But there are multiple instruments in the room and the room is unlocked (safety). If each piece of equipment really needs to be independently monitored, each machine would need its own RFID tag reader or similar that controlled power to the machine as opposed to opening the door. It would also need to monitor current draw to see how long the machine was actually in use after a user started it up.
A body's own instincts are what make a body overweight. Our instincts were developed to combat scarcity and starvation; overabundance was a pretty rare occurrence.
But arguing "humans are omnivores, therefore the healthiest diet includes a significant amount of meat" makes as much sense as saying you need to eat lots of grubs and other insects too. After all, we ate a lot of those back in the day). A vegetarian or vegan can get as much as they want of any essential amino acid from supplements if they like.
The cops knew they were bound by the court order not the contract.
This is more about an absence of court orders (search warrants) than about court orders that were not followed. Once a court order forced them to they did disclose using the stingray. Before that they did refuse a request for information from a defense attorney, but not a court order.
In today's wars only one side has any armor or an air force to speak of. If not at the beginning then at least by the time the winning side's "squishies" are brought forward.
Changing the rules on confidentiality of settlements wouldn't change things that much, since the settlement itself would avoid discussing whatever happened to cause the lawsuit. It would essentially just allow successful plaintiffs to say "where there's $80k worth of smoke there might be fire".
You could ban confidentiality agreements that cover discovery in civil suits as well. That would have some immediate positives. Lots of scumbag companies would settle as soon as a plaintiff asked the right discovery question and a judge said the company would have to comply. If they didn't, their dirty laundry would be in public no matter how the lawsuit went. On the flipside that would effectively end trade secrets and confidentiality in US companies: if you can come up with a legal argument for discovery whatever is discovered is now public. It would also end personal privacy during civil lawsuits, which in many cases would be a bad thing.
Perhaps a rule that banned settlements which disallowed a plaintiff from discussing their own personal observations formed before the lawsuit was filed?
$80K + some $10k paychecks + $60K in attorneys fees Dad's lawyers might now get out of him instead of the school. The lesson may well be: "About that college fund and our eventually helping you out with a down payment on a house..."
Still questioning how a 'don't tell anyone' clause can be legal.
Non-disclose clauses in other settings, like employment contracts, are pretty commonplace. Legal settlements are much more hairy ethically, but they don't override law enforcement or (some) subpoenas.
Meh. Any place that sells cosmetics has this kind of bullshit at the core of their business model, Whole Foods is only remarkable for being so successful at doing it with foods as well as cosmetics. Mostly their business model is good aesthetics, high quality produce and meats, and upscale everything else. The woo tax people are paying in the middle aisles is just gravy.
For some reason, there’s a special stream of American rage directed at ideological attacks on science that seems to evaporate when the offender is a for-profit corporation.
Well, for every stream of rage that evaporates when confronting a for-profit there are ten that condense to form a river. Look no further than... one paragraph up!
But as vaccine skeptics start to prompt public health crises, and GMO opponents block projects that could save lives in the developing world, it’s fair to ask how much we can disentangle Whole Foods’ pseudoscientific wares from very real, very worrying antiscientific outbursts.
Pharma and biotech certainly are for-profit and certainly don't get let off the hook by many of the shoppers he is referring to at Whole Foods.
first every command has an almost universal API for input and output letting you pipeline everything you do.
achieving that across a language that is staggeringly comprehensive, deep and wide.
Are we sure about that yet? Are the limitations due to dependencies going to be revealed as people attempt to write longer pipelines? Wolfram makes great tools, but they aren't going to be great tools for every problem.
It not only made it illegal to text while driving, but the wording covered anything that took a significant portion of your attention from driving.
If it could have potentially precluded lawyers from billing hours on the phone while commuting then I'm surprised the bill even made it to the veto phase.
Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago. I can't recall whether dash mounts were similarly criminalized. California became a nanny state a long time ago and that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.
Oh the horror of not being allowed to put your GPS where it will block your view or get launched into your skull by an airbag. You can mount it to the windshield, but it has to be in a corner.
(12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone,
Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you would be offensive whether or not you were filming.
Glass is the equivalent of walking around holding your cell phone up in filming position... all the time. You may not be recording but nothing stops you from quickly flipping into recording mode or taking pictures.
Wearing your glass is equivalent to holding your camera up and pointing at the room.
We are not talking about showing off a cellphone vs walking around wearing Google glass.
No. We are talking about looking at the screen of a phone vs using a phone to take pictures of people vs wearing Glass:
Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you would be offensive whether or not you were filming.
Glass is the equivalent of walking around holding your cell phone up in filming position... all the time. You may not be recording but nothing stops you from quickly flipping into recording mode or taking pictures.
This may not be the thread you like, but it is the thread in which you are posting.
The other part of my comment is completely related. The standard for camera phones is that you put them away in shared bathrooms or at least NEVER point the lens at people. Presumably the standard should be the same for Glass type devices, even if they have prescription corrective lenses.
but societal norms are set by the average, not the outliers. There are even laws mandating behavior match others. It goes back to tribal times, identifying "us" versus "them" and is core to our nature as humans.
Punks in the 70's wore deliberately offensive clothing and jewelry as a way to differentiate themselves from the people they wished to enrage or annoy.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are multiple instruments in the room and the room is unlocked (safety). If each piece of equipment really needs to be independently monitored, each machine would need its own RFID tag reader or similar that controlled power to the machine as opposed to opening the door. It would also need to monitor current draw to see how long the machine was actually in use after a user started it up.
If you aren't a fat inactive pile of crap... it really doesn't really matter what you eat as long as you get enough of what you need.
The plaque in your arteries might disagree.
A body's own instincts are what make a body overweight. Our instincts were developed to combat scarcity and starvation; overabundance was a pretty rare occurrence.
But arguing "humans are omnivores, therefore the healthiest diet includes a significant amount of meat" makes as much sense as saying you need to eat lots of grubs and other insects too. After all, we ate a lot of those back in the day). A vegetarian or vegan can get as much as they want of any essential amino acid from supplements if they like.
Cite for a vegetarian diet being more healthy than one that also includes fish or a small amount of any other meat, if you please.
The cops knew they were bound by the court order not the contract.
This is more about an absence of court orders (search warrants) than about court orders that were not followed. Once a court order forced them to they did disclose using the stingray. Before that they did refuse a request for information from a defense attorney, but not a court order.
You enjoy making arguments in court? On the court's schedule?
Personally, I prefer to not wrestle with pigs, you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.
These days that would be arguments in binding arbitration. In front of the arbitrator more or less employed by the company.
The goal isn't to kill people; the goal is to distribute the project to as many congressional districts as possible. More moving parts, more better.
miniature silent version
Ah.
That would be called a drone.
In today's wars only one side has any armor or an air force to speak of. If not at the beginning then at least by the time the winning side's "squishies" are brought forward.
That strategy raises the stakes to perjury and lots of depositions for the whole family to enjoy.
Changing the rules on confidentiality of settlements wouldn't change things that much, since the settlement itself would avoid discussing whatever happened to cause the lawsuit. It would essentially just allow successful plaintiffs to say "where there's $80k worth of smoke there might be fire".
You could ban confidentiality agreements that cover discovery in civil suits as well. That would have some immediate positives. Lots of scumbag companies would settle as soon as a plaintiff asked the right discovery question and a judge said the company would have to comply. If they didn't, their dirty laundry would be in public no matter how the lawsuit went. On the flipside that would effectively end trade secrets and confidentiality in US companies: if you can come up with a legal argument for discovery whatever is discovered is now public. It would also end personal privacy during civil lawsuits, which in many cases would be a bad thing.
Perhaps a rule that banned settlements which disallowed a plaintiff from discussing their own personal observations formed before the lawsuit was filed?
$80K + some $10k paychecks + $60K in attorneys fees Dad's lawyers might now get out of him instead of the school. The lesson may well be: "About that college fund and our eventually helping you out with a down payment on a house ..."
Still questioning how a 'don't tell anyone' clause can be legal.
Non-disclose clauses in other settings, like employment contracts, are pretty commonplace. Legal settlements are much more hairy ethically, but they don't override law enforcement or (some) subpoenas.
Please don't read his journal before replying to him. After all, he can't force you to and he's not holding a gun to your head.
Ethics aside, If they told her not to tell anyone about the settlement but she did anyway, is it really a good risk to have her collude in perjury?
So assuming the ruling stands, is it likely the dad now owes his lawyers the $60k in fees they were awarded as part of the settlement?
Meh. Any place that sells cosmetics has this kind of bullshit at the core of their business model, Whole Foods is only remarkable for being so successful at doing it with foods as well as cosmetics. Mostly their business model is good aesthetics, high quality produce and meats, and upscale everything else. The woo tax people are paying in the middle aisles is just gravy.
For some reason, there’s a special stream of American rage directed at ideological attacks on science that seems to evaporate when the offender is a for-profit corporation.
Well, for every stream of rage that evaporates when confronting a for-profit there are ten that condense to form a river. Look no further than ... one paragraph up!
But as vaccine skeptics start to prompt public health crises, and GMO opponents block projects that could save lives in the developing world, it’s fair to ask how much we can disentangle Whole Foods’ pseudoscientific wares from very real, very worrying antiscientific outbursts.
Pharma and biotech certainly are for-profit and certainly don't get let off the hook by many of the shoppers he is referring to at Whole Foods.
first every command has an almost universal API for input and output letting you pipeline everything you do.
achieving that across a language that is staggeringly comprehensive, deep and wide.
Are we sure about that yet? Are the limitations due to dependencies going to be revealed as people attempt to write longer pipelines? Wolfram makes great tools, but they aren't going to be great tools for every problem.
It not only made it illegal to text while driving, but the wording covered anything that took a significant portion of your attention from driving.
If it could have potentially precluded lawyers from billing hours on the phone while commuting then I'm surprised the bill even made it to the veto phase.
Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago. I can't recall whether dash mounts were similarly criminalized. California became a nanny state a long time ago and that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.
Oh the horror of not being allowed to put your GPS where it will block your view or get launched into your skull by an airbag. You can mount it to the windshield, but it has to be in a corner.
(12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone,
Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you would be offensive whether or not you were filming.
Glass is the equivalent of walking around holding your cell phone up in filming position... all the time. You may not be recording but nothing stops you from quickly flipping into recording mode or taking pictures.
Wearing your glass is equivalent to holding your camera up and pointing at the room.
We are not talking about showing off a cellphone vs walking around wearing Google glass.
No. We are talking about looking at the screen of a phone vs using a phone to take pictures of people vs wearing Glass:
Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you would be offensive whether or not you were filming.
Glass is the equivalent of walking around holding your cell phone up in filming position... all the time. You may not be recording but nothing stops you from quickly flipping into recording mode or taking pictures.
This may not be the thread you like, but it is the thread in which you are posting.
The other part of my comment is completely related. The standard for camera phones is that you put them away in shared bathrooms or at least NEVER point the lens at people. Presumably the standard should be the same for Glass type devices, even if they have prescription corrective lenses.
but societal norms are set by the average, not the outliers. There are even laws mandating behavior match others. It goes back to tribal times, identifying "us" versus "them" and is core to our nature as humans.
Punks in the 70's wore deliberately offensive clothing and jewelry as a way to differentiate themselves from the people they wished to enrage or annoy.
Meet the new punks?