That's interesting, since I've been sinking email for my domain at home for over a decade now. And yes, because that is clearly running a server, I've always gotten business class service from the cable companies. The DSL providers that I used in the past had loose enough terms of service that running a server wasn't an issue: I was up front about the mail and ssh servers, and all they cared about was that I didn't run an open relay (which I had no intention of doing, and appreciated when I messed up my config once and they told me).
Though, personally, the assymetry bothers me, as it results in a "producer" vs. "consumer" divide on the 'net, which really should be about interconnectin peers -- running servers should not be an issue.
I can even understand a provider wanting bandwidth asymetry on their last mile, and prohibiting the running of servers tends to achieve that (though game traffic bandwidth can be quite symmetric direction-wise), but it's the wrong approach, IMNSHO.
Actually, the principle of estoppel HAS been used in divorce cases to compel a man to continue to support his now ex-wife in "the manner to which she has become accustomed".
No, I was not smart enough to divorce her before 50% community property amounted to much. Mea culpa.
Not only did she sit around, watching TV, letting the nanny and maid (paid for by me) raise the kids, but she actively trashed the house.
"In the manner to which she has become accustomed" should be replaced by "commensurate with the degree she contributed to the household". I don't buy that a stay at home wife is "worth" half her working husband's earnings: at most she's worth the value of a maid and nanny (which can be significant, though certainly not millions of dollars a year), and certainly not that, if those are required through her doing nothing in the household. And, the same if the gender roles are reversed.
Besides not divorcing her sooner (yes, my bad, but I stuck it out until I had a moral reason), we had a "marriage contract" that stipulated whoever stayed at home was responsible for the household and child-rearing. Unfortunately, where we divorced, "marriage contracts" were not recognized, only "prenuptual agreements" were (which was the EXACT OPPOSITE situation where we were married), and only then regarding property division and not performance agreements (who does what).
But, now, alimony has ended, I have primary residential and sole legal custody of the kids, and she is homeless.
That's why some of us think about engineering biological weapons that are selective on genetic markers evidencing an inability to perform the work necessary to ensure employment.
It has been suggested than an ability to reason logically, to the point of being able to program (they myriad kinds of robots that will be around), will become the new literacy standard, and those of us who have this literacy will have to fight off those who don't: the knows against the know nots.
Such biological weapons will be our line of defense, and possibly euthenasia for the poor suffering masses.
Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.
Emphasis mine.
I've often thought one of the few things money shound not be able to purchase are law, and disproportionate dissemination of political candidate's platforms.
Thus, I would support equitable (though not necesarily equal) distribution of funds donated to the political process among all candidates, overseen by an organizatoin not tied to the incumbancy.
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel] (emphasis mine).
A common example is a stream on private property that borders a road. If people have come to take water from the stream, even if the landowner povided a pipe on his own land to make it easy (that did not extend to the public property), then after some time, the landowner can not suddenly deny access to the water in that stream, whether by his pipe, or not. If he tried, a court would likely grant a public "easement by estoppel".
The same principle is used in divorce cases to ensure that a soon to be ex-wife received alimony so that she may live "in the manner to which she has become accustomed", even as alimony is granted less and less frequently in recognition of women's ability to independently earn income. (It is still granted in many cases when a wife has never worked, and her husband supported her: she often gets 50% of the community property (to which she contributed nothing financially) AND alimony.)
So, if a company provides a free service, that many have come to rely upon, for some significant time, it may very well be held to continue to provide that service, unless the nature of the free offering was made clear (e.g. reserving the right to discontinue it at any time).
Generally, estoppel applies to either real property easements, or income streams, or other tangible benefit, but I see no reason that it can not be applied to a service.
In this case, the court would weigh the time the service was offered, the reasonable expectations of the public regarding it, and the public harm if it were terminated against the costs of the company to continue to provide it for free.
Be warned, however, that public easements by estoppel, for even an essential thing like water, often only are granted if free access was provided for extended periods of time, say 25 or 50 years. Often this is codified in municipal bylaws, or state, or federal laws.
This is why one should ALWAYS be careful of "being nice": one may unwittingly create an obligation by estoppel to continue to do so.
No, there is more to the "bad old programmer", than uwillingness to work long hours, often for free.
As people age, many become "set in their ways". And, in an industry, where half of what you know becomes useless every three years (I used to claim five years), getting "set in one's ways" is suicide. I once encountered a Cobol programmer who was writting business applications for IBM PCs in the language because he didn't want to learn anything new. Well, Cobol on PCs always was kind of creaky. He didn't last long (and his applications were bears to debug and modify).
If you're not willing to learn for the rest of your working software career, you might as well quit now.
I speak with some of the wisdom of age. I've been doing this professionally since September 1974: 38 years ago.
I started with BASIC, moved on to Fortran, CDC 6600 assembly, Cobol and Pascal (remember that language), 8080, 6809, 80x86, 680x0 assemblers, C, C++, with a stint doing Java (in JNI hell), and the odd bits of Lisp, Forth along the way. HTML was no worse than the proprieatry formatting language I used to typeset my Master's thesis (in 1984). Perl, Python, and others, I tend to forget, and relearn every six months when they happen to be the right tool for the job: C/C++ does seem to have some staying power and what I use daily.
I've built X.25 PADs and switches, digital radio modems, voice recognition systems, POTS test equipment, internet security appliances, and most recently web application acceleration devices. I've even built stuff to control industrial smoke houses. Oh yyeah, there was that CICS/IDMS stint for the railroad for their in-house modified DISOSS email app in 1984/5. Think I hacked some IBM 360 assembler there. I was grateful to move to cross-assembling Z80 assembler code and burning EAPROMS after that.
I'dve been "DONE" years ago if I didn't keep learning.
To make it in this business you neeed a logical mind and a keen desire to keep learning (programming languages, processor architectures, and operating systems being admitedly a bit more interesting than the "application or graphics framework of the day").
The bottom line is that one should not presume guilt because of the difficulty of proving it either to a civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard, or the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" one.
As it stands now, it's akin to somone stealing a puppy, having it grown up to be an adult dog (say, a Bull Mastiff or other large dog), and seeking support for food and vet bills from the original owner!
Heck, men have been ordered to pay support for kids that didn't even exist on a woman's simple claim they did, and even men who were known not to be biological fathers, were ordered to pay support simply because they took pity on a single mother and helped her a time or two without any romantic relationship!
The standard for support should require ((a) a biological relationship AND (b) proof of consensual insemination) or (c) a voluntary agreement to support. Yes, this is a burden for a woman to prove. The burden for a man is having defensive evidence that sex was consentual and not rape. Yes, this appears to turn "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head, but it should be considered insurance against a fraudulent rape charge that can be very expensive to defend against.
It's far simpler to make the woman responsible for the expense of raising the child, with shared financial responsibility a contractual possibility prior to consentual sex (and the likely arrangement) and allow for contracts to abort in the event of contraceptive or sterilization failure to be enforceable at law.
Voluntarily having children that one can't afford (to some minimum income level) should be a crime, with reasonable government insurance available against income loss.
Right now, these "laws to prevent freeloaders" encourage defrauding men for their semen. And really, the welfare recipient is ALREADY a freeloader.
Yeah, I know: rich dude fucks poor stupid woman, and she's stuck with the kid. But, in that case, he took financial advantage of her. If it could be proven, he can be held responsible absent a support contract. The point is the burden of proof of fraud or commitment to support should be on the one bringing the child into the world, espescially in a jurisdiction where abortion is legal.
No, men don't have a choice if contraception or sterilization fails. Women can always chose to abort. Contracts to abort in event of contraceptive or sterilization failure are unenforceable at law.
Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if their semen is stolen out of a used condom. It has happened, and the argument is that the child's needs for support outweigh the father's rights to not be made a slave.
Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if they donate semen for artificial insemination, and later the child goes on welfare, with exceptions existing only if the sperm donation was done under state guidelines.
Feric sulphate has an additional advantage: it stops the "Shake and Bake" production of meth cold by converting the lithium used to Lithium Amide: LiN2. It's been suggested as an instant cold pack additive for that reason.
"Shake and Bake" meth production involves generating ammonia in-situ with the reaction of NaOH (drain cleaner) with NH4NO3 (instant cold packs). This dissolves in some organic solvent, like methyl ethyl ketone, in which one has already dissolved pseudo-ephedrine. The presence of lithium (from batteries) results in a "Birch-like" reduction (sodium in anhydrous ammonia) of the pseudo-ephedrine to methamphetamine. The organic layer is filtered off, and the filtrate "crashed" with hydrigen chloride gas (from a battery acid/salt generator) to yield crystals of crude methamphetamine hydrochloride. The production of ammonia also results in production of water, and water is sometimes introduced at the start to kick-start the reaction.
The "cooking" (prior to filtration and crashing with HCL) generally takes place in a sealed soda bottle, with all reagents present. Besides the pressure buildup from the ammonia gas (requiring periodic "burping" of the bottle), a signficant side reaction of 2Li + 2H2O -> 2LiOH +H2(g) is exothermic, and can both igniite the H2 (and organic solvent) if any oxygen is present, as well as possibly have the lithium melt through the plastic wall of the container (which will then expose the contents to atmospheric oxygen, possibly igniting them).
It's amazing that people resort to doing this.
Now, lithium and ammonia will react to produce lithium amide: Li + 2NH3 -> LiN2 + 3H2, and the reaction is exothermic, but it requires a high activation energy, so is usally slow enough to ignore in this case. Iron ions catalyse this, and the production of Lithium Amide kills the Birch-like reduction cold. Thus, it has been suggested to add iron salts to instant cold packs so they can't be used as a source of ammonia for "shake and bake" meth synthesis. The reader is left to figure out how this can be overcome.
Note: this was intended for educational purposes. I strongly discourage meth production. The process above is extremely dangerous, and the product is really bad for your health. It should be necessary to state that producing methamphetamine is illegal as well. Attempts to make it "safe" generally involve trying to keep the lithium floating on the organic solvent layer while the water is being produced below it. However, periodic shaking tends to bring the two together for brief periods, until the reaction between them is quenched once the bottle is stilled and the lithium floats to the top of the organic solvent layer again. I learned about it while researching solvated electrons. Seriously, the process described is already "all over the internet".
... the more I think it might be lawful to kill you.
It's that simple.
Now, I don't think one has any expectation of privacy in open, public, places, but how long before this notion extends to blanket violations of the fourth amendment to be secure in one's person and papers (and homes)?
I further am not advising killing anyone, but merely considering the lawfulness of killing those who, particularly entrusted to uphold the Constitution, chose to blatently violate it. Personally, I'd rather they stand trial for treason, knowing full well that at some point that may become utterly impractical, leaving violence as a last resort. That would be a sad day.
c. 1977, cutting my teath on "real programming" in Fortran, and CDC 6600 Assembler with punched cards (post HP2000 Basic -- everyone starts with Basic - in high school). We did have a few plugboard computers, including at least one analog computer, as well.
Well, compared to dioxygen diflouride (a.k.a. FOOF, which explodes on contact with just about anything above -300 F), or chlorine triflouride (which can set sand and asbestos on 'fire'), hydrogen is quite safe, yes.
Washington, 2010. He's been "difficult" since day 1: fussy to get to sleep, night terrors, raging when not getting his way, etc. (Then-)wife and I could not agree to discipline - contributed to divorce. (I have custody now). Basically, she'd give him whatever he wanted because he was the "miracle baby" after four miscarriages.
Lots of psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. ODD, CD, SID, ADHD. Currently on Focalin XR to stimulate him for school, and then clonadine to bring him down to sleep.
Have 21 page psychological evaluation that suggests locking him up since he is a potential danger to self and others. State refuses, insurance refuses, and the cost is $400/day.
FINALLY, the local police have stopped believing his lies of abuse.
In this instance, it does not take a lot to get probable cause for child abuse: all you need is a screaming child, with a (self-inflicted) bruise, and an allegation, together with witnesses claiming the child was strangled, because the child screamed he was strangled, yet with no evidence of same. All because he did not want new shoes.
In 2011, he tried to push his 18 year old sister out a second story window on a concrete slab, after breaking her laptop. She grabbed at his hair to save herself, and was almost arrested for it. She is facing assault charges for allegedly kicking him to retrieve car keys he had stolen from his mother.
I am required to have a nanny to protect HIM from HER!
Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?
About the time when a child could injure themselves in some minor way, and tell someone "Daddy did this to me" because they were denied some toy they wanted.
Been, there, done that, spent four days in jail because my nine year old didn't want new shoes, and I failed to observe what he was doing with the seatbelt buckle (jabbing it into his abdomen to leave a bruise).
These days, a child calling 911 and saying they're scared becaue they don't get some treat is taken as probable cause of abuse (the child's purported fear, that is). Add to that laws that establish a child under 13 lacks the ability to know right from wrong, and therefore mens rea to commit a crime, and you have children, not parents, in control.
It's not about 'think of the children.' Read the article. It's about protecting women's rights. It comes from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Some feminist groups oppose porn, for various reasons. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is one of those.
Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.
Thankfully, there are nations that have already banned pornography and are hailed as beacons of Woman's Rights, like Saudi Araba, Egypt, China, North Korea, Guyana, and Botswana.
(emphasis mine)
Quoting the Grand^x parent in context.
From what i recall reading, female porn actresses earn far more than their male counterparts. Where is the discrimination again?
Er, i would think Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year old son could demonstrate the damages of the loss of his father's income to support him when Obama assasinated him.
Oh wait! He can't! They killed him too.
Seriously, this tyrant Obama needs to be stopped.
I'd wager that calling for Obama's death by striving for a treason indightment, trial, conviction, and capital punishment, you know, subjecting him to the rule of law, would be twisted as a threat against the life of the president.
I don't know what to replace what we've got, but clearly representative democracy has failed in many ways.
Oh, I do: a constitutional ammendment that allows one who's rights are being trampled by government to defend commensurately not only against said level of government, or their agents, but to retaliate with equal force against those having a hand electing said government, and their progeny, who have not come to my aid.
This holds *the people*, collectively, and individually, responsible for the government they elect, and one would expect *the people*, collectively, and individually, to make a far bigger noise if they see government violating someone else's rights.
Basically, if the police are bashing down my door, without a warrant, and not under exigent circumstances, I can lawfully kill them AND any neighbors, who are ALSO not killing them, and their kids.
Make people accountable for the government they have a part in electing by demanding eternal vigilance on their part, lest they, or their offspring, die, for failing in this responsibiity.
The tragic flaw of democracy (direct or otherwise) is the alure of power benefiting one group without responsibility for it harming another.
The U.S. Constitutuion is pretty good, as far as rights go, but it fails on the part of responsibilities.
Yes, I know that in a shootout between a drug lord and police, it may be difficult to tell who's in the right. But an armed neighborhood demanding the violence stop, lest all participants be killed, and letting the courts sort it out, strikes me as not such a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting, since I've been sinking email for my domain at home for over a decade now. And yes, because that is clearly running a server, I've always gotten business class service from the cable companies. The DSL providers that I used in the past had loose enough terms of service that running a server wasn't an issue: I was up front about the mail and ssh servers, and all they cared about was that I didn't run an open relay (which I had no intention of doing, and appreciated when I messed up my config once and they told me).
Though, personally, the assymetry bothers me, as it results in a "producer" vs. "consumer" divide on the 'net, which really should be about interconnectin peers -- running servers should not be an issue.
I can even understand a provider wanting bandwidth asymetry on their last mile, and prohibiting the running of servers tends to achieve that (though game traffic bandwidth can be quite symmetric direction-wise), but it's the wrong approach, IMNSHO.
I think that's called an armed revolution.
Actually, the principle of estoppel HAS been used in divorce cases to compel a man to continue to support his now ex-wife in "the manner to which she has become accustomed".
Bullshit. My then-wife was so lazy, CPS required me to hire a maid and nanny to care for the kids, because she was neglecting them,
No, I was not smart enough to divorce her before 50% community property amounted to much. Mea culpa.
Not only did she sit around, watching TV, letting the nanny and maid (paid for by me) raise the kids, but she actively trashed the house.
"In the manner to which she has become accustomed" should be replaced by "commensurate with the degree she contributed to the household". I don't buy that a stay at home wife is "worth" half her working husband's earnings: at most she's worth the value of a maid and nanny (which can be significant, though certainly not millions of dollars a year), and certainly not that, if those are required through her doing nothing in the household. And, the same if the gender roles are reversed.
Besides not divorcing her sooner (yes, my bad, but I stuck it out until I had a moral reason), we had a "marriage contract" that stipulated whoever stayed at home was responsible for the household and child-rearing. Unfortunately, where we divorced, "marriage contracts" were not recognized, only "prenuptual agreements" were (which was the EXACT OPPOSITE situation where we were married), and only then regarding property division and not performance agreements (who does what).
But, now, alimony has ended, I have primary residential and sole legal custody of the kids, and she is homeless.
Karma's a bitch.
That's why some of us think about engineering biological weapons that are selective on genetic markers evidencing an inability to perform the work necessary to ensure employment.
It has been suggested than an ability to reason logically, to the point of being able to program (they myriad kinds of robots that will be around), will become the new literacy standard, and those of us who have this literacy will have to fight off those who don't: the knows against the know nots.
Such biological weapons will be our line of defense, and possibly euthenasia for the poor suffering masses.
Ah, eugenics.
Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.
Emphasis mine.
I've often thought one of the few things money shound not be able to purchase are law, and disproportionate dissemination of political candidate's platforms.
Thus, I would support equitable (though not necesarily equal) distribution of funds donated to the political process among all candidates, overseen by an organizatoin not tied to the incumbancy.
You are forgetting estoppel:
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel] (emphasis mine).
A common example is a stream on private property that borders a road. If people have come to take water from the stream, even if the landowner povided a pipe on his own land to make it easy (that did not extend to the public property), then after some time, the landowner can not suddenly deny access to the water in that stream, whether by his pipe, or not. If he tried, a court would likely grant a public "easement by estoppel".
The same principle is used in divorce cases to ensure that a soon to be ex-wife received alimony so that she may live "in the manner to which she has become accustomed", even as alimony is granted less and less frequently in recognition of women's ability to independently earn income. (It is still granted in many cases when a wife has never worked, and her husband supported her: she often gets 50% of the community property (to which she contributed nothing financially) AND alimony.)
So, if a company provides a free service, that many have come to rely upon, for some significant time, it may very well be held to continue to provide that service, unless the nature of the free offering was made clear (e.g. reserving the right to discontinue it at any time).
Generally, estoppel applies to either real property easements, or income streams, or other tangible benefit, but I see no reason that it can not be applied to a service.
In this case, the court would weigh the time the service was offered, the reasonable expectations of the public regarding it, and the public harm if it were terminated against the costs of the company to continue to provide it for free.
Be warned, however, that public easements by estoppel, for even an essential thing like water, often only are granted if free access was provided for extended periods of time, say 25 or 50 years. Often this is codified in municipal bylaws, or state, or federal laws.
This is why one should ALWAYS be careful of "being nice": one may unwittingly create an obligation by estoppel to continue to do so.
No, there is more to the "bad old programmer", than uwillingness to work long hours, often for free.
As people age, many become "set in their ways". And, in an industry, where half of what you know becomes useless every three years (I used to claim five years), getting "set in one's ways" is suicide. I once encountered a Cobol programmer who was writting business applications for IBM PCs in the language because he didn't want to learn anything new. Well, Cobol on PCs always was kind of creaky. He didn't last long (and his applications were bears to debug and modify).
If you're not willing to learn for the rest of your working software career, you might as well quit now.
I speak with some of the wisdom of age. I've been doing this professionally since September 1974: 38 years ago.
I started with BASIC, moved on to Fortran, CDC 6600 assembly, Cobol and Pascal (remember that language), 8080, 6809, 80x86, 680x0 assemblers, C, C++, with a stint doing Java (in JNI hell), and the odd bits of Lisp, Forth along the way. HTML was no worse than the proprieatry formatting language I used to typeset my Master's thesis (in 1984). Perl, Python, and others, I tend to forget, and relearn every six months when they happen to be the right tool for the job: C/C++ does seem to have some staying power and what I use daily.
I've built X.25 PADs and switches, digital radio modems, voice recognition systems, POTS test equipment, internet security appliances, and most recently web application acceleration devices. I've even built stuff to control industrial smoke houses. Oh yyeah, there was that CICS/IDMS stint for the railroad for their in-house modified DISOSS email app in 1984/5. Think I hacked some IBM 360 assembler there. I was grateful to move to cross-assembling Z80 assembler code and burning EAPROMS after that.
I'dve been "DONE" years ago if I didn't keep learning.
To make it in this business you neeed a logical mind and a keen desire to keep learning (programming languages, processor architectures, and operating systems being admitedly a bit more interesting than the "application or graphics framework of the day").
If you can do that, age is no barrier.
The bottom line is that one should not presume guilt because of the difficulty of proving it either to a civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard, or the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" one.
As it stands now, it's akin to somone stealing a puppy, having it grown up to be an adult dog (say, a Bull Mastiff or other large dog), and seeking support for food and vet bills from the original owner!
Heck, men have been ordered to pay support for kids that didn't even exist on a woman's simple claim they did, and even men who were known not to be biological fathers, were ordered to pay support simply because they took pity on a single mother and helped her a time or two without any romantic relationship!
The standard for support should require ((a) a biological relationship AND (b) proof of consensual insemination) or (c) a voluntary agreement to support. Yes, this is a burden for a woman to prove. The burden for a man is having defensive evidence that sex was consentual and not rape. Yes, this appears to turn "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head, but it should be considered insurance against a fraudulent rape charge that can be very expensive to defend against.
It's far simpler to make the woman responsible for the expense of raising the child, with shared financial responsibility a contractual possibility prior to consentual sex (and the likely arrangement) and allow for contracts to abort in the event of contraceptive or sterilization failure to be enforceable at law.
Voluntarily having children that one can't afford (to some minimum income level) should be a crime, with reasonable government insurance available against income loss.
Right now, these "laws to prevent freeloaders" encourage defrauding men for their semen. And really, the welfare recipient is ALREADY a freeloader.
Yeah, I know: rich dude fucks poor stupid woman, and she's stuck with the kid. But, in that case, he took financial advantage of her. If it could be proven, he can be held responsible absent a support contract. The point is the burden of proof of fraud or commitment to support should be on the one bringing the child into the world, espescially in a jurisdiction where abortion is legal.
No, men don't have a choice if contraception or sterilization fails. Women can always chose to abort. Contracts to abort in event of contraceptive or sterilization failure are unenforceable at law.
Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if their semen is stolen out of a used condom. It has happened, and the argument is that the child's needs for support outweigh the father's rights to not be made a slave.
Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if they donate semen for artificial insemination, and later the child goes on welfare, with exceptions existing only if the sperm donation was done under state guidelines.
Feric sulphate has an additional advantage: it stops the "Shake and Bake" production of meth cold by converting the lithium used to Lithium Amide: LiN2. It's been suggested as an instant cold pack additive for that reason.
"Shake and Bake" meth production involves generating ammonia in-situ with the reaction of NaOH (drain cleaner) with NH4NO3 (instant cold packs). This dissolves in some organic solvent, like methyl ethyl ketone, in which one has already dissolved pseudo-ephedrine. The presence of lithium (from batteries) results in a "Birch-like" reduction (sodium in anhydrous ammonia) of the pseudo-ephedrine to methamphetamine. The organic layer is filtered off, and the filtrate "crashed" with hydrigen chloride gas (from a battery acid/salt generator) to yield crystals of crude methamphetamine hydrochloride. The production of ammonia also results in production of water, and water is sometimes introduced at the start to kick-start the reaction.
The "cooking" (prior to filtration and crashing with HCL) generally takes place in a sealed soda bottle, with all reagents present. Besides the pressure buildup from the ammonia gas (requiring periodic "burping" of the bottle), a signficant side reaction of 2Li + 2H2O -> 2LiOH +H2(g) is exothermic, and can both igniite the H2 (and organic solvent) if any oxygen is present, as well as possibly have the lithium melt through the plastic wall of the container (which will then expose the contents to atmospheric oxygen, possibly igniting them).
It's amazing that people resort to doing this.
Now, lithium and ammonia will react to produce lithium amide: Li + 2NH3 -> LiN2 + 3H2, and the reaction is exothermic, but it requires a high activation energy, so is usally slow enough to ignore in this case. Iron ions catalyse this, and the production of Lithium Amide kills the Birch-like reduction cold. Thus, it has been suggested to add iron salts to instant cold packs so they can't be used as a source of ammonia for "shake and bake" meth synthesis. The reader is left to figure out how this can be overcome.
Note: this was intended for educational purposes. I strongly discourage meth production. The process above is extremely dangerous, and the product is really bad for your health. It should be necessary to state that producing methamphetamine is illegal as well. Attempts to make it "safe" generally involve trying to keep the lithium floating on the organic solvent layer while the water is being produced below it. However, periodic shaking tends to bring the two together for brief periods, until the reaction between them is quenched once the bottle is stilled and the lithium floats to the top of the organic solvent layer again. I learned about it while researching solvated electrons. Seriously, the process described is already "all over the internet".
... the more I think it might be lawful to kill you.
It's that simple.
Now, I don't think one has any expectation of privacy in open, public, places, but how long before this notion extends to blanket violations of the fourth amendment to be secure in one's person and papers (and homes)?
I further am not advising killing anyone, but merely considering the lawfulness of killing those who, particularly entrusted to uphold the Constitution, chose to blatently violate it. Personally, I'd rather they stand trial for treason, knowing full well that at some point that may become utterly impractical, leaving violence as a last resort. That would be a sad day.
160 uJ, give or take.
Yeah, BINDERE DUNDAT.
c. 1977, cutting my teath on "real programming" in Fortran, and CDC 6600 Assembler with punched cards (post HP2000 Basic -- everyone starts with Basic - in high school). We did have a few plugboard computers, including at least one analog computer, as well.
Well, compared to dioxygen diflouride (a.k.a. FOOF, which explodes on contact with just about anything above -300 F), or chlorine triflouride (which can set sand and asbestos on 'fire'), hydrogen is quite safe, yes.
Washington, 2010. He's been "difficult" since day 1: fussy to get to sleep, night terrors, raging when not getting his way, etc. (Then-)wife and I could not agree to discipline - contributed to divorce. (I have custody now). Basically, she'd give him whatever he wanted because he was the "miracle baby" after four miscarriages.
Lots of psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. ODD, CD, SID, ADHD. Currently on Focalin XR to stimulate him for school, and then clonadine to bring him down to sleep.
Have 21 page psychological evaluation that suggests locking him up since he is a potential danger to self and others. State refuses, insurance refuses, and the cost is $400/day.
FINALLY, the local police have stopped believing his lies of abuse.
In this instance, it does not take a lot to get probable cause for child abuse: all you need is a screaming child, with a (self-inflicted) bruise, and an allegation, together with witnesses claiming the child was strangled, because the child screamed he was strangled, yet with no evidence of same. All because he did not want new shoes.
In 2011, he tried to push his 18 year old sister out a second story window on a concrete slab, after breaking her laptop. She grabbed at his hair to save herself, and was almost arrested for it. She is facing assault charges for allegedly kicking him to retrieve car keys he had stolen from his mother.
I am required to have a nanny to protect HIM from HER!
It's only a matter of time before someone tries to assasinate this treasonous monster.
Though, I'd be a lot more satisfied if her were tried, convicted, and lawfully executed for treason.
Yeah, yeah, put me on one of your damn lists.
Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?
About the time when a child could injure themselves in some minor way, and tell someone "Daddy did this to me" because they were denied some toy they wanted.
Been, there, done that, spent four days in jail because my nine year old didn't want new shoes, and I failed to observe what he was doing with the seatbelt buckle (jabbing it into his abdomen to leave a bruise).
These days, a child calling 911 and saying they're scared becaue they don't get some treat is taken as probable cause of abuse (the child's purported fear, that is). Add to that laws that establish a child under 13 lacks the ability to know right from wrong, and therefore mens rea to commit a crime, and you have children, not parents, in control.
It's not about 'think of the children.' Read the article. It's about protecting women's rights. It comes from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Some feminist groups oppose porn, for various reasons. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is one of those.
Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.
Thankfully, there are nations that have already banned pornography and are hailed as beacons of Woman's Rights, like Saudi Araba, Egypt, China, North Korea, Guyana, and Botswana.
(emphasis mine)
Quoting the Grand^x parent in context.
From what i recall reading, female porn actresses earn far more than their male counterparts. Where is the discrimination again?
Maybe. Maybe not. Do YOU want to take the chance?
Face it. Talk of "lists" and presidentially-ordered assasinations has a HUGE chilling effect on free speech, essential to protecting our liberties.
I expect there should be millions, no, tens of millions, of Americans, crying "Foul!" But, a large percentage are scared.
Well, fuck that. Who am I to call for others to point to the president and cry tyrant, if I lack the courage to do so myself?
I'm not pointing a gun. I'm not suggesting circumventing the law, only that he be held to it, like the rest of us.
I point, and I acuse. Perhaps it may induce others to have more courage and do the same. Perhaps out voices might become deafening.
Then again, perhaps not, but it is certain they won't if I stay silent.
Yeah, I expect that.
Come and get me. I fucking dare ya!
I sincerely believe in dying on my feet instead of living on my knees if necessary.
Er, i would think Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year old son could demonstrate the damages of the loss of his father's income to support him when Obama assasinated him.
Oh wait! He can't! They killed him too.
Seriously, this tyrant Obama needs to be stopped.
I'd wager that calling for Obama's death by striving for a treason indightment, trial, conviction, and capital punishment, you know, subjecting him to the rule of law, would be twisted as a threat against the life of the president.
I don't know what to replace what we've got, but clearly representative democracy has failed in many ways.
Oh, I do: a constitutional ammendment that allows one who's rights are being trampled by government to defend commensurately not only against said level of government, or their agents, but to retaliate with equal force against those having a hand electing said government, and their progeny, who have not come to my aid.
This holds *the people*, collectively, and individually, responsible for the government they elect, and one would expect *the people*, collectively, and individually, to make a far bigger noise if they see government violating someone else's rights.
Basically, if the police are bashing down my door, without a warrant, and not under exigent circumstances, I can lawfully kill them AND any neighbors, who are ALSO not killing them, and their kids .
Make people accountable for the government they have a part in electing by demanding eternal vigilance on their part, lest they, or their offspring, die, for failing in this responsibiity.
The tragic flaw of democracy (direct or otherwise) is the alure of power benefiting one group without responsibility for it harming another.
The U.S. Constitutuion is pretty good, as far as rights go, but it fails on the part of responsibilities.
Yes, I know that in a shootout between a drug lord and police, it may be difficult to tell who's in the right. But an armed neighborhood demanding the violence stop, lest all participants be killed, and letting the courts sort it out, strikes me as not such a bad thing.