Depends on the location. The one nearest my hometown is basically just cell phones and RC cars. The one near where I live now has a pretty decent selection of electronic components. The former one is in a mall, the latter has its own store in a shopping plaza, so that might be part of the difference.
Makes me wonder... can you give conditional consent to a search? e.g. "I'll open the door and you can look around, but you can't touch anything". Or is it an all-or-nothing thing?
I give consent for the cops to give you a full-body cavity search, without the lube. They can check afterwards if I actually have the right to give that consent.
The only place they mention "co-owner" in the article is that the co-owner must be physically there to object to the other person's consent... it doesn't say the person giving consent has to be a co-owner, although it doesn't rule that out either.
""You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights," Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records. Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent."
Occupant A doesn't give consent and then gets arrested. So of course Occupant B gives consent... he just watched them arrest the other guy.
Personally, I'm more concerned with how they define "occupant". Is it anybody that happens to be in the house at that time? Do children count?
I agree in that a business should not have "social responsibility" any more than they should be required to provide healthcare or any other benefits beyond a paycheck. However, I do like it when a company works social responsibility into their business model - the more you do for a community, the more they (hopefully) patronize your business and everybody wins.
That's a pretty big roundabout way to qualify that stuff as infrastructure and is clearly different than what most people would define infrastructure as... including most dictionaries. I think you left a few straws while you were grasping.
Yes, it was limited when waterways were the best way to do it. Now that highways are more efficient than canals, they're the only reason there's still industry upstate... without the highways and other physical infrastructure, it would have moved elsewhere. And now that some of that infrastructure isn't being maintained like it should, they already are beginning to look elsewhere.
Google defines infrastructure as "the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise." I'd really like to know how welfare, wealth redistribution or medicare fits into that definition.
As for industry before highways and Internet access, industry was extremely limited in upstate NY unless you were right on the Erie Canal/Mohawk/Hudson system, St. Lawrence or Lake Ontario. Route 12 allows Lowville to have the largest cream cheese factory in the world. I-81 is the only reason Fulton Boiler can even exist in Pulaski, because they truck some seriously massive boilers. The benefits of the NYS Thruway (I-90) are pretty obvious - without it, cities like Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica and possibly even Albany would have completely died once the Erie Canal became obsolete. Before the highway infrastructure, there was some limited industry along the Erie Canal but not much else outside of logging. And if you need someone to explain how Internet helps industry, this probably isn't the site for you.
I would argue that it's more like relying on Word's grammar checker. The suggested way may be technically correct, but you should still know when the IDE isn't doing it the right or best way. And sometimes something is correct in the local context but incorrect in a larger context.
I don't see how any of what you listed is infrastructure. That's the difference. The only reason there's any industry upstate at all is because of Internet access and highways.
"Why should the government subsidize the cost of living in a place like that?" For the same reason Upstate residents subsidize the cost of transmitting power downstate? It's infrastructure that does have long-term economic benefits for the population as a whole.
"$100k household income down here is hardly rich, but it goes a lot further in the North Country." It may go further Upstate, but it's also much, much less common, even in areas that technically have a higher per capita income than Downstate regions. There's also things like density and scale to consider.
As a current resident of Rochester, I get 30mbps down from Time Warner (whilst paying for 10). Maybe the problem is just Frontier... they're our ISP at work and we regularly have issues with them. That said, I would happily welcome more ISPs to the area.
Nope, a Canadian dollar is worth 100 Canadian cents. Or 100 maple leaves. Or 20 beavers. Or 10 Bluenose. Or 4 caribou. Or 2 Canadian coat of arms. Or one loon. Or half a polar bear.
I find it hard to believe that geography is a choice if you accept that income is not. Especially given that the lower your income, the more difficult it is to move elsewhere.
On the bright side, farm equipment is at least a depreciable business expense. Last I knew, farmland property taxes are handled differently than residential or commercial taxes, but I don't know how differently. A lot of farmland where I grew up was unsuitable for any other usage, as fields in NY are rarely flat (unless you go to Western NY).
Are they sure this isn't from The Onion? Cuomo and the state legislature have been trying their damndest to drive everybody out of rural NY to other states. And it's been working pretty well so far.
We get plenty of sunlight, but 70% of that is over ocean. Even over land, there's a lot of places that don't get good sun coverage but still get to see the moon every day/night (e.g. higher latitudes)
To say there were "NO COMPUTERS" is pretty inaccurate. There were no microprocessors, yes, but there were analog computers as far back as 1872 and they were used extensively during the first World War. Modern computers were initially developed as a direct result of WWII threatening to erupt in Europe. The British Colossus was used during the war by codebreakers - ten variations of it was in use before the war was over. Over in the US, the ENIAC was created to help with the war effort - including the construction of the hydrogen bomb. They weren't terribly sophisticated by today's standards, but it wouldn't be a leap to assume N. Korea has gotten their hands on something magnitudes more powerful - even a 1970's era computer.
"By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s."
Of course, that's from the CIA's website, so it's exactly what they want you to think...
News Update: The police, in conjunction with several federal agencies, has determined the official cause of death to be a weather balloon. And swamp gas.
Sometimes, not disguising your intentions, methodology and actions is better than whatever the actual system is. It's a basic principle of effective deterrence in a MAD situation. And as far as the two Koreas are concerned, it's still pretty close to MAD even if no nukes are used.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the location. The one nearest my hometown is basically just cell phones and RC cars. The one near where I live now has a pretty decent selection of electronic components. The former one is in a mall, the latter has its own store in a shopping plaza, so that might be part of the difference.
I know he wasn't arrested for refusing consent, but watching them arrest him would make the other person more "cooperative"
Makes me wonder... can you give conditional consent to a search? e.g. "I'll open the door and you can look around, but you can't touch anything". Or is it an all-or-nothing thing?
I give consent for the cops to give you a full-body cavity search, without the lube. They can check afterwards if I actually have the right to give that consent.
Better yet, the cops can wait for a hobo to break in and then ask him for permission, as he is now an "occupant".
The only place they mention "co-owner" in the article is that the co-owner must be physically there to object to the other person's consent... it doesn't say the person giving consent has to be a co-owner, although it doesn't rule that out either.
""You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights," Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.
Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent."
Occupant A doesn't give consent and then gets arrested. So of course Occupant B gives consent... he just watched them arrest the other guy.
Personally, I'm more concerned with how they define "occupant". Is it anybody that happens to be in the house at that time? Do children count?
I agree in that a business should not have "social responsibility" any more than they should be required to provide healthcare or any other benefits beyond a paycheck. However, I do like it when a company works social responsibility into their business model - the more you do for a community, the more they (hopefully) patronize your business and everybody wins.
That's a pretty big roundabout way to qualify that stuff as infrastructure and is clearly different than what most people would define infrastructure as... including most dictionaries. I think you left a few straws while you were grasping.
Yes, it was limited when waterways were the best way to do it. Now that highways are more efficient than canals, they're the only reason there's still industry upstate... without the highways and other physical infrastructure, it would have moved elsewhere. And now that some of that infrastructure isn't being maintained like it should, they already are beginning to look elsewhere.
Google defines infrastructure as "the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise."
I'd really like to know how welfare, wealth redistribution or medicare fits into that definition.
As for industry before highways and Internet access, industry was extremely limited in upstate NY unless you were right on the Erie Canal/Mohawk/Hudson system, St. Lawrence or Lake Ontario. Route 12 allows Lowville to have the largest cream cheese factory in the world. I-81 is the only reason Fulton Boiler can even exist in Pulaski, because they truck some seriously massive boilers. The benefits of the NYS Thruway (I-90) are pretty obvious - without it, cities like Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica and possibly even Albany would have completely died once the Erie Canal became obsolete. Before the highway infrastructure, there was some limited industry along the Erie Canal but not much else outside of logging. And if you need someone to explain how Internet helps industry, this probably isn't the site for you.
I would argue that it's more like relying on Word's grammar checker. The suggested way may be technically correct, but you should still know when the IDE isn't doing it the right or best way. And sometimes something is correct in the local context but incorrect in a larger context.
I don't see how any of what you listed is infrastructure. That's the difference. The only reason there's any industry upstate at all is because of Internet access and highways.
"Why should the government subsidize the cost of living in a place like that?"
For the same reason Upstate residents subsidize the cost of transmitting power downstate? It's infrastructure that does have long-term economic benefits for the population as a whole.
"$100k household income down here is hardly rich, but it goes a lot further in the North Country."
It may go further Upstate, but it's also much, much less common, even in areas that technically have a higher per capita income than Downstate regions. There's also things like density and scale to consider.
As a current resident of Rochester, I get 30mbps down from Time Warner (whilst paying for 10). Maybe the problem is just Frontier... they're our ISP at work and we regularly have issues with them. That said, I would happily welcome more ISPs to the area.
Nope, a Canadian dollar is worth 100 Canadian cents. Or 100 maple leaves. Or 20 beavers. Or 10 Bluenose. Or 4 caribou. Or 2 Canadian coat of arms. Or one loon. Or half a polar bear.
I find it hard to believe that geography is a choice if you accept that income is not. Especially given that the lower your income, the more difficult it is to move elsewhere.
On the bright side, farm equipment is at least a depreciable business expense. Last I knew, farmland property taxes are handled differently than residential or commercial taxes, but I don't know how differently. A lot of farmland where I grew up was unsuitable for any other usage, as fields in NY are rarely flat (unless you go to Western NY).
Are they sure this isn't from The Onion? Cuomo and the state legislature have been trying their damndest to drive everybody out of rural NY to other states. And it's been working pretty well so far.
We get plenty of sunlight, but 70% of that is over ocean. Even over land, there's a lot of places that don't get good sun coverage but still get to see the moon every day/night (e.g. higher latitudes)
You assume the AC was saying that blowing away a few city blocks was a bad thing. I believe it's necessary to keep those Sims from becoming uppity.
To say there were "NO COMPUTERS" is pretty inaccurate. There were no microprocessors, yes, but there were analog computers as far back as 1872 and they were used extensively during the first World War. Modern computers were initially developed as a direct result of WWII threatening to erupt in Europe. The British Colossus was used during the war by codebreakers - ten variations of it was in use before the war was over. Over in the US, the ENIAC was created to help with the war effort - including the construction of the hydrogen bomb. They weren't terribly sophisticated by today's standards, but it wouldn't be a leap to assume N. Korea has gotten their hands on something magnitudes more powerful - even a 1970's era computer.
"By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s."
Of course, that's from the CIA's website, so it's exactly what they want you to think...
News Update: The police, in conjunction with several federal agencies, has determined the official cause of death to be a weather balloon. And swamp gas.
That's exactly why. Any surveillance of Americans should only be done if it pertains to a police matter (e.g. investigation).
Sometimes, not disguising your intentions, methodology and actions is better than whatever the actual system is. It's a basic principle of effective deterrence in a MAD situation. And as far as the two Koreas are concerned, it's still pretty close to MAD even if no nukes are used.