Do you ever wonder what the world will look like when everyone has their own personal [insert any revolutionary technology created over the past several hundred years]?
Sure, the human race has wondered this on many occasions. And we're still here. Let's hope it stays that way.
Is it even legal to use this in any developed country? Any sort of problem (a delay in the mechanism, failure or bystanders) and you got a terrorism charge.
Good question. IANAL, but my guess would be that the manufacturers are at fault if the mechanism fails and injures unintended victims.
As far as a would-be thief's injuries are concerned, a quick google search suggests that a booby-trap may be legal as long as it is not lethal.
That being said, there may be a liability problem for someone who uses such a device. A would-be thief may be able to sue, depending on the circumstances and local laws. A jurisdiction that follows the doctrine of contributory negligence will not allow a thief to sue, because they were at fault for their injury. A jurisdiction that follows the doctrine of comparative fault would allow the courts to decide to what extent the thief's actions contributed to their injury, and reduce any award accordingly.
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word
I come to bury Nixon, not to praise him.
That being said, while you may think he committed treason in the literal sense, he did not in the legal sense.
Treason is defined in the US Constitution as aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress did not declare war officially on Vietnam. In fact, Congress has not declared war officially on any nation since 1942.
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
TL;DR: The foundation does provide only a small percentage of its donations in the form of grants. But that does not mean that the rest goes to overhead. The overwhelming majority of its funds are spent directly on programs and services that benefit the intended recipients. Only 10 to 20 percent is spent on fundraising and other overhead. That puts it on par with the best charities out there.
If anything in this discussion is biased, it's your graphic. It cherry-picks individual ratings to make it seem like politifact favors dems. One could easily construct the same kind of disingenuous graphic that shows the reverse.
I have been appointed by the entire human race to inform you that you don't know what you are talking about.
Car-insurance companies very much want people to pay their premiums like clockwork, and never get in an accident.
Life-insurance companies very much want people to pay their premiums like clockwork, and live long and happy lives.
Funeral homes? Well, they do serve the dead, but they're run by caring human beings who very much want all of us to be on this earth as long as possible, and then take care of us after our One Bad Day.
I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.
Three things.
First, I think Trump thrives on attacks from the media. He loves having an excuse to vilify them and energize his base.
Second, it is congress, not the media, that impeaches a president.
And third, congress didn't hesitate to impeach Bill Clinton, rightly or wrongly. So, I don't think being a Clinton is a shield against impeachment.
Clinton - lies, kills, schemes, physically sick and potentially sociopath (she does pretend that she cares about people) Trumps - lies, assaults women, cheats, psychologically not stable
Oh please. DeM exists in all genres of literature.
Well, almost all, and in varying degrees. For example. you won't often see DeM used in a spy or crime novel.
SciFi no more supports it than English literature or modern:
I have to disagree. SciFi allows for more use of DeM because the genre introduces fantastic or futuristic situations and technologies that suspend judgement. Introducing DeM into historical or contemporary contexts requires more of a stretch of faith.
Oliver Twist, Lord of the Flies,
Neither of which contain any examples of DeM. (Dream sequences and improbable but possible events don't count.) You'd be better off citing examples of Shakespere's plays that contain ghosts and/or witches.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you ever wonder what the world will look like when everyone has their own personal [insert any revolutionary technology created over the past several hundred years]?
Sure, the human race has wondered this on many occasions. And we're still here. Let's hope it stays that way.
Is it even legal to use this in any developed country? Any sort of problem (a delay in the mechanism, failure or bystanders) and you got a terrorism charge.
Good question. IANAL, but my guess would be that the manufacturers are at fault if the mechanism fails and injures unintended victims.
As far as a would-be thief's injuries are concerned, a quick google search suggests that a booby-trap may be legal as long as it is not lethal.
https://www.google.com/search?...
That being said, there may be a liability problem for someone who uses such a device. A would-be thief may be able to sue, depending on the circumstances and local laws. A jurisdiction that follows the doctrine of contributory negligence will not allow a thief to sue, because they were at fault for their injury. A jurisdiction that follows the doctrine of comparative fault would allow the courts to decide to what extent the thief's actions contributed to their injury, and reduce any award accordingly.
Perhaps this invention will win the IgNobel prize for Peace, like the flame-throwing car alarm did in 1999.
Many studies have indicated that people are happier when they feel well-off compared to others as opposed to being well-off in an absolute sense.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://livingeconomics.org/art...
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-mo...
http://content.time.com/time/h...
It's a bit distressing to learn that we get a kick from schadenfreude, but there it is.
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word
I come to bury Nixon, not to praise him.
That being said, while you may think he committed treason in the literal sense, he did not in the legal sense.
Treason is defined in the US Constitution as aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress did not declare war officially on Vietnam. In fact, Congress has not declared war officially on any nation since 1942.
The polls are all being done by the same media that's biased against Trump.
Really?
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
Yes, the Saudis gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library. But they gave the same amount for George H. W. Bush's library.
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity. The bulk of every dollar is overhead
That's based on a misreading of the Foundation's tax forms.
TL;DR: The foundation does provide only a small percentage of its donations in the form of grants. But that does not mean that the rest goes to overhead. The overwhelming majority of its funds are spent directly on programs and services that benefit the intended recipients. Only 10 to 20 percent is spent on fundraising and other overhead. That puts it on par with the best charities out there.
If anything in this discussion is biased, it's your graphic. It cherry-picks individual ratings to make it seem like politifact favors dems. One could easily construct the same kind of disingenuous graphic that shows the reverse.
Politifact has been praised and criticized by both sides.
Of the two main candidates in this race, one of them has a much more difficult relationship with the truth.
So, it would hardly be surprising if Google's fact-check alarm went off more frequently with that candidate.
That has blown my mind.
What about dark matter ? Does anyone know how that figures into this ?
It doesn't.
Dark matter is used to explain the rotation rates of galaxies (there isn't enough visible matter to account for those rates.)
This study says we have more galaxies than we thought, not more stars within them than we thought.
"Moses Bar" would have been even better!
"Let my people go! What, you turned them all into bars?"
Why not? Soylent GREEN was made out of people. The other types of soylent weren't.
So, what was soylent brown made from?
On second thought, I don't want to know.
I have been appointed by the entire human race to inform you that you don't know what you are talking about.
Car-insurance companies very much want people to pay their premiums like clockwork, and never get in an accident.
Life-insurance companies very much want people to pay their premiums like clockwork, and live long and happy lives.
Funeral homes? Well, they do serve the dead, but they're run by caring human beings who very much want all of us to be on this earth as long as possible, and then take care of us after our One Bad Day.
Thanks for the improvement.
John Anderton, you could use a Guinness right about now.
It's easier for someone you're really scared of to control the fool.
FTFY
I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.
Three things.
First, I think Trump thrives on attacks from the media. He loves having an excuse to vilify them and energize his base.
Second, it is congress, not the media, that impeaches a president.
And third, congress didn't hesitate to impeach Bill Clinton, rightly or wrongly. So, I don't think being a Clinton is a shield against impeachment.
Clinton - lies, kills, schemes, physically sick and potentially sociopath (she does pretend that she cares about people)
Trumps - lies, assaults women, cheats, psychologically not stable
Who do you want more?
Let me just leave this right here.
Oh please. DeM exists in all genres of literature.
Well, almost all, and in varying degrees. For example. you won't often see DeM used in a spy or crime novel.
SciFi no more supports it than English literature or modern:
I have to disagree. SciFi allows for more use of DeM because the genre introduces fantastic or futuristic situations and technologies that suspend judgement. Introducing DeM into historical or contemporary contexts requires more of a stretch of faith.
Oliver Twist, Lord of the Flies,
Neither of which contain any examples of DeM. (Dream sequences and improbable but possible events don't count.) You'd be better off citing examples of Shakespere's plays that contain ghosts and/or witches.
Perhaps SciFi is poo-pooed by literary types because it too easily supports Deus ex machina as a device for plot development.
Discuss.
You might enjoy this poem.
Apparently it was adapted from this original.
used daily by billions of people
Uh ... I can think of something that billions of people "use" daily. And that, plus a robotic arm, equals Internet Rule 34.
'Scuse me, I'm going to brush my teeth.
In other news, Slashdot has announced technology that duplicates posts every 60 minutes, to maintain site-traffic.
What is this, a Crazy Eddie commercial?
*Our encryption is inasne!*
I'm kind of surprised that nobody got the reference.