It means that we're pretty sure you're guilty, but can't prove it so you're free to go.
Not guilty implies innocence by it's very nature. You either did something or you did not. If you did it you are guilty of the offence, if you did not then you are innocent.
The way the English and American legal systems equate lack of proof with lack of guilt and therefore of innocence is a failing.
Different professions find that the language is not up to the task of quickly and concisely describing what they do, so they re-use words giving them new meanings, invent new ones and in the process make it difficult for the layman to understand WTF they are talking about. Sometimes deliberately but more often simply due to convenience.
In order to even have a chance of understanding, you'd have to know the meanings of the underlying language, otherwise it's just babble.
It's worth noting that IT professionals are particularly guilty of the practice.
Italian style hard cheese. Sparkling white wine. Cornish style pasties.
Which is fair enough. The manufacturers in these regions are justifiably famous for their products and have spent centuries collectively developing their quality and reputation to the point where they are famous the world over.
You want to make a cheap knockoff and hijack that reputation? Bugger off and build your own name/reputation.
Or are you taking the piss? Nah, you have to be taking the piss. That just has to be a troll, but it's a bloody good one. Impossible not to comment on.
Kudos. Excellent troll.
America wouldn't exist without manned exploration.
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
It's that simple. Not that I believe NASA is the organisation to do the job in space.
On you go. There aren't that many people outside the US. There can't be more than what? A couple of million on the strip of land round the edge of the map.
You want to be fast on the street? 0 -> 60 in under 3 seconds? You can spend a shit load of money and time on a car and never get close, never be better than mediocre.
Or you can get a completely stock bike, not have to make any modifications at all and still be so much faster than the hotrodders that you find it hysterically funny when you hear them talk about fast.
The same applies to computers. You want fast? You have to know what your applications are doing and frankly, they are very rarely sitting waiting for the CPU to become available.
I remember hiding behind the sofa like thousands of other kids in the 70s but Dr. Who is no longer for children and the effects which in those days inflamed childhood imaginations will no longer cut the mustard.
The production values now have to be good enough to compete with Babylon 5, Andromeda, Stargate SG-1, Farscape for the attention of the now thirtysomethings who want Who back. I'm not convinced the Beeb will give the show the budget it's going to need and disappointment is a powerful emotion.
It isn't a difficult issue at all. As long as the parents of the child in question can afford to pay for the treatment and the parents of the dead child have donated the organs there is no conflict.
The irony of this kind of treatment is that genetic defects will tend to accumulate in the moneyed classes while the poor who can't afford the treatment will tend to die, removing faulty genes from the gene pool and increasing it's quality.
I strongly suspect we're going to see this effect from the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa. The current generation are going to be decimated, increasing the prevalence of any mutations in the population which help reduce the risk of infection. This won't happen in the western industrialised nations where drug therapies will be developed and can be afforded. The genetic fitness of the population will improve in the developing and 3rd world and will not improve in the west, this will gradually add a medical support burden to the western economies which the developing and 3rd worlds will not have.
So. Can we? Should we? Sure, if you can afford to pay for the treatment, go ahead. Just expect me to contribute.
There are 3 people with my name at my current organisation and I get much of their internal mail.
People simply can't be bothered finding the correct person, so I know who's getting fired next month, the margin (spectacular) on a bunch of our products and when the new one hits the market.
No calls while not at your desk. Of course you should refuse to take work calls on your personal phone, if you do that you are subsidising the company.
There is no way on *earth* you're ever going to get another airship using hydrogen as the lifting gas. Even with a Halon mix to suppress the radicals required for burning. The movie of the Hindenberg burning is just too compelling, it's the first thing anybody mentions whenever the subject of airships are brought up. It set airship flight back 100+ years. Doesn't matter what actually caused the fire on the original ship, the fact that 2/3 of the passengers survived or the fact that you're actually using helium, they'll bring the Hindenberg up.
Slashdot Mirror
It means that we're pretty sure you're guilty, but can't prove it so you're free to go.
Not guilty implies innocence by it's very nature. You either did something or you did not. If you did it you are guilty of the offence, if you did not then you are innocent.
The way the English and American legal systems equate lack of proof with lack of guilt and therefore of innocence is a failing.
With wooden puppets: Thunderbirds are go... dundundeladee.
Or the Triumph Thunderbird motorcycle.
Oooh. Look not a Ford in sight.
In the real world, not necessarily the one you inhabit, the Thunderbird is a mythical beast from native Indian legend.
The new tower of Babel.
Different professions find that the language is not up to the task of quickly and concisely describing what they do, so they re-use words giving them new meanings, invent new ones and in the process make it difficult for the layman to understand WTF they are talking about. Sometimes deliberately but more often simply due to convenience.
In order to even have a chance of understanding, you'd have to know the meanings of the underlying language, otherwise it's just babble.
It's worth noting that IT professionals are particularly guilty of the practice.
Affordable housing. That doesn't mean rent controlled. It means exceeding demand.
That's 1,300 US dollars. Lets just say that it isn't ever going to be a competitor to Tivo.
The problem is, it's not the same kind of cheese, it might have a similar look and a similar consistency but there the similarity ends.
The Italian Hard Cheese which Safeway used to sell as Parmesan is a poor substitute for real Parmesan. They do taste entirely different.
So you get:
Italian style hard cheese.
Sparkling white wine.
Cornish style pasties.
Which is fair enough. The manufacturers in these regions are justifiably famous for their products and have spent centuries collectively developing their quality and reputation to the point where they are famous the world over.
You want to make a cheap knockoff and hijack that reputation? Bugger off and build your own name/reputation.
Or are you taking the piss? Nah, you have to be taking the piss. That just has to be a troll, but it's a bloody good one. Impossible not to comment on.
Kudos. Excellent troll.
It's that simple. Not that I believe NASA is the organisation to do the job in space.
On you go. There aren't that many people outside the US. There can't be more than what? A couple of million on the strip of land round the edge of the map.
VP: "This is an emergency! The printer is not working".
Me: opens eye and mumble incoherently... "Printer?"
VP: "Yes! Yes! The printer!"
Me: "What printer?"
VP: "How am I supposed to know which printer? I need these figures by morning."
Me: "The name of the printer is on the front, near the display".
VP: "This display? Is that the thing saying out of paper?"
Me: "@$#%*@%#... Put some paper in the printer."
VP: "How do I do that?"
Me: "There is a box of paper beside the printer? Yes. Pull the drawer on the front of the printer and put some paper in."
Do you think it's worth it?
Cut down a tree today . . .
There are plenty of other organisations who don't block referrals.
1971 eh? The other occasion being Soyuz 1 in 1967...
"A general "loser pays" approach would of course stifle that process of creating new law."
I'm sorry, but you say that as if it were somehow a bad thing. But, of course, *Y*AAL.
You want to be fast on the street? 0 -> 60 in under 3 seconds? You can spend a shit load of money and time on a car and never get close, never be better than mediocre.
Or you can get a completely stock bike, not have to make any modifications at all and still be so much faster than the hotrodders that you find it hysterically funny when you hear them talk about fast.
The same applies to computers. You want fast? You have to know what your applications are doing and frankly, they are very rarely sitting waiting for the CPU to become available.
I remember hiding behind the sofa like thousands of other kids in the 70s but Dr. Who is no longer for children and the effects which in those days inflamed childhood imaginations will no longer cut the mustard.
The production values now have to be good enough to compete with Babylon 5, Andromeda, Stargate SG-1, Farscape for the attention of the now thirtysomethings who want Who back. I'm not convinced the Beeb will give the show the budget it's going to need and disappointment is a powerful emotion.
It isn't a difficult issue at all. As long as the parents of the child in question can afford to pay for the treatment and the parents of the dead child have donated the organs there is no conflict.
The irony of this kind of treatment is that genetic defects will tend to accumulate in the moneyed classes while the poor who can't afford the treatment will tend to die, removing faulty genes from the gene pool and increasing it's quality.
I strongly suspect we're going to see this effect from the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa. The current generation are going to be decimated, increasing the prevalence of any mutations in the population which help reduce the risk of infection. This won't happen in the western industrialised nations where drug therapies will be developed and can be afforded. The genetic fitness of the population will improve in the developing and 3rd world and will not improve in the west, this will gradually add a medical support burden to the western economies which the developing and 3rd worlds will not have.
So. Can we? Should we? Sure, if you can afford to pay for the treatment, go ahead. Just expect me to contribute.
OK, so NASA can't save Hubble for less than a billion, I'll bet there are companies out there who can.
Are spending your time on Slashdot why?
There are 3 people with my name at my current organisation and I get much of their internal mail.
People simply can't be bothered finding the correct person, so I know who's getting fired next month, the margin (spectacular) on a bunch of our products and when the new one hits the market.
No calls while not at your desk. Of course you should refuse to take work calls on your personal phone, if you do that you are subsidising the company.
It'd need similar defences to a ocean going ship but yup. Missiles, radar guided machine guns etc etc.
You're not the 1st to suggest this. But...
There is no way on *earth* you're ever going to get another airship using hydrogen as the lifting gas. Even with a Halon mix to suppress the radicals required for burning. The movie of the Hindenberg burning is just too compelling, it's the first thing anybody mentions whenever the subject of airships are brought up. It set airship flight back 100+ years. Doesn't matter what actually caused the fire on the original ship, the fact that 2/3 of the passengers survived or the fact that you're actually using helium, they'll bring the Hindenberg up.
So, Hydrogen will *never* get approval.
Well, you could fairly easily mount munitions on an airship. Don't like that plane trying to get past? Fire off an aim-54 or similar.