Being glib, but every time the media reports some problem with the police (over hear at any rate), they release a statement, then a week later, it turns out that the police lied to try to save their own skins.
There should also be punishments or reprimands if the device is turned off during a shift (malfunctions aside).
There are times when a police officer is on shift but in what is considered private time. - Do we need to record an officer urinating. - Are private conversations over lunch public record? I believe that the camera needs to be on at any time an officer is interacting with the public but not all shift. I agree with the punishment/reprimand if they do not have it on at the correct times. As for streaming to car or station. I believe it should be done where practical but there are places where radio signals do not propagate well even back to the cruiser. There always needs to be storage on the camera that gets downloaded every shift.
The Sahara is in 3.5 time zones. That means on average at least 1/4 of the Sahara is in daylight 15. hours/day. Which also means that all if the Sahara is dark on average 8.5 hours/day.
Lets see it go faster than a crawl. There is no way to push of and get back on the platform. No significant movement. No steering. This just proves that given enough power anything can get off the ground. It is far from doing anything useful let alone fun.
Lets throw tons of explosives and carpet bomb an area that may or may not have mines. The MCLC works because it it creates narrow paths through minefields that can be followed by vehicles. These paths need to be about 20 feet wide. For a ship that path would need to be much wider. MCLC also works by over pressure triggering pressure sensitive mines. It would have no effect on acoustic or magnetic triggered mines.
How to differentiate hate speech and a discussion of hate speech. This is the same issue as the method that tried to censor pornographic images by using skin colour. Too many non-pornographic images, such as medical drawings, were censored.
If he did it and didn't announce it I bet you would be one of the first ones making statements like "Why didn't he announce it? What is he trying to hide? What is he really going to use the money for?" There is a difference between scrutiny and conspiracy theory.
Australia had nowhere near the level of gun ownership as the US. The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Scheme" took 661 thousand long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. The estimates for the US are somewhere between 270 million to 310 million guns in the US. The gun buyback in Australia is minuscule compared with the number that would have to be bought back in the states.
Except that a government that is blamed for letting people die when they could have done something has a difficult time getting re-elected. The point is that no matter what they do the government will be blamed for something.
Do not ban protests und tell everyone that in deciding this there is a risk but in our opinion it's worth it.
That would be great except for the following issues. 1. Not everyone is at or near the protest voluntarily. There are many who have to be there; those who work in the area, those who live there, security personnel, people attending the conference, etc. If any of these get hurt or killed the government will be blamed. 2. Even if people are warned and something happens they, or their loved ones, will blame the Government for understating the risk.
It has only been a couple of weeks and Daesh is still making threats so the tension is still high. Lets ere of the side of safety
Scenario 1; Ban protesting and be labelled a oppressive government. Scenario 2; Do not ban protests and a terrorist attack occurs during the protest. The Government is blamed for the attack as they allowed the protest.
In a large protest it is impossible to differentiate between lawful protesters in masks and terrorists getting ready to attack.
The theater also had a right to not advertisement space to any segment that chose as long as they do not discriminate within that segment. For example they could not take Anglican advertisements but refuse Catholic advertisements.
You missed the point of this whole discussion. This theater chain does not sell advertising time to any religious/political organization. Some say they should be forced to as it is censorship while I, and many others, say they should have the choice. If they chose to sell to religious advertisers then your "suck it up" argument would be valid. That is not the case here. This is a discussion as to whether or not the theaters should be forced to sell to religious/political advertisers. I say no.
Nice goalpost change. The theatre has a right to not make their customers "suck it up". I belong to a group where religion and politics are forbidden subjects. It is quite pleasant.
The difference is that you can change the channel on the TV, change the radio station or read a different article in the newspaper. In a movie theatre there is no option to turn the advertisement off. The audience is captive.
The painting is not the issue. It is the disposal of all the VOCs from the painting process and it looks like the oxidizer is running at too low a temperature and producing too much NOx.
Because the cheating the OP is referring to is emissions from the car and what the article is talking about is emissions from the manufacturing process. They are different issues. It is impossible to do a tear down on another company's manufacturing plant.
But what I am completely against is the notion that it's okay to punish the innocent, in any number or capacity whatsoever, just to make it a little bit easier to punish the guilty.
Do you even look at it from the other side? If it takes a couple of years to come to trial the value of the posted item will be zero at that point as it will have been widely distributed and widely available. Without things like DMCA take down creators will have little viable property rights on digital media.
I just believe that both need to be reformed
You seem to have no better solution to balance the rights of creators and posters. There are two conflicting rights; the property rights of the creator and the speech rights of the poster. Balancing those two can be difficult. It is very easy to point at something and say it is wrong but it is much harder to come up with a better idea. You have done the easy work. How about trying the hard work. What reform would you like to see? (Hint throwing it out and not replacing it is not a reform)
Slashdot Mirror
Being glib, but every time the media reports some problem with the police (over hear at any rate), they release a statement, then a week later, it turns out that the police lied to try to save their own skins.
That is called selection bias.
There should also be punishments or reprimands if the device is turned off during a shift (malfunctions aside).
There are times when a police officer is on shift but in what is considered private time.
- Do we need to record an officer urinating.
- Are private conversations over lunch public record?
I believe that the camera needs to be on at any time an officer is interacting with the public but not all shift. I agree with the punishment/reprimand if they do not have it on at the correct times.
As for streaming to car or station. I believe it should be done where practical but there are places where radio signals do not propagate well even back to the cruiser. There always needs to be storage on the camera that gets downloaded every shift.
The Sahara is in 3.5 time zones. That means on average at least 1/4 of the Sahara is in daylight 15. hours/day. Which also means that all if the Sahara is dark on average 8.5 hours/day.
Trees in the desert? Wouldn't walls high enough to keep out a sandstorm also keep out the sun?
Lets see it go faster than a crawl. There is no way to push of and get back on the platform. No significant movement. No steering. This just proves that given enough power anything can get off the ground. It is far from doing anything useful let alone fun.
Lets throw tons of explosives and carpet bomb an area that may or may not have mines. The MCLC works because it it creates narrow paths through minefields that can be followed by vehicles. These paths need to be about 20 feet wide. For a ship that path would need to be much wider. MCLC also works by over pressure triggering pressure sensitive mines. It would have no effect on acoustic or magnetic triggered mines.
From the article;
That doesn’t sound like opposition to me; that sounds like someone with legitimate concerns who wants to be heard.
Others seem more opposed:
The National Science Foundation should not build this telescope on Haleakala summit.
Eventually is a very long time. Computers will be able to figure out everything "eventually". What we are talking about is what is possible now.
How to differentiate hate speech and a discussion of hate speech. This is the same issue as the method that tried to censor pornographic images by using skin colour. Too many non-pornographic images, such as medical drawings, were censored.
If he did it and didn't announce it I bet you would be one of the first ones making statements like "Why didn't he announce it? What is he trying to hide? What is he really going to use the money for?" There is a difference between scrutiny and conspiracy theory.
Australia had nowhere near the level of gun ownership as the US. The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Scheme" took 661 thousand long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. The estimates for the US are somewhere between 270 million to 310 million guns in the US. The gun buyback in Australia is minuscule compared with the number that would have to be bought back in the states.
Gee, there is gum in the lock. I have no idea how it got there. Those burn marks were not on the wall before. I am not suspicious at all. /sarcasm
Except that a government that is blamed for letting people die when they could have done something has a difficult time getting re-elected. The point is that no matter what they do the government will be blamed for something.
How many people go to street markets in masks?
Do not ban protests und tell everyone that in deciding this there is a risk but in our opinion it's worth it.
That would be great except for the following issues.
1. Not everyone is at or near the protest voluntarily. There are many who have to be there; those who work in the area, those who live there, security personnel, people attending the conference, etc. If any of these get hurt or killed the government will be blamed.
2. Even if people are warned and something happens they, or their loved ones, will blame the Government for understating the risk.
It has only been a couple of weeks and Daesh is still making threats so the tension is still high. Lets ere of the side of safety
Sorry I am not a psychic. What conclusion would that be?
Football match;
One venue;
Few, if any, in masks
Security checks including searches expected
Protests;
Occur all over town
Many protesters with masks and backpacks.
Security checks seen ass oppressive and will be fought against.
See the difference?
Scenario 1; Ban protesting and be labelled a oppressive government.
Scenario 2; Do not ban protests and a terrorist attack occurs during the protest. The Government is blamed for the attack as they allowed the protest.
In a large protest it is impossible to differentiate between lawful protesters in masks and terrorists getting ready to attack.
theatre has right to sell advertisement space
The theater also had a right to not advertisement space to any segment that chose as long as they do not discriminate within that segment. For example they could not take Anglican advertisements but refuse Catholic advertisements.
You missed the point of this whole discussion. This theater chain does not sell advertising time to any religious/political organization. Some say they should be forced to as it is censorship while I, and many others, say they should have the choice. If they chose to sell to religious advertisers then your "suck it up" argument would be valid. That is not the case here. This is a discussion as to whether or not the theaters should be forced to sell to religious/political advertisers. I say no.
Nice goalpost change. The theatre has a right to not make their customers "suck it up". I belong to a group where religion and politics are forbidden subjects. It is quite pleasant.
The difference is that you can change the channel on the TV, change the radio station or read a different article in the newspaper. In a movie theatre there is no option to turn the advertisement off. The audience is captive.
The painting is not the issue. It is the disposal of all the VOCs from the painting process and it looks like the oxidizer is running at too low a temperature and producing too much NOx.
Because the cheating the OP is referring to is emissions from the car and what the article is talking about is emissions from the manufacturing process. They are different issues. It is impossible to do a tear down on another company's manufacturing plant.
Maybe a few thousand plus court costs?
Lawyers fees are included in court costs.
Maybe a few thousand plus court costs?
But what I am completely against is the notion that it's okay to punish the innocent, in any number or capacity whatsoever, just to make it a little bit easier to punish the guilty.
Do you even look at it from the other side? If it takes a couple of years to come to trial the value of the posted item will be zero at that point as it will have been widely distributed and widely available. Without things like DMCA take down creators will have little viable property rights on digital media.
I just believe that both need to be reformed
You seem to have no better solution to balance the rights of creators and posters. There are two conflicting rights; the property rights of the creator and the speech rights of the poster. Balancing those two can be difficult. It is very easy to point at something and say it is wrong but it is much harder to come up with a better idea. You have done the easy work. How about trying the hard work. What reform would you like to see? (Hint throwing it out and not replacing it is not a reform)