains b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, reduces pollution, extends life expectancy (due to reduced pollution), reduces dependence on foreign energy sources.
In my opinion, even if humans have absolutely no impact on climate, I still want us to change our energy sources and energy use - the long term gains from doing so are very much worth it.
Actually, the moment that lock was publicly compromised in this way, it DID become less secure than other non-compromised locks.
A regular mechanical lock is secure, but the moment it becomes public knowledge that it can be defeated with a pen it becomes a lot less secure than other locks.
Locks are supposed to deter and delay. Deter regular people and delay thieves. When the lock is completely compromised like this one, it no longer delays thieves, thus making it useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the "only" problem you have with that idea, is miscarriage of justice.
Not only have you now killed an innocent person, but because no one looks into solved crimes (unless it's something like serial murders), you're also letting the actual criminal off the hook forever.
If, instead, you allow appeals, you have a chance to overturn the conviction, and the case is reopened.
But here's one to ponder.
Suppose John Doe is convicted and executed for raping and murdering a child. Before his arrest, John Doe was married and a father of three and he had a high paying job, say 250,000 dollars a year, his wife being a stay at home mother.
As a result of his arrest and conviction, the wife and kids had to move out of the house, as she not only didn't have a job, didn't have qualifications to get a job that could pay for it, but all the neighbours hated her and the kids, because "obviously she knew he was weird".
Five years after his execution (say 15 - 20 years after his conviction), it is proven in court that someone else committed the rape and murder.
In the case of someone who wasn't executed, you can go in and pay them restitutions for their pain and suffering, but what do you do now? Do you charge the police and justice system with negligent homicide?
And just how do you plan to go about saying "I'm sorry for killing your father, painting him as a paedophile rapist and murderer and getting you and your family outcast from society at large"?
I don't know or care who the AAPS is, but saying "less than 3000 doctors" makes it seem like that's a really really low number, and I don't think it is.
With 3,000 doctors and an average number of doctors per capita in the US of 2.3, that's enough to service 1.3 million people.
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana and Rhode Island all have a smaller population than that.
Of course, when you compare it to the 300 million people in the US, 1 million isn't a lot, but neither is the population of either of the aforementioned states, and I don't think you'd be that quick to dismiss their concerns.
That being said, I personally believe that not being vaccinated is a rather idiotic and outright selfish thing to do if you aren't allergic to it - herd immunity and all that.
Fixed that for you.
In the wavelengths that can be observed through the atmosphere, the Keck Observatory is going to blow Hubble away for several reasons:
* Each of the Keck telescopes has a 10 meter mirror - Hubble has a 2.4 meter mirror. That gives Keck a massive 16 times advantage in collecting area (76 m^2 vs 4.5 m^2).
* The Keck telescopes can be linked together via interferometry, giving it a virtual 85 meter mirror (sort of - interferometry is a bit strange).
* Keck can be easily updated and improved, the Hubble cannot.
However, Hubble has advantages over Keck and every other earth bound telescope - no atmosphere to contend with.
Our atmosphere may be turbulent, but that's not the main problem with it (it's pretty much solvable via adaptable mirrors) is its opacity or rather lack thereof.
Our atmosphere has very limited opacity to certain EM wavelengths (primarily radio and visible light), so if you want to observe stuff outside of that opacity range, you have to go outside the atmosphere.
This picture is rather self explanatory.
Now - even if we somehow managed to put a Keck sized observatory into space, it'd still be beat out by Earth bound telescopes, simply due to ease of size construction, deployment, maintenance and interferometry.
That probably won't change until we're able to put decent sized telescopes into the Earth-Moon and later Earth-Sun L4 and L5 points, allowing for a massive 665,000 km and 255,000,000 km respectively virtual mirror for those. If we go out to the Sun-Neptune L4 and L5, we're looking at a 7.8 billion km virtual mirror.
I think.
So what you're saying is, that you've already started to invade Western Europe? ;)
Now, I'm not an expert on sharks, but I'm pretty sure that as one of the most successful predatory species in history, the only countries in the world, that are devoid of sharks, are landlocked countries.
Now, just because some hicks believe that only man eating sharks are sharks, does not make it so. For instance the whale shark lives off of plankton and similar sized foods, but it's still a shark.
There are close to 500 species of sharks and only about a handful are known man-eaters (great white, tiger, bull primarily), so just because we Europeans enjoy a more civil tone with our shark neighbours, doesn't mean they aren't here. Well, civil is a bit much - after all, we kill and eat loads of them, they just choose not to return the favour.
After all - if we only judged the presence of something by its violent attacks, one would think that the US was nothing more than the home of murderers, rapists and other violent offenders, even though there are hundreds of million non-violent people living there.
But why brine at one point and the human body at another?
Picking water is arbitrary, sure, but at least it is the same thing used at both points of the scale.
When you then realise that water isn't just used as a base for temperature, but for mass as well (1 litre being defined as the mass of a volume of water measuring 1000 cm^3), and it starts to be even less random (though still arbitrary), and adds in more consistency.
Granted, I don't know exactly what the consequences would be, if you were to replace water with something else (someone suggested mercury), but at least it's easier to work out than picking two random and unrelated pieces of information. Three, actually, as you now need a different thing for imperial weights as well in order for the comparison to be fair.
Speaking of imperial weights - do you even know what their bases are? The grain started as an actual grain, but which type? Was it dry or did it still retain water? Was it grain from a great harvest or a crappy one?
At least with metric, sure, it's arbitrary that it's based on water, but it's the same type and amount of water each and every time.
As for base-10 vs base-16 I suspect that one is simply because we have ten fingers. If we had eight or sixteen, I think those would be our base numbers.
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with your feet?!?
Even my big toe is less than one tenth the size of my sole.
Bah.
Forget cartoons, comics, music, movies and games.
Get your violent inspiration from the classics, such as the bible.
Stone people to death for such heinous crimes as having the audacity to wear cloth made from more than one material. Feel free to commit genocide simply because people believe in another God than you. Kill all the males of said cities, and claim the women as your wives or slaves.
Or pick from the New Testament. Has lots of niceties:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. - Luke 12:49-51
It works better, until you find that you are now literally chained to the tv, whenever you want to do something.
So now you have to choose between a long cable and its risks, or getting out of the chair just to pick another movie, picture etc.
Personally I much prefer NOT being chained.
I agree - unacceptable.
However - try being in a situation where you are sending documents to an intermediary who translates the document into your client's language (and vice versa of course), and ending up with the document describing the 100 million euro project, CRASHING Word, as soon as the document crosses 100 pages.
Then imagine calling Microsoft's quite expensive business support, asking for help, and flat out being told, that this is a known issue for documents that traverse different language installations, and that there is no forthcoming fixes for this bug, and that the work around is to keep the documents below 100 pages.
At that point, it either becomes a beaurocratic nightmare to keep track of every piece of the 2,500+ page document, OR you simply instate a simple rule of always opening the document in Open Office, saving it in Word format again, and then opening it in Word, after which there were NO crashing issues with the large document. A few layout issues, but no one really cared about that.
Granted, that was about 10 years ago now, and I have no idea why the hell that work around turned out to work, but THAT is a horrible type of bug. It is a show stopper, and quite frankly much worse than a watermark corruption issue.
Now, do competing suites have issues? Yes, they do. But for some reason the relatively trivial issues that they have always trumps the game stopping bugs that probably still exist in MS Office, simply because "that's what everyone uses".
And this applies to all the dominant pieces of software. Doesn't matter what they are.
And in case you hadn't noticed, I seriously hate that attitude.
Considering the number of NBA players in any given year, the likelihood of anyone ever being an NBA player is approaching zero, no matter their height.
Seriously.
If you don't want to ignore them, just stage a counter protest and drown out their crazy.
And if you do counter protest them, don't forget to bring your DICK TASTES YUMMY signs.
And where, exactly, do you get paid money to buy a Chromebook?
MacBook Air starts at $999 for the 11" version, so in order to save 1200 bucks, you'd have to be given $201 when getting the Chromebook.
Sounds like a really bad deal for the manufacturer to be honest.
He was busy giving AIDS to newborns, while his dad was busy convincing people to commit atrocities.
Truth: Most of the CAs are in tiny closed relationships and have no connection to others.
Graph: Huge lump of CAs, making it look like they are all interconnected.
I think you mean T+3 hours. T-3 hours indicates the future.
That being said - at what point is it okay to talk politics? 12 hours after someone shot someone else? 24 hours? Three days? A week? A month? A year? A decade?
Because, believe it or not, the US has seen no less than 17 mass shootings this year, including this one. That's roughly once every 21 days, so if you want people to wait more than a month to discuss politics, then that will never happen. But the first one on that list is from July, so that's 17 shootings in six months, so closer to once every 11 days.
Even worse than that - in the US there are 87 gun deaths a day. That's more than once every 20 minutes on average - so again, if we have to wait more than 15 minutes before talking politics, then that can never happen either.
What you may want to wonder, is why a country like Switzerland, where every household is legally required to have a rifle, has less than one fifth the amount of shooting homicides per capita (0.58/100,000) of the US (2.98).
And if you weren't so blindly upset, you would instead look at the facts freely available to you, and point out that per capita/A, the US (2.98) is in the same "boat" as France (3.00) and Austria (2.94), better off than Finland (3.64), but much worse off than Canada (0.76).
But back to my original point - how long SHOULD you wait before talking gun policy? And does the distance to a crime matter? Does the amount of news coverage it gets matter?
You bitching about it being "too soon" isn't helpful. Tell us when, exactly, it is okay to talk about gun policy, without stepping on your toes.
The thing is, the networks are using your resources to send this to you, and in exchange for the right to do so without interference from other things, they have to live up to certain requirements.
This is just an additional requirement tacked on in response to quite honestly horrific behaviour on their part.
Think of it as being told to turn down the volume at an excessively loud party, because it's pissing off your neighbours.
If the officers didn't have Tasers, would they have pulled their gun and shot her instead?
No? Then they shouldn't have used a Taser - no exceptions.
I can't believe that this isn't the law. They have no way of knowing, if the target is going to die as a result of the Tasering. What happens if the current runs across a pace maker? Insulin pump? Other life saving medical equipment?
Pepper spray has similar issues, but at a slightly less violent level. In my opinion pepper spray should only be used, if the officers would have used a night stick if they didn't have the spray. I.e. not on non-violent protesters sitting in the street rtc.
Again, I really don't understand why this is not the law already.
Why go with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, when you have Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Unicorns, Big Foot, The Loch Ness Monster, Verruca Gnomes, The Hair Loss Fairy and the Eater of Socks.
Get the cell numbers of every single member of the board as well as managers for the company.
Send every one of them an SMS complaining about their plan to spam you.
If one person does it - no big deal.
It 100,000 people does it, well, it's not a big hit on each individual sending the message, but 100,000 messages might just crash their phone. But with a little bit of luck, they're each paying something like 25 cents to receive a text message.
Does she make 500,000 dollars a year? Don't know, don't care.
Does her private account return 3% per day? No.
On average a year contains 250 trading days. 3%/day for 250 days is 1.03^250 = 1,619.22% in a year.
If the trader mentioned put in 100$ of her 500,000$/year salary into her traders account at the end of 2009, she'd come out of 2010 with $161,900. By the end of 2011, those 161,900 dollars would have become 262 million dollars. And by the end of 2012 those 262 million dollars would have become 424 billion dollars. End of 2013 her account will be worth 686 trillion.
Just for reference, in 2011 the entire world's GDP was about 69 trillion.
End of 2014: 1,110 quadrillion.
End of 2015: 1,798 quintillion.
End of 2016: 2,911 sextillion dollars.
Or put another way - by January 1st 2017, she'd be able to give every single person on the planet more than 300 trillion dollars each.
The conclusion is REALLY simple: You are either full of shit or an unbelievably stupid idiot for believing her claim - and I know which one applies to the mods who modded you interesting.
Are you suggesting that socialists like me are arguing, that we should all be given F-16 engines stolen from Israel?
Do you really want a portable computer, where the keyboard alone weighs about two kg and is five cm thick?
Think of it this way:
Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar.
a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages.
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, long term gains only.
Humans do not cause global warming
a) Do nothing, no upfront costs, no long term gains
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, reduces pollution, extends life expectancy (due to reduced pollution), reduces dependence on foreign energy sources.
In my opinion, even if humans have absolutely no impact on climate, I still want us to change our energy sources and energy use - the long term gains from doing so are very much worth it.
Actually, the moment that lock was publicly compromised in this way, it DID become less secure than other non-compromised locks.
A regular mechanical lock is secure, but the moment it becomes public knowledge that it can be defeated with a pen it becomes a lot less secure than other locks.
Locks are supposed to deter and delay. Deter regular people and delay thieves. When the lock is completely compromised like this one, it no longer delays thieves, thus making it useless.