Yet again Wikipedia is not the final word on the world's knowledge. There is one main issue with calling a limb an "organ" is that it contains only part of another well difined "organ"; skin. Skin the the biggest organ in the human body and one can not have part of one organ be part of another organ. If you want to bring up the veins and arteries; ther are not organs but a system.
Another point is that the fact that there are bones in a limb breaks the "structural unit" clause. The arm bones are only part of the structural unit of the skeletal system.
Is the digestive system an organ even though it matches the broades interpretation of the definition? No, it is made up of several organs, esophagous, stomach, large intestines, small intestines, bowel.
Here is a better definition from a medical site; "Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. The organs of the human body include the eye, ear, heart, lungs, and liver." Sorry but movement is not a "special function".
Which designate who is allowed on the planes. An airport is a port of exit and a port of entry. As such it may be linked to all trade and transportation comming and going at the airport. For example, in Canada all international airports are policed by the RCMP and not the local police as they are ports of entry and ports of exit with respect to Canada. That logic may not apply to US airports but it might.
Interstate Trade and Commerce is a a power deligated to the Federal GOvernment and since planes fly from state to State that may apply.
An example of this is a certain state legislated that all trucks must have rounded mudflaps (it turned out that the proponant of the bill had interest in the only company that made rounded mudflaps in the US). The law was overturned due the the Federal concern over Interstate Trade.
As with all cases intent is the key. By mearly existing the defendant is not intending to commit an action that breaks the restraining order. By posting inappropriate things on his Facebook page the intent is clear and the action plus intent is what breaks the restraining order.
This sounds very familliar to another case a few months back. The thing to remember is that the guy has a restraining order in effect that he is restrained from doing anything to cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.” His wife does not have to directly read the posts on the site to be harrassed or annoyed. They probably have mutual friend who could forward the posts; indirect harassment and or annoyance.
As for requiring to post an apology, there are many cases where people and companies have been ordered to publically apologize for their conduct. Such apologies need to be done in the same venue as the damage. In this case the issue was caused on Facebook and needs to be addresses on Facebook.
"Freedom of speech" has never been completely free. There have always been limits including, as in this case, court orders. The main thing to remember is that when under a restraing order follow it and shut up.
The issue with using a priority level is that there can be many projects with the same priority. The better way is to have an ordered list of projects where the order is the fine level of priority in the broad category. This allows a few things to happen. 1. The Dev manager can the allocate time to each project and when he runs out of dev time it becomes obvious as to what will get done and what will not. 2. It puts the onus on the project proposer to make the case as to why their project should get more resources. 3. It allows the departments to allocate some of their budget to hire contractors to fulfill their needs without impacting the Dev budget too much.
Actually that is the rub. There is no evidence that the scientists even talked to the politician after he made the inaccurate statement so the politician himself could correct it. There is also no evidence that there was ny pressure on the scientists not to talk. Sure, in most political situation there is some pressure to keep the good image of politicians but no evidence of actual pressure in this case.
It is just as likely that the scientists explained their report to the politician and never listened to how he conveyed the message to the public. They could have been to "busy" with their research to actually follow up and check. That would require interest in news and current events which can be difficult when one lives in an ivory tower.
What charge to you think should have been laid? By the way the penalty in Italy for manslaughter is 3 to 15 years.
You inability to resist manipulation is your problem and not the advertisers. Take responsibility for your actions and stop whining "they made me buy it". As with every purchase everyone should ask themselves "do I need this?" If the answer is no then don't buy it. It is your choice.
BS. If the scientists lose their jobs after telling the truth sue the government and bring the truth to light. If a job is more important that your principals then every statement you make is suspect; is it true or what the politicians want me to say? A scientist without principles is just a mouthpiece.
Care to cite examples? Perhaps is the scientists were vocal enough to the media it would be the politician losing the job and not the scientist. Perhaps if the scientist came out first with "It appears that the politician misinterpreted out technical talk and got the wrong impression". If at that point the politician threatened their jobs they would follow up with "We have been threatened with firing for telling the truth. It appears that the politician in more concerned with being right than protecting people's lives. Do you really want to be represented by him?" I bet that any reasonable political party would get rid of the politician very quickly. Use the press and the truth to bring idiot politicians to light.
On the other hand if you do not want the stuff then don't buy it. I would like it if a store sent me coupons for stuff that I want to buy. How do they do that and not send me coupons for stuff I don't want to buy? They data mine and try to figure out my purchase tendancies. So by data mining they are sending fewer useless coupons and more useful coupons. Sure they get it wrong sometimes. Just because I buy a lot of diapers does not mean that I have kids; it could mean that I am giving them to a single mothers' support group. Data mining is not an exact science it just reveales tendancies.
That kind of link would only be possible under the following conditions; 1. You would have to purchase the exact same list every time you went there. A different list would create a instance of you car there but no identifying list. 2. Noone else could purchase exactly the same list of items; An instance of the list being purchased without you car being there. At best there could be a probable link.
The other issue is that there are hundreds of different lists purchased every day and hundreds of different cars parked in the lot ever day which creates a huge mamy to many relationship. Trying to link lists to cars is almot impossible.
Who is to say you even went into the store as many Targets are in malls.
In other words the political appointees feel their jobs are more important than people's lives. It is called doing what is right to protect lives and if a scientist does not have enough backbone to do that they should not be scientists consulting on safety issues.
That is exactly waht engineers do every day. They build things, make mistakes and when nature test the building and it fails when within design parameters the engineer is liable. The issue is the enginner stated the building wiuld not fail under certain conditions and if it does the engineer is liable.
What got the scientists in hot water was that, upon hearing the politician's interpretation of their findings, they did not correct him. Had they spoken up the misinformation would have been corrected and the people would not have the false sence of security.
Lets see, Arab Revolt 1916-1918. Founding of Modern Saudi Arabia 1932. What Happened in those 14 years? The British and French were busy dealing with Egypt, Palestine and Transjordan and didn't do much at all on the Arabian Peninsula. It is also strange that if the King of Saudi Arabia was installed by the British then why would there have to be the 1927 Treaty of Jeddah to prevent Saudi attacks on neighboring British Protectorates? Yes the cause of Saudi Arabia was furthered by the downfall of the Ottoman Empire but, before the discovery of oil, Saudi Arabia was just a desert and few cared about it.
Oh no not another secretive meeting where everyone can not comment on every word said by every participant; It must be a conspiracy!!! Get out you pitchforks and storm the castle!!!
Get real. Maybe the industry wants to talk about things without airing their dirty laundry. Maybe they want to convince the nutbars in their group not to go too far. Maybe they want to iron out wording so It is not too far reaching. They may come out with something like SOPA but until then you have no right to listen to the conversation. At that point start the protest; before that wait.
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that rules by a king who was installed by the British.
Care to cite something about this. According to this article Suadi Arabia was formed by conquest and not the British. In fact fear of the British kept the country fom being larger. You may be confusing Saudi Arabia with Jordan.
It is not surprising that the tin hat brigade has dominated this discussion but here are a few things that drones cad do well that do not include arming them or spying on people. 1. Surveying dangerous areas such as train derailments, chemical plant fires, etc. 2. Surveying areas after natural disasters such as tornadoes. 3. Searching for lost people. 4. Keeping track of livestock on the open range. 5. Surveying crops for disease and lack of water. 6. Tracking and observing wildlife with minimal disturbance. 7. Tracking the spread of oils slicks. 8. Replace the dangerous job of fire spotter pilot 9. etc There are many valid uses for drones that can not be done today due to the FAA requiring a special certificate to operate one. The new law will change that and allow drones to be used in many more instances.
Destruction of property charges apply even to drones. So would illegal discharge of a firearm. Use of a firearm must be justified by threat of imminent bodily harm and a drone at 400 feet does not create that threat.
Did you read the article before posting? All unmanned drones operate under certificates issued by the FAA. These certificates cover specific areas, specific times and specific operations. For example if a drone has a certificate that covers highway surveillance in one county that drone can not be used to search for a lost person in another county as that is beyond the certificate.The new bill is designed to allow drones to be licensed like other aircraft.
Close but not quite. Here is a quote from the referenced article: "subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.". By that quite if there are no people or structures around the minimum becomes whatever does not cause a hazard.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet again Wikipedia is not the final word on the world's knowledge. There is one main issue with calling a limb an "organ" is that it contains only part of another well difined "organ"; skin. Skin the the biggest organ in the human body and one can not have part of one organ be part of another organ. If you want to bring up the veins and arteries; ther are not organs but a system.
Another point is that the fact that there are bones in a limb breaks the "structural unit" clause. The arm bones are only part of the structural unit of the skeletal system.
Is the digestive system an organ even though it matches the broades interpretation of the definition? No, it is made up of several organs, esophagous, stomach, large intestines, small intestines, bowel.
Here is a better definition from a medical site;
"Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. The organs of the human body include the eye, ear, heart, lungs, and liver."
Sorry but movement is not a "special function".
If federal law makes the patdown legal then the federal law overrides the state law and the prosecution can not proceed
They are trying to regulate the TSA searches.
Which designate who is allowed on the planes. An airport is a port of exit and a port of entry. As such it may be linked to all trade and transportation comming and going at the airport. For example, in Canada all international airports are policed by the RCMP and not the local police as they are ports of entry and ports of exit with respect to Canada. That logic may not apply to US airports but it might.
Interstate Trade and Commerce is a a power deligated to the Federal GOvernment and since planes fly from state to State that may apply.
An example of this is a certain state legislated that all trucks must have rounded mudflaps (it turned out that the proponant of the bill had interest in the only company that made rounded mudflaps in the US). The law was overturned due the the Federal concern over Interstate Trade.
As with all cases intent is the key. By mearly existing the defendant is not intending to commit an action that breaks the restraining order. By posting inappropriate things on his Facebook page the intent is clear and the action plus intent is what breaks the restraining order.
This sounds very familliar to another case a few months back. The thing to remember is that the guy has a restraining order in effect that he is restrained from doing anything to cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.” His wife does not have to directly read the posts on the site to be harrassed or annoyed. They probably have mutual friend who could forward the posts; indirect harassment and or annoyance.
As for requiring to post an apology, there are many cases where people and companies have been ordered to publically apologize for their conduct. Such apologies need to be done in the same venue as the damage. In this case the issue was caused on Facebook and needs to be addresses on Facebook.
"Freedom of speech" has never been completely free. There have always been limits including, as in this case, court orders. The main thing to remember is that when under a restraing order follow it and shut up.
The issue with using a priority level is that there can be many projects with the same priority. The better way is to have an ordered list of projects where the order is the fine level of priority in the broad category. This allows a few things to happen.
1. The Dev manager can the allocate time to each project and when he runs out of dev time it becomes obvious as to what will get done and what will not.
2. It puts the onus on the project proposer to make the case as to why their project should get more resources.
3. It allows the departments to allocate some of their budget to hire contractors to fulfill their needs without impacting the Dev budget too much.
And the fourth post will be from management as to their regret in your choice to "seek opportunities elsewhere".
Being a lying idiot is very obvious and gets you nowhere.
Actually that is the rub. There is no evidence that the scientists even talked to the politician after he made the inaccurate statement so the politician himself could correct it. There is also no evidence that there was ny pressure on the scientists not to talk. Sure, in most political situation there is some pressure to keep the good image of politicians but no evidence of actual pressure in this case.
It is just as likely that the scientists explained their report to the politician and never listened to how he conveyed the message to the public. They could have been to "busy" with their research to actually follow up and check. That would require interest in news and current events which can be difficult when one lives in an ivory tower.
What charge to you think should have been laid? By the way the penalty in Italy for manslaughter is 3 to 15 years.
You inability to resist manipulation is your problem and not the advertisers. Take responsibility for your actions and stop whining "they made me buy it". As with every purchase everyone should ask themselves "do I need this?" If the answer is no then don't buy it. It is your choice.
BS. If the scientists lose their jobs after telling the truth sue the government and bring the truth to light. If a job is more important that your principals then every statement you make is suspect; is it true or what the politicians want me to say? A scientist without principles is just a mouthpiece.
Care to cite examples? Perhaps is the scientists were vocal enough to the media it would be the politician losing the job and not the scientist. Perhaps if the scientist came out first with "It appears that the politician misinterpreted out technical talk and got the wrong impression". If at that point the politician threatened their jobs they would follow up with "We have been threatened with firing for telling the truth. It appears that the politician in more concerned with being right than protecting people's lives. Do you really want to be represented by him?" I bet that any reasonable political party would get rid of the politician very quickly. Use the press and the truth to bring idiot politicians to light.
On the other hand if you do not want the stuff then don't buy it. I would like it if a store sent me coupons for stuff that I want to buy. How do they do that and not send me coupons for stuff I don't want to buy? They data mine and try to figure out my purchase tendancies. So by data mining they are sending fewer useless coupons and more useful coupons. Sure they get it wrong sometimes. Just because I buy a lot of diapers does not mean that I have kids; it could mean that I am giving them to a single mothers' support group. Data mining is not an exact science it just reveales tendancies.
That kind of link would only be possible under the following conditions;
1. You would have to purchase the exact same list every time you went there. A different list would create a instance of you car there but no identifying list.
2. Noone else could purchase exactly the same list of items; An instance of the list being purchased without you car being there.
At best there could be a probable link.
The other issue is that there are hundreds of different lists purchased every day and hundreds of different cars parked in the lot ever day which creates a huge mamy to many relationship. Trying to link lists to cars is almot impossible.
Who is to say you even went into the store as many Targets are in malls.
In other words the political appointees feel their jobs are more important than people's lives. It is called doing what is right to protect lives and if a scientist does not have enough backbone to do that they should not be scientists consulting on safety issues.
That is exactly waht engineers do every day. They build things, make mistakes and when nature test the building and it fails when within design parameters the engineer is liable. The issue is the enginner stated the building wiuld not fail under certain conditions and if it does the engineer is liable.
What got the scientists in hot water was that, upon hearing the politician's interpretation of their findings, they did not correct him. Had they spoken up the misinformation would have been corrected and the people would not have the false sence of security.
And the article countering this "study":
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/
Lets see, Arab Revolt 1916-1918. Founding of Modern Saudi Arabia 1932. What Happened in those 14 years? The British and French were busy dealing with Egypt, Palestine and Transjordan and didn't do much at all on the Arabian Peninsula. It is also strange that if the King of Saudi Arabia was installed by the British then why would there have to be the 1927 Treaty of Jeddah to prevent Saudi attacks on neighboring British Protectorates? Yes the cause of Saudi Arabia was furthered by the downfall of the Ottoman Empire but, before the discovery of oil, Saudi Arabia was just a desert and few cared about it.
Oh no not another secretive meeting where everyone can not comment on every word said by every participant; It must be a conspiracy!!! Get out you pitchforks and storm the castle!!!
Get real. Maybe the industry wants to talk about things without airing their dirty laundry. Maybe they want to convince the nutbars in their group not to go too far. Maybe they want to iron out wording so It is not too far reaching. They may come out with something like SOPA but until then you have no right to listen to the conversation. At that point start the protest; before that wait.
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that rules by a king who was installed by the British.
Care to cite something about this. According to this article Suadi Arabia was formed by conquest and not the British. In fact fear of the British kept the country fom being larger. You may be confusing Saudi Arabia with Jordan.
It is not surprising that the tin hat brigade has dominated this discussion but here are a few things that drones cad do well that do not include arming them or spying on people.
1. Surveying dangerous areas such as train derailments, chemical plant fires, etc.
2. Surveying areas after natural disasters such as tornadoes.
3. Searching for lost people.
4. Keeping track of livestock on the open range.
5. Surveying crops for disease and lack of water.
6. Tracking and observing wildlife with minimal disturbance.
7. Tracking the spread of oils slicks.
8. Replace the dangerous job of fire spotter pilot
9. etc
There are many valid uses for drones that can not be done today due to the FAA requiring a special certificate to operate one. The new law will change that and allow drones to be used in many more instances.
Destruction of property charges apply even to drones. So would illegal discharge of a firearm. Use of a firearm must be justified by threat of imminent bodily harm and a drone at 400 feet does not create that threat.
Did you read the article before posting? All unmanned drones operate under certificates issued by the FAA. These certificates cover specific areas, specific times and specific operations. For example if a drone has a certificate that covers highway surveillance in one county that drone can not be used to search for a lost person in another county as that is beyond the certificate.The new bill is designed to allow drones to be licensed like other aircraft.
Close but not quite. Here is a quote from the referenced article: "subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.". By that quite if there are no people or structures around the minimum becomes whatever does not cause a hazard.