A news story about the capture of a kidnapper mentioned that he was caught because a car dealer had secretly installed a GPS device on his car.
or the article;
Law enforcement officials say a woman who was kidnapped off the streets in Philadelphia was ultimately rescued with the help of a GPS tracking device that had been installed on the suspect's car.
Carlesha Freeland-Gaither, 22, was rescued three days after being kidnapped when authorities spotted a used-car dealer's name on a traffic camera photo of the suspect's car.
Surveillance video released Monday by Philadelphia police shows a man driving down a street, parking his car and walking a short distance out of the camera's view, back towards the direction from which he came. He's then seen apparently chasing a woman across the street before grabbing her and forcing her down the block and into the car.
It was the suspect's car that was involved in the crime and being tracked not the victim's.
That depends on the rate difference between being tracked and not tracked. If it is $20/month one does not need to be rich to afford it. If it is $200/month that would be a different story.
Prior to 9/11, all court cases suggested that it would be illegal for government agents to conduct invasive searches on everyone who wants to travel.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft. After 9/11 the screenings just got more intense. Sorry but customs has been doing cavity searches for a long time.
I wouldn't discount some way for the government to "strongly encourage" all private companies to do this.
"Strongly encourage" is very far from "mandate". There will be many companies who will make points with the consumers by "going against this draconian government policy". There would never be a law to this effect and any politician who ever supported it would be out of office next term.
That's like saying "there will always be an airline which offers service without a required search" since some people would prefer privacy.
That is a very different situation as airlines have no control over how searches are done. Each insurance company makes their own policy and consumers can pick a company with a policy they like.
It's already offered as an option for those who are willing to sacrifice their privacy for access to preferential pricing.
Rates go down when insurance companies can reduce risk. The ability to monitor things like driving speeds can do that.
Mandatory compliance is probably a decade or so away.
Who would mandate this compliance? The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases. Some insurance companies may but there will always be at least one who will not. There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
The suspect knew the vehicle was being tracked as he signed a document stating that fact. He just forgot that fact when he kidnapped someone.
I used to work for a company that tracked vehicle fleets. Every driver knew his truck was tracked yet a driver was convicted of murder when his truck was logged near the site where the ex-girlfriend was last seen and near where her body was found. Another vehicle, different client, was noticed stopped far from it's route in a bad neighborhood. The police were sent and the driver was found selling product out of the back of the vehicle.
People are stupid.
PS. I have no problem with installing the tracker with the knowledge of the purchaser.
You completely miss the issue that to store energy there must be a significant difference between the heights of the two tanks. The equation is volume times drop = potential energy. As the drop decreases the volume has to proportionally increase. If you have two identical tanks on the top of each other the difference in height is at most the height of one of the tanks. In you example a 2 meter difference in height would require a tank 5 times as large as the one I calculated. Also, even a 7m x 7m x 10m is a very big hole. Those tanks would also need to be sized up to 10m x 10m x 5m for a total of 10m x 10m x 10m, an even bigger hole.
My calculations are even on the optimistic side as they are averages and do not deal with peak usage as in the cold winter where your heat pump will use more electricity.
I will use Germany figures as that is what I have access to. The yearly average use of electricity is 3,471Kwhrs/yr. Daily use is average 9.6KkWh. The potential energy is water follows the following formula 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kWh. Since the house is a lot shorter than 100m lets use 10m which means for ever cubic meter of water on the roof you get 0.0272kWh. To store half a day's energy you would need 9.6/2/.0273 = 176 cubic meters of water which weighs 176 metric tonnes. You better have a very strong roof.
How was it abusive? Would it have been better to shut the con down, remove everyone and start over? If you are talking about the wheel chair, disabled person, etc, I doubt that the OP saw the whole story and how it was resolved. How does he know the people were not lying? How does he know that a few minutes later they were not escorted in by staff to do what was needed and then escorted out?
So did his.
There is a big difference between an orderly decline in numbers and the OP's solution that may not have reduced the numbers sufficiently all day. Again, the fire martial compromised by not closing the con and starting over.
That's not doing one's job, which in the case of a public figure is to serve the needs of the public.
Sorry but the the public's need to go to a con does not override the fire marshal's legal duty to protect people from dying in a fire.
Please show us your qualifications pertaining to the application of building capacity laws. As far as I can tell you are making assumptions and stating them as fact. The fire marshal probably opened up the building when he considered the numbers to be close enough to be correct. I bet for the rest of the day the organizers kept very close count on the number of people in the building. One of the reasons the number of entrances and exits are limited is so that people can be counted. HAd the fire marshal just walked away he would be risking his job,
then walked away leaving the organizers holding the bag he just took a shit in.
If the fire marshal walked away when the building was in an unsafe state, ie over capacity, he and the state would be liable for any injury caused by the over capacity. Legally he could not leave the organizers holding the bag.
A better solution would have been to stop letting new people in, while letting the steady stream of outgoers reduce the number.
What a wonderful comment from someone who has never dealt with liability issues. Had there been a fire when there were too many people in the building then the fire marshal and the state would have been liable. Your solution may have taken hours to get to the legal levels. The fire marshal's decision was the quickest way to get the numbers down without emptying the building.
This was the fire marshal being ignorant and inflexible. He's an idiot.
The fire marshal was doing his job and doing it correctly. He even compromised. He could have shut the whole thing down, removed everyone from the building and had them all re-enter and be counted properly.
Blame the organizers who did not follow the law and count the number of people coming in to ensure that the building capacity was not exceeded.
Even NATO members are not required to follow the policy:
Despite the voluntary nature of the ban, NATO — yes, the theater owners group calls itself NATO — expects most of its 32,000 theaters will adopt the policy.
His specialty is microbiology and not epidemiology. He is qualified to find the virus but not necessarily how the virus will spread. His work with Ebola was almost 40 years ago. Most of his recent work has been HIV/AIDS. From the article;
"In Africa, there are many Chinese working there. So that could be a risk for China in general, and I assume that one day [an outbreak of Ebola in China] will happen," said Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
The word "assume" can be translated to "I have no evidence that it will happen but I will say it anyway".
As I understand it cellular death doesn't actually occur due to oxygen starvation for about an hour.
Brain cells are special and very sensitive to lack of oxygen. According to this it takes 5 minutes.
The research evidence is pretty strong that most of the damage is caused by reperfusion.
Care to cite any of this research? That may be true for other parts of the body where crush syndrome can cause death.
The most devastating systemic effects can occur when the crushing pressure is suddenly released, without proper preparation of the patient, causing reperfusion syndrome. Without proper preparation, the patient, with pain control, may be cheerful before extrication, but die shortly thereafter. This sudden decompensation is called the "smiling death."
A person who renders emergency medical services or aid to an ill, injured or unconscious person, at the immediate scene of an accident or emergency that has caused the illness, injury or unconsciousness, is not liable for damages for injury to or death of that person caused by the person's act or omission in rendering the medical services or aid unless that person is grossly negligent.
I think you may have that incorrect. In the Netherlands there is a legal duty to rescue. If you are in the Netherlands and don't help a person in distress you can go to jail. Can you cite the law you describe?
Slashdot Mirror
Paranoid you are.
That's fine, I buy somewhere else, wait to save the money or wait to get my credit rating better.
I guess you didn't read the summary:
A news story about the capture of a kidnapper mentioned that he was caught because a car dealer had secretly installed a GPS device on his car.
or the article;
Law enforcement officials say a woman who was kidnapped off the streets in Philadelphia was ultimately rescued with the help of a GPS tracking device that had been installed on the suspect's car.
Carlesha Freeland-Gaither, 22, was rescued three days after being kidnapped when authorities spotted a used-car dealer's name on a traffic camera photo of the suspect's car.
very well.
There is further evidence from this article;
Surveillance video released Monday by Philadelphia police shows a man driving down a street, parking his car and walking a short distance out of the camera's view, back towards the direction from which he came. He's then seen apparently chasing a woman across the street before grabbing her and forcing her down the block and into the car.
It was the suspect's car that was involved in the crime and being tracked not the victim's.
That depends on the rate difference between being tracked and not tracked. If it is $20/month one does not need to be rich to afford it. If it is $200/month that would be a different story.
Prior to 9/11, all court cases suggested that it would be illegal for government agents to conduct invasive searches on everyone who wants to travel.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft. After 9/11 the screenings just got more intense. Sorry but customs has been doing cavity searches for a long time.
I wouldn't discount some way for the government to "strongly encourage" all private companies to do this.
"Strongly encourage" is very far from "mandate". There will be many companies who will make points with the consumers by "going against this draconian government policy". There would never be a law to this effect and any politician who ever supported it would be out of office next term.
That's like saying "there will always be an airline which offers service without a required search" since some people would prefer privacy.
That is a very different situation as airlines have no control over how searches are done. Each insurance company makes their own policy and consumers can pick a company with a policy they like.
There will always be at least one company who will service those who do not want trackers.
It's already offered as an option for those who are willing to sacrifice their privacy for access to preferential pricing.
Rates go down when insurance companies can reduce risk. The ability to monitor things like driving speeds can do that.
Mandatory compliance is probably a decade or so away.
Who would mandate this compliance? The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases. Some insurance companies may but there will always be at least one who will not. There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
The suspect knew the vehicle was being tracked as he signed a document stating that fact. He just forgot that fact when he kidnapped someone.
I used to work for a company that tracked vehicle fleets. Every driver knew his truck was tracked yet a driver was convicted of murder when his truck was logged near the site where the ex-girlfriend was last seen and near where her body was found. Another vehicle, different client, was noticed stopped far from it's route in a bad neighborhood. The police were sent and the driver was found selling product out of the back of the vehicle.
People are stupid.
PS. I have no problem with installing the tracker with the knowledge of the purchaser.
That will be right after the state mandates an implanted chip for all people. (Also known as "It will never happen". Take off your tinfoil hat)
You completely miss the issue that to store energy there must be a significant difference between the heights of the two tanks. The equation is volume times drop = potential energy. As the drop decreases the volume has to proportionally increase. If you have two identical tanks on the top of each other the difference in height is at most the height of one of the tanks. In you example a 2 meter difference in height would require a tank 5 times as large as the one I calculated. Also, even a 7m x 7m x 10m is a very big hole. Those tanks would also need to be sized up to 10m x 10m x 5m for a total of 10m x 10m x 10m, an even bigger hole.
My calculations are even on the optimistic side as they are averages and do not deal with peak usage as in the cold winter where your heat pump will use more electricity.
This is just a potential energy calculation and does not take into account any loss due to the turbine.
I will use Germany figures as that is what I have access to. The yearly average use of electricity is 3,471Kwhrs/yr. Daily use is average 9.6KkWh. The potential energy is water follows the following formula 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kWh. Since the house is a lot shorter than 100m lets use 10m which means for ever cubic meter of water on the roof you get 0.0272kWh. To store half a day's energy you would need 9.6/2/.0273 = 176 cubic meters of water which weighs 176 metric tonnes. You better have a very strong roof.
Wow, an insult from an AC. I am going to cry myself to sleep now./sarcasm
If you don't have intelligent things to add to the conversation then STFU.
Applying rules inflexibly leads to abuse
How was it abusive? Would it have been better to shut the con down, remove everyone and start over? If you are talking about the wheel chair, disabled person, etc, I doubt that the OP saw the whole story and how it was resolved. How does he know the people were not lying? How does he know that a few minutes later they were not escorted in by staff to do what was needed and then escorted out?
So did his.
There is a big difference between an orderly decline in numbers and the OP's solution that may not have reduced the numbers sufficiently all day. Again, the fire martial compromised by not closing the con and starting over.
That's not doing one's job, which in the case of a public figure is to serve the needs of the public.
Sorry but the the public's need to go to a con does not override the fire marshal's legal duty to protect people from dying in a fire.
There is no way the fire martial would have done anything if they were not over capacity.
Please show us your qualifications pertaining to the application of building capacity laws. As far as I can tell you are making assumptions and stating them as fact. The fire marshal probably opened up the building when he considered the numbers to be close enough to be correct. I bet for the rest of the day the organizers kept very close count on the number of people in the building. One of the reasons the number of entrances and exits are limited is so that people can be counted. HAd the fire marshal just walked away he would be risking his job,
then walked away leaving the organizers holding the bag he just took a shit in.
If the fire marshal walked away when the building was in an unsafe state, ie over capacity, he and the state would be liable for any injury caused by the over capacity. Legally he could not leave the organizers holding the bag.
A better solution would have been to stop letting new people in, while letting the steady stream of outgoers reduce the number.
What a wonderful comment from someone who has never dealt with liability issues. Had there been a fire when there were too many people in the building then the fire marshal and the state would have been liable. Your solution may have taken hours to get to the legal levels. The fire marshal's decision was the quickest way to get the numbers down without emptying the building.
This was the fire marshal being ignorant and inflexible. He's an idiot.
The fire marshal was doing his job and doing it correctly. He even compromised. He could have shut the whole thing down, removed everyone from the building and had them all re-enter and be counted properly.
Blame the organizers who did not follow the law and count the number of people coming in to ensure that the building capacity was not exceeded.
Even NATO members are not required to follow the policy:
Despite the voluntary nature of the ban, NATO — yes, the theater owners group calls itself NATO — expects most of its 32,000 theaters will adopt the policy.
Here is an alternate source for comparison. Notice that offshore wind is 2.1 times as expensive as coal.
His specialty is microbiology and not epidemiology. He is qualified to find the virus but not necessarily how the virus will spread. His work with Ebola was almost 40 years ago. Most of his recent work has been HIV/AIDS.
From the article;
"In Africa, there are many Chinese working there. So that could be a risk for China in general, and I assume that one day [an outbreak of Ebola in China] will happen," said Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
The word "assume" can be translated to "I have no evidence that it will happen but I will say it anyway".
That is a prediction from one doctor and may or may not come true. It is not based on any factual happening.
Spoofing one person has no effect on the press being able to say what they want and protect their sources.
Since when was I only did it to one person a valid legal defence?
Under a warrant the LEO can to illegal things to that one person. A warrant was obtained in this case.
As I understand it cellular death doesn't actually occur due to oxygen starvation for about an hour.
Brain cells are special and very sensitive to lack of oxygen. According to this it takes 5 minutes.
The research evidence is pretty strong that most of the damage is caused by reperfusion.
Care to cite any of this research? That may be true for other parts of the body where crush syndrome can cause death.
The most devastating systemic effects can occur when the crushing pressure is suddenly released, without proper preparation of the patient, causing reperfusion syndrome. Without proper preparation, the patient, with pain control, may be cheerful before extrication, but die shortly thereafter. This sudden decompensation is called the "smiling death."
Luckily BC we have the good Samaritan Act.
A person who renders emergency medical services or aid to an ill, injured or unconscious person, at the immediate scene of an accident or emergency that has caused the illness, injury or unconsciousness, is not liable for damages for injury to or death of that person caused by the person's act or omission in rendering the medical services or aid unless that person is grossly negligent.
I think you may have that incorrect. In the Netherlands there is a legal duty to rescue. If you are in the Netherlands and don't help a person in distress you can go to jail. Can you cite the law you describe?