I only excluded those who are physically incapable of working, which is natural. And I only added that exception because you are being especially pedantic and pessimistic about your fellow humans.
You are unlikely to see another plane get hijacked in your life time. You might see an attempted hi-jack, but I'd be surprised if it went beyond that. Gone are the days when terrorists could be trusted to take you on a joyride to Syria or Africa. People now assume the worst in such a situation and I guarantee you the pilots will not willingly open the cockpit door.
You can travel without a government issued ID. You cannot refuse to provide a government issued ID if you have one on your person. I've seen people get up to the ID person and indicate they lost their ID and are warned they must go through extra screening, up to and including an interview. I've also seen someone get kicked out of the security line, and told they will not be allowed to board any flights that day, for refusing to show their ID because they did not want to. This was all within the last two years or so.
Meh. That's why they have those degrading toddler leash/harnesses. I'd like to see you lose your kid with that around your wrist. And there is no monthly subscription. Just don't let the kid chew thru the leash when you aren't looking.;)
Honestly, I think this the crux of the problem with your entire argument. Everybody is NOT good at something. As productivity increases, increasingly more people aren't good at anything (effectively). I suspect we'll actually reach a point where nobody is "good at something" - at least nobody human.
To be successful in modern business you generally need a set of talents that is largely genetic in origin, the willingness to work hard, and often the willingness to make ethical compromises. Depending on the job the degree to which you need to do any of those varies - I don't mean to imply that all jobs require all three of those. However, if you want to get ahead and your competition has more of some of those than you do, then you'll probably lose out.
I think the only issue comes from the fact that we need to work to survive in our current society.
I beg to differ. Perhaps you have just not seen what they are good at, or they have not discovered it themselves. I tutored an autistic kid who was not only incredibly strong for his size, but has amazing counting skills and focus, when he finds something that catches his interest. Once he hit high school, he found his passion and has never looked back. He's done great with his life, I am still in touch with his family to this day. I have also seen people who seem to be as dumb as rocks, but can interact with people so well that customers absolutely love to interact with them. The fact of the matter is that people, and their talents, are diverse. We try to put every square peg into the round hole of an expensive college education. Instead we should help people to find their passions and their talents, and then help them to succeed in that. Certainly there are a few people who are disabled by injuries or birth, who do not seem to be capable of taking care of themselves, but the majority of the people in the world excel at something.
I do. You take some 18 year old kid who has absolutely no idea of the value of money or how hard it is to get a professional job, and you ask them to make a $100k+ financial decision, while showing them TV sitcoms with a bunch of college educated 30-year-olds having fun in an office setting and telling them that they have what it takes to be an astronaut and that they should reach for the stars. All of their friends are going to college, and all their teachers say that this is their best option.
So the buck stops where on personal responsibility? The teachers? The parents? The friends? With the mortgage bubble, the people who took out loans they could not afford are equally responsible as the people who gave them the loans. Sure there were some dishonest mortgage brokers, but you don't have to be a math genius to find a financial calculator on the internet and realize your own personal responsibility. Perhaps our educational and family systems have failed to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have a handful of friends with $1600 a month student loan payments. Do I empathize with them? Sure. I've had a very expensive surgery that cost more than my student loans ever did. Do I blame my parents because I was born with a physical ailment that required surgery, when discovered? No. I am an adult, I am responsible for all my decisions, and even sometimes for things completely out of my control.
And as I said in my first statement, I was 18 years old once. I was in that exact same position, only with a girl pressuring me to go to private school. I refused to enslave myself to the cost of my education. We eventually ended up breaking up over that, and our resulting long distance relationship. She's the only ex-girlfriend I've ever wondered "what might have been" with to this very day. But if you gave me that decision to make again today, I'd still flat out refuse.
Which ones, old, pre-retina iPad apps or newer retina iPad apps that will look like shit if they work at all?
This device should have had a retina resolution if it was to exist at all. Now it is just an enlarged iPhone. Only few developers will target this device specifically. It will be a niche device. I can see it being used by waiters for taking orders on a busy terrace. But as a media consumer or internet front-end device it will fail. The screen is a huge step back compared to all other iOS devices except the iPad 2. If Apple really believed in a device of this size, it should have had a retina resolution.
Actually handling retina display is easy. The aspect ratio is the same so all you have to is add two pngs for each custom image, one with whatever name you choose, lets say sample.png and the retina image is just sample@2x.png. It makes the IPA larger, certainly, but some apps allow you to download the retina images as a separate package after you install the app.
You didn't read the part about it being in Victoria, Australia?
I did. That is why I said "fast lane" instead of "left lane." I realize that some people forget to drive on the right side of the road. I do not live in Victoria, Australia. Most Slashdotters do not. I was giving an example of what I would do in the situation stated by the GP, and how the laws I am familiar with would support and, in theory, exonerate me. The second paragraph was me stating that, in the civilized world, a decent judge would punish a police officer for causing dangerous situations, regardless of law.
Of course its not unethical. Its your body, you have the right to do what you want to it.
Steroids in sports aren't unethical either. Lying about using them in order to game the system is what makes steroids an ethical issue, not their consumption. People need to stop telling other people what to do with their own bodies and mind their own fucking business.
You are 100% wrong. First of all, it drives me nuts that Maris's homerun record was broken by someone on steroids. If he had been on steroids, then maybe it would be a far comparison. And regardless of that particular perspective, the problem with performance enhancing drugs is not the effect on the person using them, but on the effect of others. If everyone starts taking steroids in professional football, then if you want to play, you will have to as well in order to perform at the same level. Now all of the sudden you have an entire career path that requires the use of drugs with harmful side effects. Now change it from steroids to Adderall and from football to university studies. You want to get that scholarship so you can afford to go to school? You want to pass the entrance examinations so you can get into your dream school? You better start taking Adderall because that's what your competition is doing. Its unethical. Most people do not want to ruin their bodies in this way. You are changing the field from natural abilities (which is obviously not fair, but everyone is good at something), to who can get the most effect from the most drugs possible. So don't try and argue that this is not hurting anyone but the user. It is hurting everyone who has to compete with the user.
You joke, but it's a serious problem. We have the fewest number of vacation days of any industrialized country, poor health care, and many of our poorer citizens work north of 50 hour work-weeks, some with two jobs, others balancing college and a full-time job (and still wind up hundreds of thousands in debt from student loans).
I have no sympathy for someone with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. I started paying my own way at 16, and I worked 30+ hours a week and took 19+ units a semester so that I could finish school as quickly and as inexpensively as possible (my school charged based on full-time/half-time status, not per class). I ended up only working 10 hours a week my last year so that I could take 23 units per semester and finish early. I took out some student loans to help make ends meet during that year, but I could pay them off tomorrow if I had any incentive to do so (3% APR on a low balance loan, can deduct 100% of the interest and I have other expenses to worry about). A girlfriend of mine wanted me to go to the same private school as her. I got accepted, and when I saw what my financial aid options were like (I didn't get anything anywhere because I wasn't legally emancipated as a minor), I told the school no thank you and went somewhere I could afford. No one sticks a gun to your head and says you have to go to Embry Riddle, Harvard, Stanford, or some other insanely expensive school. If you walk away from school with more loans than your career can support then you should have taken a personal finance class while you were in school.
I also think this Adderall business is asinine. It IS exactly like competitive sports. School is very competitive. People compete for scholarships and all sorts of other things, such as internships, etc. They are mostly GPA based. If everyone is taking these "performance enhancing drugs" then there will be pressure for other students to do as well.
If I were in the "fast lane" I would certainly speed up, and move out of the way. If that officer gave me a ticket, I would ask him for his car's unit number and would be at the courthouse that same day with my ticket in hand asking for a subpoena for his police car's video. In most states, a judge would frown upon an officer who endangered someone to issue a speeding ticket. California, and most other states, have a basic speed law providing you with some flexibility on speed limits for anything under 55mph. If you're going faster than that, you could still claim that you saw it was an unmarked officer, and that you thought he was responding to an emergency, and was therefore tailgating you, and you were trying to get out of his way as quickly and safely as possible in order to allow him to provide whatever emergency assistance he was going to offer.
An officer who has resorted to such tactics should have all of his previously issued citations dismissed and refunds granted, as necessary. I guarantee you an officer would not try such a stunt again, as he would likely become unemployed after that.
Maybe that is the case there but here I see the most unmarked police cars in the FHP (Florida Highway Patrol), and they always get people for traffic violations. One thing that California does right, in my opinion, is case law considers it a speed trap to intentionally use unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. The ruling from the bench is that the purpose of law enforcement is to deter crime, and you cannot do that if no one knows you are there.
If you want to do a really good tail on someone, you can't use an unmarked police car, either. They always buy fleets of cars with specific configurations. You can almost always tell when a car behind you is a police model (whether or not its a civilian you cannot always tell right away). But a smart criminal will see that someone, who looks like a cop car, is following him. I can understand giving detectives and high ranking officers unmarked cars as well. They don't generally do traffic enforcement or handle emergency calls. If you're doing traffic enforcement in an unmarked car, you might as well call it a driving tax, and make everyone pay it. Especially since our legal system has basically said for a traffic infraction you are guilty until proven innocent because the officer is more "trustworthy" than the accused.
You also forget that the Miranda warning is there to tell you that you do not have to speak to the police, and nothing more. Mr Martin or Mr Zimmerman could have either written things on paper, online, or in blood and they can be used in a court of law. It doesn't matter when or where you write your stuff down, if the prosecution or defense find it, and can prove its admissible, it's in. Finally, Miranda Rights do not protect anything you say to the police, at all. The only way you can have something thrown out due to lack of notification of Miranda rights is if you can show that they intended to arrest you, or did arrest you, and asked you to talk without Mirandizing you first. This is why, if you watch videos of police interviews, they almost always ask the person if it is okay to talk to them each and every time an officer comes into the room. However, if the police come by to ask you questions as a witness, or neighbor to a crime, and you say something incriminating during that questioning, you're screwed. That's why there is a YouTube series from an ex-cop, now lawyer talking about why you should never ever talk to the police.
Well My understanding is that all they do is set the privacy bit on the channel and your TV won't display it, even if it can decode it. Is this not true?
I have a friend who was living in Eindhoven. She's now in Belgium but she still bikes to work every day, rain or shine, snow, sleet or hail. She's very fit and just uses special bike tires in the winter.
I do know there's plenty of things done wrong with Android. I hear grumbling about the size: ~5" phones are almost mini-tablets, and are quite a lump to try shove in an average size pocket-- it also makes it pretty awkward to operate one-handed. The battery life is atrociously short. (My running joke is: "Android phones are like Cinderella's night: It may work like a dream but everything shuts down before midnight".)
Are you kidding? I can stick a 7" google nexus, with case in my pack pants pocket, cargo short pockets, etc. If you can't fit a 5" phone in your pocket then you need to stop wearing skinny jeans, or carry a purse. My dad's business partner is a small woman with a Samsung Galaxy Note. It's big, but she just throws it in her purse. She loves the thing, and picked it specifically over the iPhone, which my dad suggested she get.
Except that the SOP between all the big players has always been cross-licensing. Apple came in as the new kid and patented some trivial UI features that were not remotely novel and added them to a phone. Then when other people started doing the same thing, they started suing. There is nothing the iPhone does that the Sony Clie didn't do back in 2000. It just has a nicer display, a capacitive instead of resistance display, and a different OS. But the look and feel isn't much different at all. In fact the Palm Treo had a lot of the iPhone capabilities. The biggest difference I can think of is the Treo had a handwriting are of the screen instead of an on-screen keyboard.
Please. I have an i3 Sandy Bridge that uses les than 10W for the entire system. When its doing work, it might jump up to 23W. I had to get a smaller DC power supply to run the thing because the bigger supply would turn off for undervolt protection when I tried to power the machine on. The CPU's TDP is 35W but most of the time its barely using any power.
"You really have a bone to pick with the US Military complex don't you?"
The positive spin-off effects from the investment in the US Military are well known and you make a good case for them. I don't think people are questioning that there are benefits. It's a question of scale. I mean, 40% of the entire world's spending on the military? Almost 5x the next highest country? 4.9% of GDP?
It's whacked. Completely, utterly, insane. Not in principle, but in sheer size.
Yes a lot of money is spent on the US military, absolutely. Yes it is insane. But most of that money does not go to DARPA. With Solyndra and what not, its hard to say that investing that money in private corporations directly would have the desired effect, either. The nice thing about some of these DARPA projects is that you don't get the prize until after you've spent your own time and money on research. Sure they sometimes pay companies to investigate things, but a lot of these prizes are attempted by people looking for the prestige and the prize, not to put bread on the table every day. I think there are a certain set of people who work harder in these scenarios.
Look simpleton, if all those funds were allocated solely to civilian purposes, we would have fucking cars working on water and a cure for the flu. DARPA is about killing people, not saving them.
I wish I had your ability to view all alternate possibilities to the future.
Oh I forgot, you think that anybody who hasn't white skin and an American passport is an animal. I wish you'll soon get raped by a (fellow?) TSA agent.
Oh you got me bro. I took a year off from my studies and did volunteer work in the 3rd world on my own dime because I hate anyone who isn't white. And all those friends I had from Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, the Pacific Islands, all of them were fake friends. I was just using them for their delicious food and amazing volleyball skills. You really are clairvoyant.
Depends on which aircraft system you're talking about. I can promise you that they have at least one 486 on board. I've dealt with the aircraft for years.
The government LOVES old hardware. Trust me. The AH-64D uses 486 processors. You know what? They aren't the only ones, either. I used to work for a company that designed and manufactured analog and digital video surveillance systems. They are still using 486's in some of their hardware as well (key components that require an insane MTBF to comply with regulations for casinos, military installations, etc). Why? Because it runs nice and cool compared to modern processors, and it is a tried and true processor. Can you imagine launching a robot to Mars with a Pentium chip in it, only to find that Intel still hasn't gotten their floating point right in that old chipset? I'm not saying it's likely that float problems still exist in Pentium hardware, but for the cost you go with what you know works. In 10 or 20 years from now, when Ivy Bridge is the tried and true processor, you can bet that the government and many corporations will be using them in satellites and other mission critical hardware.
You really have a bone to pick with the US Military complex don't you? First of all, not everything funded by DARPA is for the purpose of killing. Perhaps it can be used to help people kill others, but a lot of the time, money and effort they spend goes towards protecting troops. You may argue that we need less military, but if we are going to have one, they might as well be as safe as we can make them. They are working on driverless cars and supply carrying robots precisely so that humans do not have to risk their lives doing these things. You can hate DARPA all you want, but I admire the work that they do to save lives.
Also, I would be willing to bet that the state of trauma healthcare would not be what it is today without the advancements made by military doctors during WWII, Korea, and especially Vietnam. Even to this day they are developing new technologies to keep wounded soldiers alive long enough to make it to a field hospital. Those same technologies are very applicable to people who are shot, stabbed, or in plain old accidents in the real world. So please, try to be more open-minded, and understand that DARPA doesn't just want bigger bombs.
He never got the chance to VETO it no, but he DID have the chance to vote for it, and he did. Twice. Both times after he said he would not vote for such a bill. So what is worse, refusing to veto a bill or voting for a bill you said you would not support? At least if 2/3s of the legislative branch had voted for the bill a president could say "Hey no point in even touching that one." But to say you would not vote for something, and then do so anyway when you are 1 in 100? If you can't handle that kind of peer pressure, then you shouldn't be president. And if it wasn't a peer pressure thing, then he's just a liar, or had his mind changed and neglected to tell the people why.
I would disagree that the purpose of things like target bows are created for the "purpose of damaging targets." Don't get me wrong, poking a hole in a piece of paper can be cathartic, but ultimately the point is to master a hobby that is fun, allows you to spend time outside, and do something physical and challenging. You could turn the challenge into shooting an arrow through a hoop, and having it hit a rock that remained completely undamaged and it would likely be just as relaxing as a paper and hay target. Just because you do not understand the enjoyment or purpose behind modern archery, doesn't mean that people only use bows and arrows to destroy things.
Slashdot Mirror
I only excluded those who are physically incapable of working, which is natural. And I only added that exception because you are being especially pedantic and pessimistic about your fellow humans.
You are unlikely to see another plane get hijacked in your life time. You might see an attempted hi-jack, but I'd be surprised if it went beyond that. Gone are the days when terrorists could be trusted to take you on a joyride to Syria or Africa. People now assume the worst in such a situation and I guarantee you the pilots will not willingly open the cockpit door.
You can travel without a government issued ID. You cannot refuse to provide a government issued ID if you have one on your person. I've seen people get up to the ID person and indicate they lost their ID and are warned they must go through extra screening, up to and including an interview. I've also seen someone get kicked out of the security line, and told they will not be allowed to board any flights that day, for refusing to show their ID because they did not want to. This was all within the last two years or so.
Meh. That's why they have those degrading toddler leash/harnesses. I'd like to see you lose your kid with that around your wrist. And there is no monthly subscription. Just don't let the kid chew thru the leash when you aren't looking. ;)
Honestly, I think this the crux of the problem with your entire argument. Everybody is NOT good at something. As productivity increases, increasingly more people aren't good at anything (effectively). I suspect we'll actually reach a point where nobody is "good at something" - at least nobody human.
To be successful in modern business you generally need a set of talents that is largely genetic in origin, the willingness to work hard, and often the willingness to make ethical compromises. Depending on the job the degree to which you need to do any of those varies - I don't mean to imply that all jobs require all three of those. However, if you want to get ahead and your competition has more of some of those than you do, then you'll probably lose out.
I think the only issue comes from the fact that we need to work to survive in our current society.
I beg to differ. Perhaps you have just not seen what they are good at, or they have not discovered it themselves. I tutored an autistic kid who was not only incredibly strong for his size, but has amazing counting skills and focus, when he finds something that catches his interest. Once he hit high school, he found his passion and has never looked back. He's done great with his life, I am still in touch with his family to this day. I have also seen people who seem to be as dumb as rocks, but can interact with people so well that customers absolutely love to interact with them. The fact of the matter is that people, and their talents, are diverse. We try to put every square peg into the round hole of an expensive college education. Instead we should help people to find their passions and their talents, and then help them to succeed in that. Certainly there are a few people who are disabled by injuries or birth, who do not seem to be capable of taking care of themselves, but the majority of the people in the world excel at something.
I do. You take some 18 year old kid who has absolutely no idea of the value of money or how hard it is to get a professional job, and you ask them to make a $100k+ financial decision, while showing them TV sitcoms with a bunch of college educated 30-year-olds having fun in an office setting and telling them that they have what it takes to be an astronaut and that they should reach for the stars. All of their friends are going to college, and all their teachers say that this is their best option.
So the buck stops where on personal responsibility? The teachers? The parents? The friends? With the mortgage bubble, the people who took out loans they could not afford are equally responsible as the people who gave them the loans. Sure there were some dishonest mortgage brokers, but you don't have to be a math genius to find a financial calculator on the internet and realize your own personal responsibility. Perhaps our educational and family systems have failed to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have a handful of friends with $1600 a month student loan payments. Do I empathize with them? Sure. I've had a very expensive surgery that cost more than my student loans ever did. Do I blame my parents because I was born with a physical ailment that required surgery, when discovered? No. I am an adult, I am responsible for all my decisions, and even sometimes for things completely out of my control.
And as I said in my first statement, I was 18 years old once. I was in that exact same position, only with a girl pressuring me to go to private school. I refused to enslave myself to the cost of my education. We eventually ended up breaking up over that, and our resulting long distance relationship. She's the only ex-girlfriend I've ever wondered "what might have been" with to this very day. But if you gave me that decision to make again today, I'd still flat out refuse.
Which ones, old, pre-retina iPad apps or newer retina iPad apps that will look like shit if they work at all?
This device should have had a retina resolution if it was to exist at all. Now it is just an enlarged iPhone. Only few developers will target this device specifically. It will be a niche device. I can see it being used by waiters for taking orders on a busy terrace. But as a media consumer or internet front-end device it will fail. The screen is a huge step back compared to all other iOS devices except the iPad 2. If Apple really believed in a device of this size, it should have had a retina resolution.
Actually handling retina display is easy. The aspect ratio is the same so all you have to is add two pngs for each custom image, one with whatever name you choose, lets say sample.png and the retina image is just sample@2x.png. It makes the IPA larger, certainly, but some apps allow you to download the retina images as a separate package after you install the app.
You didn't read the part about it being in Victoria, Australia?
I did. That is why I said "fast lane" instead of "left lane." I realize that some people forget to drive on the right side of the road. I do not live in Victoria, Australia. Most Slashdotters do not. I was giving an example of what I would do in the situation stated by the GP, and how the laws I am familiar with would support and, in theory, exonerate me. The second paragraph was me stating that, in the civilized world, a decent judge would punish a police officer for causing dangerous situations, regardless of law.
Of course its not unethical. Its your body, you have the right to do what you want to it.
Steroids in sports aren't unethical either. Lying about using them in order to game the system is what makes steroids an ethical issue, not their consumption. People need to stop telling other people what to do with their own bodies and mind their own fucking business.
You are 100% wrong. First of all, it drives me nuts that Maris's homerun record was broken by someone on steroids. If he had been on steroids, then maybe it would be a far comparison. And regardless of that particular perspective, the problem with performance enhancing drugs is not the effect on the person using them, but on the effect of others. If everyone starts taking steroids in professional football, then if you want to play, you will have to as well in order to perform at the same level. Now all of the sudden you have an entire career path that requires the use of drugs with harmful side effects. Now change it from steroids to Adderall and from football to university studies. You want to get that scholarship so you can afford to go to school? You want to pass the entrance examinations so you can get into your dream school? You better start taking Adderall because that's what your competition is doing. Its unethical. Most people do not want to ruin their bodies in this way. You are changing the field from natural abilities (which is obviously not fair, but everyone is good at something), to who can get the most effect from the most drugs possible. So don't try and argue that this is not hurting anyone but the user. It is hurting everyone who has to compete with the user.
You joke, but it's a serious problem. We have the fewest number of vacation days of any industrialized country, poor health care, and many of our poorer citizens work north of 50 hour work-weeks, some with two jobs, others balancing college and a full-time job (and still wind up hundreds of thousands in debt from student loans).
I have no sympathy for someone with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. I started paying my own way at 16, and I worked 30+ hours a week and took 19+ units a semester so that I could finish school as quickly and as inexpensively as possible (my school charged based on full-time/half-time status, not per class). I ended up only working 10 hours a week my last year so that I could take 23 units per semester and finish early. I took out some student loans to help make ends meet during that year, but I could pay them off tomorrow if I had any incentive to do so (3% APR on a low balance loan, can deduct 100% of the interest and I have other expenses to worry about). A girlfriend of mine wanted me to go to the same private school as her. I got accepted, and when I saw what my financial aid options were like (I didn't get anything anywhere because I wasn't legally emancipated as a minor), I told the school no thank you and went somewhere I could afford. No one sticks a gun to your head and says you have to go to Embry Riddle, Harvard, Stanford, or some other insanely expensive school. If you walk away from school with more loans than your career can support then you should have taken a personal finance class while you were in school.
I also think this Adderall business is asinine. It IS exactly like competitive sports. School is very competitive. People compete for scholarships and all sorts of other things, such as internships, etc. They are mostly GPA based. If everyone is taking these "performance enhancing drugs" then there will be pressure for other students to do as well.
If I were in the "fast lane" I would certainly speed up, and move out of the way. If that officer gave me a ticket, I would ask him for his car's unit number and would be at the courthouse that same day with my ticket in hand asking for a subpoena for his police car's video. In most states, a judge would frown upon an officer who endangered someone to issue a speeding ticket. California, and most other states, have a basic speed law providing you with some flexibility on speed limits for anything under 55mph. If you're going faster than that, you could still claim that you saw it was an unmarked officer, and that you thought he was responding to an emergency, and was therefore tailgating you, and you were trying to get out of his way as quickly and safely as possible in order to allow him to provide whatever emergency assistance he was going to offer.
An officer who has resorted to such tactics should have all of his previously issued citations dismissed and refunds granted, as necessary. I guarantee you an officer would not try such a stunt again, as he would likely become unemployed after that.
Maybe that is the case there but here I see the most unmarked police cars in the FHP (Florida Highway Patrol), and they always get people for traffic violations. One thing that California does right, in my opinion, is case law considers it a speed trap to intentionally use unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. The ruling from the bench is that the purpose of law enforcement is to deter crime, and you cannot do that if no one knows you are there.
If you want to do a really good tail on someone, you can't use an unmarked police car, either. They always buy fleets of cars with specific configurations. You can almost always tell when a car behind you is a police model (whether or not its a civilian you cannot always tell right away). But a smart criminal will see that someone, who looks like a cop car, is following him. I can understand giving detectives and high ranking officers unmarked cars as well. They don't generally do traffic enforcement or handle emergency calls. If you're doing traffic enforcement in an unmarked car, you might as well call it a driving tax, and make everyone pay it. Especially since our legal system has basically said for a traffic infraction you are guilty until proven innocent because the officer is more "trustworthy" than the accused.
You also forget that the Miranda warning is there to tell you that you do not have to speak to the police, and nothing more. Mr Martin or Mr Zimmerman could have either written things on paper, online, or in blood and they can be used in a court of law. It doesn't matter when or where you write your stuff down, if the prosecution or defense find it, and can prove its admissible, it's in. Finally, Miranda Rights do not protect anything you say to the police, at all. The only way you can have something thrown out due to lack of notification of Miranda rights is if you can show that they intended to arrest you, or did arrest you, and asked you to talk without Mirandizing you first. This is why, if you watch videos of police interviews, they almost always ask the person if it is okay to talk to them each and every time an officer comes into the room. However, if the police come by to ask you questions as a witness, or neighbor to a crime, and you say something incriminating during that questioning, you're screwed. That's why there is a YouTube series from an ex-cop, now lawyer talking about why you should never ever talk to the police.
Well My understanding is that all they do is set the privacy bit on the channel and your TV won't display it, even if it can decode it. Is this not true?
I have a friend who was living in Eindhoven. She's now in Belgium but she still bikes to work every day, rain or shine, snow, sleet or hail. She's very fit and just uses special bike tires in the winter.
I do know there's plenty of things done wrong with Android. I hear grumbling about the size: ~5" phones are almost mini-tablets, and are quite a lump to try shove in an average size pocket-- it also makes it pretty awkward to operate one-handed. The battery life is atrociously short. (My running joke is: "Android phones are like Cinderella's night: It may work like a dream but everything shuts down before midnight".)
Are you kidding? I can stick a 7" google nexus, with case in my pack pants pocket, cargo short pockets, etc. If you can't fit a 5" phone in your pocket then you need to stop wearing skinny jeans, or carry a purse. My dad's business partner is a small woman with a Samsung Galaxy Note. It's big, but she just throws it in her purse. She loves the thing, and picked it specifically over the iPhone, which my dad suggested she get.
Except that the SOP between all the big players has always been cross-licensing. Apple came in as the new kid and patented some trivial UI features that were not remotely novel and added them to a phone. Then when other people started doing the same thing, they started suing. There is nothing the iPhone does that the Sony Clie didn't do back in 2000. It just has a nicer display, a capacitive instead of resistance display, and a different OS. But the look and feel isn't much different at all. In fact the Palm Treo had a lot of the iPhone capabilities. The biggest difference I can think of is the Treo had a handwriting are of the screen instead of an on-screen keyboard.
Please. I have an i3 Sandy Bridge that uses les than 10W for the entire system. When its doing work, it might jump up to 23W. I had to get a smaller DC power supply to run the thing because the bigger supply would turn off for undervolt protection when I tried to power the machine on. The CPU's TDP is 35W but most of the time its barely using any power.
"You really have a bone to pick with the US Military complex don't you?"
The positive spin-off effects from the investment in the US Military are well known and you make a good case for them. I don't think people are questioning that there are benefits. It's a question of scale. I mean, 40% of the entire world's spending on the military? Almost 5x the next highest country? 4.9% of GDP?
It's whacked. Completely, utterly, insane. Not in principle, but in sheer size.
Yes a lot of money is spent on the US military, absolutely. Yes it is insane. But most of that money does not go to DARPA. With Solyndra and what not, its hard to say that investing that money in private corporations directly would have the desired effect, either. The nice thing about some of these DARPA projects is that you don't get the prize until after you've spent your own time and money on research. Sure they sometimes pay companies to investigate things, but a lot of these prizes are attempted by people looking for the prestige and the prize, not to put bread on the table every day. I think there are a certain set of people who work harder in these scenarios.
Look simpleton, if all those funds were allocated solely to civilian purposes, we would have fucking cars working on water and a cure for the flu. DARPA is about killing people, not saving them.
I wish I had your ability to view all alternate possibilities to the future.
Oh I forgot, you think that anybody who hasn't white skin and an American passport is an animal. I wish you'll soon get raped by a (fellow?) TSA agent.
Oh you got me bro. I took a year off from my studies and did volunteer work in the 3rd world on my own dime because I hate anyone who isn't white. And all those friends I had from Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, the Pacific Islands, all of them were fake friends. I was just using them for their delicious food and amazing volleyball skills. You really are clairvoyant.
Depends on which aircraft system you're talking about. I can promise you that they have at least one 486 on board. I've dealt with the aircraft for years.
The government LOVES old hardware. Trust me. The AH-64D uses 486 processors. You know what? They aren't the only ones, either. I used to work for a company that designed and manufactured analog and digital video surveillance systems. They are still using 486's in some of their hardware as well (key components that require an insane MTBF to comply with regulations for casinos, military installations, etc). Why? Because it runs nice and cool compared to modern processors, and it is a tried and true processor. Can you imagine launching a robot to Mars with a Pentium chip in it, only to find that Intel still hasn't gotten their floating point right in that old chipset? I'm not saying it's likely that float problems still exist in Pentium hardware, but for the cost you go with what you know works. In 10 or 20 years from now, when Ivy Bridge is the tried and true processor, you can bet that the government and many corporations will be using them in satellites and other mission critical hardware.
You really have a bone to pick with the US Military complex don't you? First of all, not everything funded by DARPA is for the purpose of killing. Perhaps it can be used to help people kill others, but a lot of the time, money and effort they spend goes towards protecting troops. You may argue that we need less military, but if we are going to have one, they might as well be as safe as we can make them. They are working on driverless cars and supply carrying robots precisely so that humans do not have to risk their lives doing these things. You can hate DARPA all you want, but I admire the work that they do to save lives.
Also, I would be willing to bet that the state of trauma healthcare would not be what it is today without the advancements made by military doctors during WWII, Korea, and especially Vietnam. Even to this day they are developing new technologies to keep wounded soldiers alive long enough to make it to a field hospital. Those same technologies are very applicable to people who are shot, stabbed, or in plain old accidents in the real world. So please, try to be more open-minded, and understand that DARPA doesn't just want bigger bombs.
He never got the chance to VETO it no, but he DID have the chance to vote for it, and he did. Twice. Both times after he said he would not vote for such a bill. So what is worse, refusing to veto a bill or voting for a bill you said you would not support? At least if 2/3s of the legislative branch had voted for the bill a president could say "Hey no point in even touching that one." But to say you would not vote for something, and then do so anyway when you are 1 in 100? If you can't handle that kind of peer pressure, then you shouldn't be president. And if it wasn't a peer pressure thing, then he's just a liar, or had his mind changed and neglected to tell the people why.
I would disagree that the purpose of things like target bows are created for the "purpose of damaging targets." Don't get me wrong, poking a hole in a piece of paper can be cathartic, but ultimately the point is to master a hobby that is fun, allows you to spend time outside, and do something physical and challenging. You could turn the challenge into shooting an arrow through a hoop, and having it hit a rock that remained completely undamaged and it would likely be just as relaxing as a paper and hay target. Just because you do not understand the enjoyment or purpose behind modern archery, doesn't mean that people only use bows and arrows to destroy things.