and yet, the rate of emigration away from the US has steadily climbed over the last 5 years with 2012 seeing the first drop in net migrations since 2008. It is enough of an issue that many world news agencies have written several pieces on expats, the reasons and the numbers recently.
and the US versions, although less safe, carry more supplies, are capable of handling more situations and are more easily recognizable in high traffic situations than their smaller European counterparts.
You're joking right? Most farms are actually barely making profit, the ones that do are largely owned by corporations and even then aren't nearly as profitable as you would like to think. Especially when you have companies like Monsanto bending them over a barrel over seed prices and lawsuits. The cost to produce crops has been steadily rising (Johnson, 2012)(USDA ERS)
Same here. The major issue I had with WebOS was quite simply the lack of software/apps and the general unavailability of any free apps. Beyond that, it really works wonderfully on my touchpad, though it spends 99% of it's time booted into Android...
Yes, you can install linux. On desktops, they usually just put a lock on the case so that you can't modify the hardware but software wise, you can do pretty much anything you want.
Same here, fragged the new dell laptop from windows 8 to windows 7 as a vanilla install and just plugged in the appropriate drivers. I do this for any and all friends/customers that want a cheap machine but dont want the bloatware.
They are talking about a specific program where the EU hands over financial data on suspected terrorists to the US. They will no longer be handing that data over willfully.
The flaw in your logic is the same flaw that the ISPs try to use to justify these types of things. You are assuming that there are 100 users on an OC48 burning up the bandwidth all day long. The facts do not support this. Just like with electricity, water and gas, there are peak times and there are times where almost no data is being transferred and they rely on that to sell that 2048mb line to not 100, but more like 1000 people. Additionally, they rely on the old guy that uses the tubes for nothing more than checking his email and looking at new pics of his grand kids to compensate for the guys like us that watch netflix, hulu etc. They oversell their services like you wouldnt believe and they are hugely profitable for it. Verizon
This "un-boot" has everything of the original - except for the charm of the premise, the ethic of storytelling, and the charisma of the players.
True, the charisma is missing, but the story is there. It's not as good as what Mr. Roddenberry wrote, but it is close. They got the good natured ribbing of Spock by McCoy and Kirk, they got their ethic and moral point across, and they created a drama that brought about the reveal of the moral. All in all, I thought it was good, now just replace Bones with a better Bones, hone the characters a bit more and you have a decent series.
So far, in just one day of using the Win 8 laptop for work, I had to toggle between metro and desktop enough that it made me want to tear out someone's throat. And for your start menu.... all it does for me it launch metro.
Bought a new laptop the other day, it had 8 on it. I thought, why not give it a whirl, haven't touched it since it was in beta. Then the upgrade lands and promises to fix the things I HATED in 8.... but nope, still sucks. Reverted back to 7.
The real problem is that pinheads like you want to keep pretending that the USA has a revenue problem instead of a spending problem. It's still possible to prevent the USA from having a Soviet-style collapse, but to do that we'd have to immediately cut government spending to less than it collects in tax revenues.
There are both problems. The US Government spends like a bored trophy wife, meanwhile, incredible sums of taxes are not collected from higher wealth citizens because of loopholes and offshore accounting.
not really, there are those that act as engineers which design the frameworks, methods and utility of a piece of software, and then there are those that actually build it. It would be more fitting to call them software architects rather than engineers though.
You fail to remember that it was not just Prof. Duane, but also a police detective that stood up there and told everyone the exact same thing.
2. The argument about the danger of talking to cops is based on a sampling error. Professor Duane says that criminal defense attorneys "always, always say it was a bad idea for their client to talk to the police". But this sample obviously only includes people who talked to the police and ended up getting arrested, and charged, and needing a criminal defense attorney. The sample wouldn't include anyone that the police talked to and decided not to arrest -- whether they were initially brought in as a suspect but then convinced the police that they were innocent, or whether they were simply third-party witnesses who volunteered information to the police that they thought was useful.
Of the many, many, many attorneys that I know (many of whom are family/friends/etc) and the many cops that I know (former military turned police), they will all tell you the exact same thing. It CANNOT help you to talk to the police, even if you are innocent of the crime you are being questioned about. They both even tell you quite specifically that even though you may be innocent of the crime you are being questioned about, you may, without realizing it, incriminate yourself in an unrelated crime
His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating. That's essentially why I do talk to the police if I get pulled over for speeding -- I've gotten off with a warning a few times, whereas I'm pretty sure that if I'd just sat silently and stared straight ahead, I would have gotten the ticket.
This is where your lack of legal knowledge truly shows through. Just because YOU may be positive that the police will find enough evidence that you are guilty does NOT mean that they gathered the evidence legally, that the evidence is NOT circumstantial, or that the evidence could also point at someone else. Even if you are guilty, and you know they are going to find out, a lawyer can help to mitigate the punishment or possible have you acquitted due to many many many loopholes and legalities that you as a layman may not know.
Professor Duane's argument is about talking to the cops; I'm asking about the merits of the Fifth Amendment as it applies in a courtroom as well. At the 15:22 mark, for example, Professor Duane gives the fictional example of a suspect who says to the police:
"I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't kill Jones and I don't know who did. I wasn't anywhere near that place. I don't have a gun, and I have never owned a gun in my life. I don't even know how to use a gun. Yeah, sure I never liked the guy, but who did? I wouldn't kill him. I've never hurt anybody in my life, and I would never do such a thing."
Professor Duane continues: "Let's suppose every word of that is true, 100% of it is true. What will the jury hear at trial? 'Officer Bruch, was there anything about your interrogation, your interview with the suspect that made you concerned that he might be the right one?' 'Yes sir there was. He confessed to me that He never liked the guy.'"
Even if that scenario is a valid reason not to talk to the police, it wouldn't be possible in a courtroom, where all of your answers are recorded, and it will be obvious
Slashdot Mirror
and you open your organization up to hundred of millions of dollars in law suits.
and yet, the rate of emigration away from the US has steadily climbed over the last 5 years with 2012 seeing the first drop in net migrations since 2008. It is enough of an issue that many world news agencies have written several pieces on expats, the reasons and the numbers recently.
Agreed, not to mention the simple fact that a failure of a single entity that produces the vast majority of food would be catastrophic.
and the US versions, although less safe, carry more supplies, are capable of handling more situations and are more easily recognizable in high traffic situations than their smaller European counterparts.
Under your current system, anyone who is really bright would just leave the country.
We do.
You're joking right? Most farms are actually barely making profit, the ones that do are largely owned by corporations and even then aren't nearly as profitable as you would like to think. Especially when you have companies like Monsanto bending them over a barrel over seed prices and lawsuits. The cost to produce crops has been steadily rising (Johnson, 2012) (USDA ERS)
wrote my own.
Same here. The major issue I had with WebOS was quite simply the lack of software/apps and the general unavailability of any free apps. Beyond that, it really works wonderfully on my touchpad, though it spends 99% of it's time booted into Android...
No, there was no financial settlement here. The FTC is leaving that up to the class action suits
Yes, you can install linux. On desktops, they usually just put a lock on the case so that you can't modify the hardware but software wise, you can do pretty much anything you want.
Same here, fragged the new dell laptop from windows 8 to windows 7 as a vanilla install and just plugged in the appropriate drivers. I do this for any and all friends/customers that want a cheap machine but dont want the bloatware.
They are talking about a specific program where the EU hands over financial data on suspected terrorists to the US. They will no longer be handing that data over willfully.
The flaw in your logic is the same flaw that the ISPs try to use to justify these types of things. You are assuming that there are 100 users on an OC48 burning up the bandwidth all day long. The facts do not support this. Just like with electricity, water and gas, there are peak times and there are times where almost no data is being transferred and they rely on that to sell that 2048mb line to not 100, but more like 1000 people. Additionally, they rely on the old guy that uses the tubes for nothing more than checking his email and looking at new pics of his grand kids to compensate for the guys like us that watch netflix, hulu etc. They oversell their services like you wouldnt believe and they are hugely profitable for it. Verizon
Agreed.
This "un-boot" has everything of the original - except for the charm of the premise, the ethic of storytelling, and the charisma of the players.
True, the charisma is missing, but the story is there. It's not as good as what Mr. Roddenberry wrote, but it is close. They got the good natured ribbing of Spock by McCoy and Kirk, they got their ethic and moral point across, and they created a drama that brought about the reveal of the moral. All in all, I thought it was good, now just replace Bones with a better Bones, hone the characters a bit more and you have a decent series.
So far, in just one day of using the Win 8 laptop for work, I had to toggle between metro and desktop enough that it made me want to tear out someone's throat. And for your start menu.... all it does for me it launch metro.
Wont even load up right now, just getting a blank screen.
Bought a new laptop the other day, it had 8 on it. I thought, why not give it a whirl, haven't touched it since it was in beta. Then the upgrade lands and promises to fix the things I HATED in 8.... but nope, still sucks. Reverted back to 7.
You apparently don't pay attention to the markets...
The real problem is that pinheads like you want to keep pretending that the USA has a revenue problem instead of a spending problem. It's still possible to prevent the USA from having a Soviet-style collapse, but to do that we'd have to immediately cut government spending to less than it collects in tax revenues.
There are both problems. The US Government spends like a bored trophy wife, meanwhile, incredible sums of taxes are not collected from higher wealth citizens because of loopholes and offshore accounting.
I have sat in many of them. There is usually an objection by any good lawyer.
"as I have never been married, the question is moot"
not really, there are those that act as engineers which design the frameworks, methods and utility of a piece of software, and then there are those that actually build it. It would be more fitting to call them software architects rather than engineers though.
You fail to remember that it was not just Prof. Duane, but also a police detective that stood up there and told everyone the exact same thing.
2. The argument about the danger of talking to cops is based on a sampling error. Professor Duane says that criminal defense attorneys "always, always say it was a bad idea for their client to talk to the police". But this sample obviously only includes people who talked to the police and ended up getting arrested, and charged, and needing a criminal defense attorney. The sample wouldn't include anyone that the police talked to and decided not to arrest -- whether they were initially brought in as a suspect but then convinced the police that they were innocent, or whether they were simply third-party witnesses who volunteered information to the police that they thought was useful.
Of the many, many, many attorneys that I know (many of whom are family/friends/etc) and the many cops that I know (former military turned police), they will all tell you the exact same thing. It CANNOT help you to talk to the police, even if you are innocent of the crime you are being questioned about. They both even tell you quite specifically that even though you may be innocent of the crime you are being questioned about, you may, without realizing it, incriminate yourself in an unrelated crime
His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating. That's essentially why I do talk to the police if I get pulled over for speeding -- I've gotten off with a warning a few times, whereas I'm pretty sure that if I'd just sat silently and stared straight ahead, I would have gotten the ticket.
This is where your lack of legal knowledge truly shows through. Just because YOU may be positive that the police will find enough evidence that you are guilty does NOT mean that they gathered the evidence legally, that the evidence is NOT circumstantial, or that the evidence could also point at someone else. Even if you are guilty, and you know they are going to find out, a lawyer can help to mitigate the punishment or possible have you acquitted due to many many many loopholes and legalities that you as a layman may not know.
Professor Duane's argument is about talking to the cops; I'm asking about the merits of the Fifth Amendment as it applies in a courtroom as well. At the 15:22 mark, for example, Professor Duane gives the fictional example of a suspect who says to the police: "I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't kill Jones and I don't know who did. I wasn't anywhere near that place. I don't have a gun, and I have never owned a gun in my life. I don't even know how to use a gun. Yeah, sure I never liked the guy, but who did? I wouldn't kill him. I've never hurt anybody in my life, and I would never do such a thing." Professor Duane continues: "Let's suppose every word of that is true, 100% of it is true. What will the jury hear at trial? 'Officer Bruch, was there anything about your interrogation, your interview with the suspect that made you concerned that he might be the right one?' 'Yes sir there was. He confessed to me that He never liked the guy.'" Even if that scenario is a valid reason not to talk to the police, it wouldn't be possible in a courtroom, where all of your answers are recorded, and it will be obvious
Quid pro quo...