In the case the evidence was of a crime about to be committed.
And what crime was that, exactly? It isn't a crime, in and of itself, to be radioactive. So what was their reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime (what crime again?) was about to be committed?
Given how rare it is for people's cars to give off radiation, and the potential for such radiation to indicate that a catastrophic crime is about to be committed, a police officer would be highly negligent if he didn't stop and investigate such a car.
The mere presence of radioactivity, in and of itself, is not enough for reasonable articulable suspicion that the person will set a bomb off. It is legal to be radioactive, remember. Driving while radioactive is legal, too. So what else was there that could trigger reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
In this case, I'm guessing nothing at all; just a reliance on peoples' willingness to be helpful to the police and not that they had any legal authority in this instance. I am willing to stand corrected on this, however.
As an example, in states where open carry of a pistol is legal, that, in and of itself, is not enough to rise to the level of reasonable articulable suspicion (and far from probable cause). Will that stop police from harassing you? Some cops, sure. Most will not be deterred from trying to bully your cooperation.
It made me notice just now that I do a little rhythmic dance with my pointer while I'm reading. Like a nervous tic. I never realized that until just now.
Oh, that must be you just making the sign of the cross over each of us slashdot sinners.
By the way, whenever I see your 'nym "PopeRatzo" I always picture in my head SNL's Father Guido Sarducci reading your posts out loud, complete with hat and cigarette waved around for emphasis.
Might as well censor biology classes, lest they find out about the existence of animals with names such as cock, ass, beaver, crab, peacock and sperm whale.
TITMOUSE!!
You speak of censoring biology, but don't forget great literature, too. Edgar Allen Poe, for instance: "The Amontillado!" ejaculated my friend, not yet recovered from his astonishment.
Yes, it's not the intent to be insulting, but it is perceived as such and so I don't really see anything wrong with changing the name.
How about just dropping the "GNU" portion? Make a cute little Icon of an imp and be done with it.
"What program you use?" "I use IMP. It's cute and powerful!" </drama>
It might look something like this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5RQcRPYRGco/S-mBUh4Ky4I/AAAAAAAAARQ/MgmCFZ50nhY/s400/Little_imp.png (used without permission as a simple example).
The speaker doesn't get to decide whether his words are offensive. That's up to the listeners. If it's well known that a word is deemed by many to be offensive, the speaker ought to at least attempt to be respectful of that, even if he doesn't agree. To do otherwise seems anti-social, antagonistic, a jerk... pick one.
My girlfriend (white) has this one teenage son (white) who was angry at her one day while talking on the phone. He ended up calling her a nigger. Unoffended, she thought about it for a moment and then asked him, "Okay, so what's it like being the son of a nigger?"
It was meant as an offense, but she wasn't offended because she didn't take it as such.
I don't see GIMP as offensive, but I can see how others can and I agree with your point about just changing it to get along better in a wider community.
Good news is that after waiting more than five thousand years, Ã-tzi finally was able to be seen by the ER docs for the wound in his hand and shoulder.
Bad news is that, in the meantime, his insurance policy lapsed.
Compassion cannot exist within an entirely logic-based construct; we must believe that something bigger than ourselves grants to each individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Cite your source. Is this just another assumption being put forth as evidence?
Sorry, it's called the null hypothesis -- namely that christian and non-christian alike all have the same rate of spontaneous remission. It's up to the god-botherers to show that they are unique ("cite their source" of evidence) if they want to make the claim that YAWEH listens to and responds to their medical needs more than others.
You, naturally, won't be able to do this, so we'll all just politely stand aside and let you yammer on about how you're right and have been all along.
Nowhere does it prohibit the carry of firearms except for the sterile (their word) areas of the airport. You are conflating the public areas of the airport with the sterile areas of the airport and, as I stated, they are considered two separate areas when it comes to firearms. Read your link again and pay attention to the term "sterile". Here's the first sentence without all the formatting; it might make it easier to understand:
"Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may not have a weapon... on or about the individual's person or accessible property...[w]hen performance has begun of the inspection of the individual's person or accessible property before entering a sterile area, or before boarding an aircraft for which screening is conducted under Â1544.201 or Â1546.201 of this chapter..."
The key phrase is highlighted. Again, any public area of an airport is governed by that state's carry laws.
Yes, it is price discrimination, but there's at least a defensible reason for it: it provides poor people access to textbooks they wouldn't have otherwise.
I'm a student, in the United States, and sometimes I'm so poor that [i]I couldn't even afford a $9 textbook, much less a $90 one.[/i]
The difference that these bastards are basing the "rich" US versus everyone else? Student loans. To get that $90 textbook, I'm not just paying $90 -- I'm paying $90 plus interest compounded. Theoretically, I could end up paying interest on that one textbook for twenty five years, thanks to the wonderful mafia racket going on in congress.
If the students in India are actually paying $9 for the same textbook, then I'd argue that they are in a better position to afford a textbook than I am.
Federal law makes it illegal to bring a loaded weapon to the airport for any reason, unless you are law enforcement personnel on duty, and ordered to go to the airport. The law has been in place for some time. It doesn't matter if they post that sign or not, they can still arrest you for bringing a loaded or concealed (on your person, not your luggage) firearm to the airport. I think they started posting those signs as a courtesy for state laws. Just to remind people that you should not do so.
Incorrect. There is no federal law that bans bringing firearms to airports, that's badly misinformed FUD you're peddling. Firearms control in the general access of airports is left to the state-specific laws; any firearms past the posted security checkpoints can happen with either a) you being law enforcement with special dispensation or b) you check your firearm in the luggage according to FEDERAL law and some airlines' regulations.
Gee. There are federal laws telling citizens how they can fly on a plane with their firearms but, according to you, they can be arrested simply for showing up to the airport?
As to you living in Florida, that's fine -- each state has their own firearms laws in general, but you're so wrong you're not even wrong when it comes to the federal firearms law.
After months of study conducted for the National Research Council by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), researchers concluded that the unintended acceleration accidents in 2009 and 2010 couldn't be traced to any problems with engines' electronic throttle control systems.
I betcha that NASA concludes it has something to do with the O-rings!
Slashdot Mirror
In the case the evidence was of a crime about to be committed.
And what crime was that, exactly? It isn't a crime, in and of itself, to be radioactive. So what was their reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime (what crime again?) was about to be committed?
Given how rare it is for people's cars to give off radiation, and the potential for such radiation to indicate that a catastrophic crime is about to be committed, a police officer would be highly negligent if he didn't stop and investigate such a car.
The mere presence of radioactivity, in and of itself, is not enough for reasonable articulable suspicion that the person will set a bomb off. It is legal to be radioactive, remember. Driving while radioactive is legal, too. So what else was there that could trigger reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
In this case, I'm guessing nothing at all; just a reliance on peoples' willingness to be helpful to the police and not that they had any legal authority in this instance. I am willing to stand corrected on this, however.
As an example, in states where open carry of a pistol is legal, that, in and of itself, is not enough to rise to the level of reasonable articulable suspicion (and far from probable cause). Will that stop police from harassing you? Some cops, sure. Most will not be deterred from trying to bully your cooperation.
The DVD consortium is not the government, it's corporations.
With the force of law behind it.
She was running Linux.....so calm down.
She was running Linux and had 300 friends? I don't think so.
You have no idea how close that is to the truth.
Scary, huh? :)
It made me notice just now that I do a little rhythmic dance with my pointer while I'm reading. Like a nervous tic. I never realized that until just now.
Oh, that must be you just making the sign of the cross over each of us slashdot sinners.
By the way, whenever I see your 'nym "PopeRatzo" I always picture in my head SNL's Father Guido Sarducci reading your posts out loud, complete with hat and cigarette waved around for emphasis.
Makes my day a little brighter.
Might as well censor biology classes, lest they find out about the existence of animals with names such as cock, ass, beaver, crab, peacock and sperm whale.
TITMOUSE!!
You speak of censoring biology, but don't forget great literature, too. Edgar Allen Poe, for instance: "The Amontillado!" ejaculated my friend, not yet recovered from his astonishment.
Heh. He said, "ejaculate."
Yes, it's not the intent to be insulting, but it is perceived as such and so I don't really see anything wrong with changing the name.
How about just dropping the "GNU" portion? Make a cute little Icon of an imp and be done with it.
"What program you use?"
"I use IMP. It's cute and powerful!"
</drama>
It might look something like this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5RQcRPYRGco/S-mBUh4Ky4I/AAAAAAAAARQ/MgmCFZ50nhY/s400/Little_imp.png (used without permission as a simple example).
The speaker doesn't get to decide whether his words are offensive. That's up to the listeners. If it's well known that a word is deemed by many to be offensive, the speaker ought to at least attempt to be respectful of that, even if he doesn't agree. To do otherwise seems anti-social, antagonistic, a jerk... pick one.
My girlfriend (white) has this one teenage son (white) who was angry at her one day while talking on the phone. He ended up calling her a nigger. Unoffended, she thought about it for a moment and then asked him, "Okay, so what's it like being the son of a nigger?"
It was meant as an offense, but she wasn't offended because she didn't take it as such.
I don't see GIMP as offensive, but I can see how others can and I agree with your point about just changing it to get along better in a wider community.
Good news is that after waiting more than five thousand years, Ã-tzi finally was able to be seen by the ER docs for the wound in his hand and shoulder.
Bad news is that, in the meantime, his insurance policy lapsed.
In the end I will decide to watch nothing. Then who wins?
Hopefully you do.
Compassion cannot exist within an entirely logic-based construct; we must believe that something bigger than ourselves grants to each individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Non sequitur.
Cite your source. Is this just another assumption being put forth as evidence?
Sorry, it's called the null hypothesis -- namely that christian and non-christian alike all have the same rate of spontaneous remission. It's up to the god-botherers to show that they are unique ("cite their source" of evidence) if they want to make the claim that YAWEH listens to and responds to their medical needs more than others.
You, naturally, won't be able to do this, so we'll all just politely stand aside and let you yammer on about how you're right and have been all along.
Thank you for the information; I was hoping it was something like what you stated.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he didn't actually vote either way.
I'm inclined not to believe your oversimplification.
Hey, we're discussing algebra, not geometry!
At my company we employ one guy to sit around and do nothing.
We do too. We call him the CEO.
Hold on a second, I just got an email; I'll be right back.
Thank you for the link.
Nowhere does it prohibit the carry of firearms except for the sterile (their word) areas of the airport. You are conflating the public areas of the airport with the sterile areas of the airport and, as I stated, they are considered two separate areas when it comes to firearms. Read your link again and pay attention to the term "sterile". Here's the first sentence without all the formatting; it might make it easier to understand:
"Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may not have a weapon... on or about the individual's person or accessible property...[w]hen performance has begun of the inspection of the individual's person or accessible property before entering a sterile area, or before boarding an aircraft for which screening is conducted under Â1544.201 or Â1546.201 of this chapter..."
The key phrase is highlighted. Again, any public area of an airport is governed by that state's carry laws.
Yes, it is price discrimination, but there's at least a defensible reason for it: it provides poor people access to textbooks they wouldn't have otherwise.
I'm a student, in the United States, and sometimes I'm so poor that [i]I couldn't even afford a $9 textbook, much less a $90 one.[/i]
The difference that these bastards are basing the "rich" US versus everyone else? Student loans. To get that $90 textbook, I'm not just paying $90 -- I'm paying $90 plus interest compounded. Theoretically, I could end up paying interest on that one textbook for twenty five years, thanks to the wonderful mafia racket going on in congress.
If the students in India are actually paying $9 for the same textbook, then I'd argue that they are in a better position to afford a textbook than I am.
Thank god that I always begin my emails with, "dear fucksack".
Federal law makes it illegal to bring a loaded weapon to the airport for any reason, unless you are law enforcement personnel on duty, and ordered to go to the airport. The law has been in place for some time. It doesn't matter if they post that sign or not, they can still arrest you for bringing a loaded or concealed (on your person, not your luggage) firearm to the airport. I think they started posting those signs as a courtesy for state laws. Just to remind people that you should not do so.
Incorrect. There is no federal law that bans bringing firearms to airports, that's badly misinformed FUD you're peddling. Firearms control in the general access of airports is left to the state-specific laws; any firearms past the posted security checkpoints can happen with either a) you being law enforcement with special dispensation or b) you check your firearm in the luggage according to FEDERAL law and some airlines' regulations.
Gee. There are federal laws telling citizens how they can fly on a plane with their firearms but, according to you, they can be arrested simply for showing up to the airport?
As to you living in Florida, that's fine -- each state has their own firearms laws in general, but you're so wrong you're not even wrong when it comes to the federal firearms law.
I think you should limit your thinking to x86 dimensions.
Exactly! I think that 86 dimensions are enough for anyone.
You're an idiot and should be kicked in the nuts.
Now there's a project that many of us slashdotters would invest in!
Very interesting. And most of the /. crowd fell for it.
Yeah, but she said she had a rockin' tight ass. Seems legit to me.
It must be nice to be so secure in your well-supported arguments.
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
-Christopher Hitchens
Pretty much says it right there; speaking to TFA, of course.
After months of study conducted for the National Research Council by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), researchers concluded that the unintended acceleration accidents in 2009 and 2010 couldn't be traced to any problems with engines' electronic throttle control systems.
I betcha that NASA concludes it has something to do with the O-rings!