Can they develop a laser scanner to find my dignity again? While I hail these suggested improvements, the fact remains that these piecemeal changes are a smokescreen to the larger issue of the legality and effectiveness of our current airport security scheme.
Potential deaths from just about every source of energy are "pretty damned high" if you look at the absolute worst case scenario. That's why engineers and people that are far smarter than I am work to reduce the danger level to a point where the worst case scenario is highly unlikely and even if an accident occurs, the damage is limited to an absolute bare minimum.
I think the original poster's point had more to do with the fact that if there were no copyright restrictions, Zynga could simply say, "We're absolutely copying this game, as we like the concept but we think we can do it better." Zynga could shout it from the hilltops because there was no legal reason for them not to. Because copyright laws can lead to large monetary settlements for infringement, copyright has absolutely everything to do with it being a confidential, internal memo rather than a public document.
I know it's quite simplistic, but I would simply equate it to highways and car travel. Basically, the government would have the right to shut down certain exits on the highway or even whole highways themselves because someone at one point sped on that stretch of road, regardless of what is at that exit.
I go into a lot of boardrooms in my line of business and I was actually at a business a few weeks ago that was obviously concerned about this, so they used the low-tech solution of a cardboard box over the videoconferencing device.
On the box, in handwritten black magic marker, it said "Do not remove unless participating in a video conference!" Not exactly high-tech, but I suppose it was more effective than nothing.
The key here is that it's a federal law, not a state law or city ordinance. It's a crime (due to the law you cited) to lie to a FEDERAL investigator, namely the FBI or any other agency. You can still exercise your fifth amendment rights, however, unless a state or city has a similar law, it isn't a crime to lie to state or local police. As pointed out, it doesn't help your case, so just don't talk to cops.
Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to a federal officer, which is a lot easier to prove than insider trading.
I do believe that in Facebook's dictionary, "fixed" is defined as maintaining the same functionality using a different method, thus granting plausible deniability.
In my eyes, this isn't simply cross-promotion. They are essentially forcing Google+ and its corresponding integration with Google products down our throat rather than just offering them as an optional accessory. It would be akin to taking your car into the dealership for service and the dealer installing OnStar into your car without your knowledge. Regardless of the fact that it's a *service*, there are some people that don't want it, don't need it and simply *not using it* isn't enough.
While you are certainly right that airbags are designed to work with a seatbelt, the author's suggestion that current DOT approved seatbelts (aka the lap and shoulder belt combination) are wholly insufficient is 100% correct. They are indeed too narrow for the kind of energies that are involved in high speed crashes. 3" harnesses are FAR more effective at securing a person in a car when used effectively.
However, the caveat at that point is that to effectively utilize a harness in an automobile, you need proper mounting points, which are not provided in many cars as well as rollover protection such as a roll bar/cage. If your car rolls, the harness will not allow your body to slide out of the way, thus saving you from breaking your neck and or other injuries. Of course, if you have a roll bar/cage, you have to wear a helmet while driving to protect your noggin from hitting it.
Personally, I'd be perfectly fine if all cars had roll cages and harnesses and wearing a helmet / HANS device every time I drove, but something tells me that I'm in the minority there.
I am not a foreign relations expert, but in my mind the difference between the two are that tariffs and commodity subsidies have long been tools in foreign relations, as they directly impact the prices of goods that are traded at the international level. While it is at least slightly coercive to attempt to manipulate the price of your goods as well as those of your trading partners, what the US is trying to do in this case is completely different. The US is attempting to force Spain to modify their national laws to take away rights from Spanish citizens by threatening to impact the trading relationship between the two countries. As the article put it "this serious step would mean that Spain was in breach of trade agreements and could be subjected to a range of 'retaliatory actions'."
If the US ambassador wrote to the Spanish government and said "If you don't make your country's laws mirror the US drug laws, we're not trading with you any more," would it be any different?
Coercion: Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.
Keep in mind that coercion is an integral part of extortion:
Extortion: Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
Being a big bully is one thing. It's one thing if we're a big bully on things like human rights. What's more distressing to me is that we're basically allowing the media companies to push the US into being a big bully for things that even our own citizens think is ridiculous.
Actually, this is more along the lines of extortion. "Nice country you've got here. It would be a shame if someone blacklisted it from trading with other countries..."
No thanks. I've already got a fire sale TouchPad. At least HP had the brains to do that right and generate some buzz. RIM has made missteps along every part of the journey, including this one.
I think this demonstrates something that I've believed in for years. When doing business, sometimes it's wise to leave a bit on the table. You won't be maximizing profit or getting the absolute best deal that you could have, but the goodwill earned can be priceless and can pay off in ways you can't envision.
I think that's the nurture part of the "nature vs. nurture" debate, which illustrates the main flaw with the DNA test indicating sports aptitude:
No matter how good your genes are, you need to have the will and mental fortitude to work hard and shape your raw talent.
The best genes in the world cannot cure apathy. On a personal note, kudos to both your children. As a former competitive swimmer, I have seen exactly what your son has spoken about and it saddens me. I have also tried to be a hard worker and encourage others (as your daughter does). Athletes tend to be competitive people and by design, we don't like seeing people working harder than us, so its easy for such a personality to drive the team as whole to higher levels of performance.
I think a Middle Eastern friend of ours who has a few issues with Iran will be very interested in a few of these. Look for them to announce development of a stunningly similar weapon after a few smoking holes are left in Natanz.
I think that a lot of the opposition of the Occupy movement comes from exactly what you just said. As a movement, "Occupy" says that they represent the "99%" aka everyone who isn't a Wall Street fatcat. But as soon as anyone does something crazy or advocates violence, it's immediately "Oh, they're not part of us!" The movement seems to claim to be inclusive of everyone until someone does something that paints the movement in a bad light, in which case, they're not with you.
The problem with the structure of the movement (ie having no clear leadership as well as so many differing issues of concern) is that a single person's voice carries just as much weight as anyone elses, even the crazies.
After further research, it seems that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what "evangelical" means.
However, I did find the following bit:
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. The term is often used in reference to Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "evangelical atheist." Actively moving to sway others to your belief system, whatever that belief system is.
The Veyron would wear its tires out in about 15 minutes while traveling at 250+ mph, but that's all right, because the fuel would run out in about 12 minutes. A fact discussed on of all things, Top Gear.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is why people are willingly doing this? What excuses are the "managers" using to convince people that this is legitimate? Having high dollar consumer goods coming in and then shipping them out to a different address should just be a giant red flag to nearly anyone in this day and age. Are these people that desperate for a job that they're willing to turn a blind eye to it or are the "managers" somehow convincing people that this is on the up and up?
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm looking at porn 5% more a month, she damn well knows why. She should be more concerned if my porn consumption drops to 0 unexpectedly.
Can they develop a laser scanner to find my dignity again? While I hail these suggested improvements, the fact remains that these piecemeal changes are a smokescreen to the larger issue of the legality and effectiveness of our current airport security scheme.
Potential deaths from just about every source of energy are "pretty damned high" if you look at the absolute worst case scenario. That's why engineers and people that are far smarter than I am work to reduce the danger level to a point where the worst case scenario is highly unlikely and even if an accident occurs, the damage is limited to an absolute bare minimum.
I think the original poster's point had more to do with the fact that if there were no copyright restrictions, Zynga could simply say, "We're absolutely copying this game, as we like the concept but we think we can do it better." Zynga could shout it from the hilltops because there was no legal reason for them not to. Because copyright laws can lead to large monetary settlements for infringement, copyright has absolutely everything to do with it being a confidential, internal memo rather than a public document.
I know it's quite simplistic, but I would simply equate it to highways and car travel. Basically, the government would have the right to shut down certain exits on the highway or even whole highways themselves because someone at one point sped on that stretch of road, regardless of what is at that exit.
I go into a lot of boardrooms in my line of business and I was actually at a business a few weeks ago that was obviously concerned about this, so they used the low-tech solution of a cardboard box over the videoconferencing device.
On the box, in handwritten black magic marker, it said "Do not remove unless participating in a video conference!" Not exactly high-tech, but I suppose it was more effective than nothing.
The key here is that it's a federal law, not a state law or city ordinance. It's a crime (due to the law you cited) to lie to a FEDERAL investigator, namely the FBI or any other agency. You can still exercise your fifth amendment rights, however, unless a state or city has a similar law, it isn't a crime to lie to state or local police. As pointed out, it doesn't help your case, so just don't talk to cops.
Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to a federal officer, which is a lot easier to prove than insider trading.
I do believe that in Facebook's dictionary, "fixed" is defined as maintaining the same functionality using a different method, thus granting plausible deniability.
In my eyes, this isn't simply cross-promotion. They are essentially forcing Google+ and its corresponding integration with Google products down our throat rather than just offering them as an optional accessory. It would be akin to taking your car into the dealership for service and the dealer installing OnStar into your car without your knowledge. Regardless of the fact that it's a *service*, there are some people that don't want it, don't need it and simply *not using it* isn't enough.
While you are certainly right that airbags are designed to work with a seatbelt, the author's suggestion that current DOT approved seatbelts (aka the lap and shoulder belt combination) are wholly insufficient is 100% correct. They are indeed too narrow for the kind of energies that are involved in high speed crashes. 3" harnesses are FAR more effective at securing a person in a car when used effectively.
However, the caveat at that point is that to effectively utilize a harness in an automobile, you need proper mounting points, which are not provided in many cars as well as rollover protection such as a roll bar/cage. If your car rolls, the harness will not allow your body to slide out of the way, thus saving you from breaking your neck and or other injuries. Of course, if you have a roll bar/cage, you have to wear a helmet while driving to protect your noggin from hitting it.
Personally, I'd be perfectly fine if all cars had roll cages and harnesses and wearing a helmet / HANS device every time I drove, but something tells me that I'm in the minority there.
I am not a foreign relations expert, but in my mind the difference between the two are that tariffs and commodity subsidies have long been tools in foreign relations, as they directly impact the prices of goods that are traded at the international level. While it is at least slightly coercive to attempt to manipulate the price of your goods as well as those of your trading partners, what the US is trying to do in this case is completely different. The US is attempting to force Spain to modify their national laws to take away rights from Spanish citizens by threatening to impact the trading relationship between the two countries. As the article put it "this serious step would mean that Spain was in breach of trade agreements and could be subjected to a range of 'retaliatory actions'."
If the US ambassador wrote to the Spanish government and said "If you don't make your country's laws mirror the US drug laws, we're not trading with you any more," would it be any different?
Would coercion seem more appropriate to you?
Coercion: Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.
Keep in mind that coercion is an integral part of extortion:
Extortion: Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
Being a big bully is one thing. It's one thing if we're a big bully on things like human rights. What's more distressing to me is that we're basically allowing the media companies to push the US into being a big bully for things that even our own citizens think is ridiculous.
Actually, this is more along the lines of extortion. "Nice country you've got here. It would be a shame if someone blacklisted it from trading with other countries..."
No thanks. I've already got a fire sale TouchPad. At least HP had the brains to do that right and generate some buzz. RIM has made missteps along every part of the journey, including this one.
I think this demonstrates something that I've believed in for years. When doing business, sometimes it's wise to leave a bit on the table. You won't be maximizing profit or getting the absolute best deal that you could have, but the goodwill earned can be priceless and can pay off in ways you can't envision.
I think that's the nurture part of the "nature vs. nurture" debate, which illustrates the main flaw with the DNA test indicating sports aptitude:
No matter how good your genes are, you need to have the will and mental fortitude to work hard and shape your raw talent.
The best genes in the world cannot cure apathy. On a personal note, kudos to both your children. As a former competitive swimmer, I have seen exactly what your son has spoken about and it saddens me. I have also tried to be a hard worker and encourage others (as your daughter does). Athletes tend to be competitive people and by design, we don't like seeing people working harder than us, so its easy for such a personality to drive the team as whole to higher levels of performance.
I think a Middle Eastern friend of ours who has a few issues with Iran will be very interested in a few of these. Look for them to announce development of a stunningly similar weapon after a few smoking holes are left in Natanz.
I think that a lot of the opposition of the Occupy movement comes from exactly what you just said. As a movement, "Occupy" says that they represent the "99%" aka everyone who isn't a Wall Street fatcat. But as soon as anyone does something crazy or advocates violence, it's immediately "Oh, they're not part of us!" The movement seems to claim to be inclusive of everyone until someone does something that paints the movement in a bad light, in which case, they're not with you.
The problem with the structure of the movement (ie having no clear leadership as well as so many differing issues of concern) is that a single person's voice carries just as much weight as anyone elses, even the crazies.
After further research, it seems that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what "evangelical" means.
However, I did find the following bit:
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. The term is often used in reference to Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism
Perhaps an even more accurate term is a "proselytizing atheist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism
Of course, I think we've probably dropped into the realm of the pedantic now.
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "evangelical atheist." Actively moving to sway others to your belief system, whatever that belief system is.
Personally, I'd rather we far overstated China's abilities and designed our systems to counter such a threat.
Would you rather overestimate their abilities or underestimate them?
The Veyron would wear its tires out in about 15 minutes while traveling at 250+ mph, but that's all right, because the fuel would run out in about 12 minutes. A fact discussed on of all things, Top Gear.
Come on, it's not like Tesla makes caravans or anything...
What I'm having a hard time understanding is why people are willingly doing this? What excuses are the "managers" using to convince people that this is legitimate? Having high dollar consumer goods coming in and then shipping them out to a different address should just be a giant red flag to nearly anyone in this day and age. Are these people that desperate for a job that they're willing to turn a blind eye to it or are the "managers" somehow convincing people that this is on the up and up?