The theoretical "muonic atom" would have muons replacing electrons, not the nucleus (protons and neutrons). If you really want to consider something interesting, look up the theoretical properties of atoms with proton numbers above 173. There is a theoretical "island of stability" where the half-lifes stop being measured in fractions of a second, but the size of the nuclei involved also get so large as to require electrons in the outer valences to have superluminal velocities.
I dunno what weird engineered atoms might be in our future, but the element to which any atom belongs is determined by its proton count -- and since we're talking about discrete units they can only exist as whole numbers.
Actually, that's a summary of the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the legality of photography laws, not the photography laws themselves; an important distinction because you can't pass a law which goes against those SCOTUS rulings (well you can, but it'll be struck down by the nearest Federal Court as unconstitutional). What is considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not determined by laws, it is based on a two-part test; this is the same test used to determine when police require a search warrant. In a world where this drone photography law holds water the police would be barred from acting on anything they observed in public, unless they had a warrant before actually witnessing it. That's where the "reasonable" part comes from, and that's why photography IS legal -- there is an overriding public interest in having police able to act on things that are "in plain view".
Huh? It's perfectly legal to require a person to consent to a search in order to enter a private business. Plenty of stores have signs saying that they reserve the right to search your backpack/purse upon entering. Most rarely do, but they COULD do it to every person. You are correct, you can refuse the search -- and the business has the right to refuse you permission to enter if you decline. You have every right to fly without being searched, in your own airplane. Airlines have an interest in protecting their passengers and their property. Most of us can't afford our own airplanes, but that doesn't mean that we get to pretend we have the same rights on a commercial aircraft as we would on a privately-owned one.
This argument is a bit disingenuous. The 4th Amendment prevents searches when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As you are in public in an airport/on an airplane, and there is an overriding public interest in preventing weapons from being brought on-board an aircraft, it is legal to require consensual searches before boarding to look specifically for weapons -- because an aircraft en route is very isolated and in an emergency there would be no way to get help on board, short of landing -- which tips the "public good vs. right to privacy" scale toward "public good".
Now, if you want to argue that requiring photo ID for domestic flights is unreasonable I'd agree.
The US Constitution is both. It is a "white list" of powers assigned explicitly to the Federal government, with the remainder falling under "state's rights". It also contains a "black list", in the form of the Bill of Rights, which enumerates certain areas as being explicitly off-limits to both the Federal and State governments.
Contracts between a private individual and a government entity are not protected by any such privacy considerations. The public has a vested interest, and a right, to scrutinize their government's conduct and to know why it's tax money is being paid to a private individual.
They talk about the break-even point because it's the key to fusion power. If you can find a thermodynamically-viable way to accomplish that, then generating excess power to run our world is just a matter of tuning (unless a new problem crops up) the system to provide some excess power, even if it's not very much. Any amount of excess will be useful, because you can scale up the plant to whatever size is necessary to generate useful quantities of excess power. I'm a ChemE, not Physics post-doc, so correct me if I'm mistaken.:)
By the way, the Constitution most certainly DOES bar you from things -- things that would impinge on someone else's rights. That's basically the entire basis of Constitutional law.. finding where one person's rights end and another person's begin, basically.
California v. Ciraolo, No. 84-1513. If you can see it from an airplane then it is in plain view from a public space and there is no expectation of privacy.
And your theoretical sign? It's on private property, so you aren't talking about the 1st OR 4th Amendment, you are giving conditional permission for access to private property.
You are right, they cannot make a law which contravenes the US Constitution; in this case, the problem is the 4th Amendment. It guarantees a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to protect against unlawful searches, while the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to take photographs anywhere not excluded under the 4th Amendment as a "reasonable expectation". SCOTUS has ruled before that photography from helicopters is protected speech, and there is nothing substantially different about drone photography. Any blanket ban on the use of drones for photography would constitute prior restraint and be struck down. Probably the only law which could be supported in court would be one preventing the flying of camera drones into private property, which would be trespassing at a minimum, regardless.
It is legal to take photographs of people so long as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If the yard is in full view from a public location then there is no legal expectation of privacy. Any law seeking to limit photographic use of drones would have to ensure it didn't cover any time the drone is in public areas -- look up the case history of helicopter use to photograph Malibu mansion beaches et al.
I think the key would be to find a way to retain the essential component of patents -- the requirement that the patent-holder must file documents detailing how the patented technology works. Without the monopoly the company would have little reason to disclose their secrets, but reverse-engineering would also now be legal. Right now "innovation" is a leap-frog game being played with products that are almost-but-not-quite identical to the competition. Without patents I think the leaps would become larger, as companies actually have an incentive to do real research, so as to jump far enough ahead that the competition can't get ahead of them.
The question was about options when purchasing a new phone. If you want to use a slide-out keyboard case then you obviously check to see whether they are available for the phones you are looking at. Such cases can be found for most Samsung and Apple phones -- from the post, it sounds like an S5 with keyboard would meet his needs, as one example.
The feature you want isn't built into high-end smartphones, which is a decision of the smartphone manufacturers -- that's why carriers don't have them. Stop blaming the wrong people and just go buy a slide-out keyboard iPhone or Android case.
Verizon was called-out for refusing to do it, simultaneously refusing to increase their L3 peering (for free!) to compensate, and then claiming Netflix was the cause of degraded Netflix streaming: http://blog.level3.com/global-...
Having large sections of the backbone slowly replaced by websites peering directly to ISPs also is a threat to the internet. It allows levels of douchebaggery which can't be achieved when the bulk of traffic travels via L3 and their competitors. When ISPs start peering directly, beyond the level of simple CDNs, they're effectively becoming their own paywalled "internet".. AOL much?
Slashdot Mirror
The theoretical "muonic atom" would have muons replacing electrons, not the nucleus (protons and neutrons). If you really want to consider something interesting, look up the theoretical properties of atoms with proton numbers above 173. There is a theoretical "island of stability" where the half-lifes stop being measured in fractions of a second, but the size of the nuclei involved also get so large as to require electrons in the outer valences to have superluminal velocities.
Those are called isotopes.
I dunno what weird engineered atoms might be in our future, but the element to which any atom belongs is determined by its proton count -- and since we're talking about discrete units they can only exist as whole numbers.
Freon, and the "safer' HFC-134a are both gasses at STP. They're only liquids during part of the refrigeration cycle, while under high pressure.
Actually, that's a summary of the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the legality of photography laws, not the photography laws themselves; an important distinction because you can't pass a law which goes against those SCOTUS rulings (well you can, but it'll be struck down by the nearest Federal Court as unconstitutional). What is considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not determined by laws, it is based on a two-part test; this is the same test used to determine when police require a search warrant. In a world where this drone photography law holds water the police would be barred from acting on anything they observed in public, unless they had a warrant before actually witnessing it. That's where the "reasonable" part comes from, and that's why photography IS legal -- there is an overriding public interest in having police able to act on things that are "in plain view".
Huh? It's perfectly legal to require a person to consent to a search in order to enter a private business. Plenty of stores have signs saying that they reserve the right to search your backpack/purse upon entering. Most rarely do, but they COULD do it to every person. You are correct, you can refuse the search -- and the business has the right to refuse you permission to enter if you decline. You have every right to fly without being searched, in your own airplane. Airlines have an interest in protecting their passengers and their property. Most of us can't afford our own airplanes, but that doesn't mean that we get to pretend we have the same rights on a commercial aircraft as we would on a privately-owned one.
This argument is a bit disingenuous. The 4th Amendment prevents searches when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As you are in public in an airport/on an airplane, and there is an overriding public interest in preventing weapons from being brought on-board an aircraft, it is legal to require consensual searches before boarding to look specifically for weapons -- because an aircraft en route is very isolated and in an emergency there would be no way to get help on board, short of landing -- which tips the "public good vs. right to privacy" scale toward "public good". Now, if you want to argue that requiring photo ID for domestic flights is unreasonable I'd agree.
The US Constitution is both. It is a "white list" of powers assigned explicitly to the Federal government, with the remainder falling under "state's rights". It also contains a "black list", in the form of the Bill of Rights, which enumerates certain areas as being explicitly off-limits to both the Federal and State governments.
Contracts between a private individual and a government entity are not protected by any such privacy considerations. The public has a vested interest, and a right, to scrutinize their government's conduct and to know why it's tax money is being paid to a private individual.
They talk about the break-even point because it's the key to fusion power. If you can find a thermodynamically-viable way to accomplish that, then generating excess power to run our world is just a matter of tuning (unless a new problem crops up) the system to provide some excess power, even if it's not very much. Any amount of excess will be useful, because you can scale up the plant to whatever size is necessary to generate useful quantities of excess power. I'm a ChemE, not Physics post-doc, so correct me if I'm mistaken. :)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, No. 84-1259 too.
By the way, the Constitution most certainly DOES bar you from things -- things that would impinge on someone else's rights. That's basically the entire basis of Constitutional law.. finding where one person's rights end and another person's begin, basically.
California v. Ciraolo, No. 84-1513. If you can see it from an airplane then it is in plain view from a public space and there is no expectation of privacy. And your theoretical sign? It's on private property, so you aren't talking about the 1st OR 4th Amendment, you are giving conditional permission for access to private property.
You are right, they cannot make a law which contravenes the US Constitution; in this case, the problem is the 4th Amendment. It guarantees a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to protect against unlawful searches, while the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to take photographs anywhere not excluded under the 4th Amendment as a "reasonable expectation". SCOTUS has ruled before that photography from helicopters is protected speech, and there is nothing substantially different about drone photography. Any blanket ban on the use of drones for photography would constitute prior restraint and be struck down. Probably the only law which could be supported in court would be one preventing the flying of camera drones into private property, which would be trespassing at a minimum, regardless.
It is legal to take photographs of people so long as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If the yard is in full view from a public location then there is no legal expectation of privacy. Any law seeking to limit photographic use of drones would have to ensure it didn't cover any time the drone is in public areas -- look up the case history of helicopter use to photograph Malibu mansion beaches et al.
I think the key would be to find a way to retain the essential component of patents -- the requirement that the patent-holder must file documents detailing how the patented technology works. Without the monopoly the company would have little reason to disclose their secrets, but reverse-engineering would also now be legal. Right now "innovation" is a leap-frog game being played with products that are almost-but-not-quite identical to the competition. Without patents I think the leaps would become larger, as companies actually have an incentive to do real research, so as to jump far enough ahead that the competition can't get ahead of them.
And, like any STI, it's guaranteed you'll never get rid of Comcast, too!
The question was about options when purchasing a new phone. If you want to use a slide-out keyboard case then you obviously check to see whether they are available for the phones you are looking at. Such cases can be found for most Samsung and Apple phones -- from the post, it sounds like an S5 with keyboard would meet his needs, as one example.
The feature you want isn't built into high-end smartphones, which is a decision of the smartphone manufacturers -- that's why carriers don't have them. Stop blaming the wrong people and just go buy a slide-out keyboard iPhone or Android case.
It's not a link. Someone put an .. tag around text, there's no href component with a URL provided.
Verizon was called-out for refusing to do it, simultaneously refusing to increase their L3 peering (for free!) to compensate, and then claiming Netflix was the cause of degraded Netflix streaming: http://blog.level3.com/global-...
Having large sections of the backbone slowly replaced by websites peering directly to ISPs also is a threat to the internet. It allows levels of douchebaggery which can't be achieved when the bulk of traffic travels via L3 and their competitors. When ISPs start peering directly, beyond the level of simple CDNs, they're effectively becoming their own paywalled "internet".. AOL much?
Try testmy.net, they don't colocate with ISPs.
What about government forms that require a signature attesting to the validity of the information, under penalty of perjury?
"in to" and "into" are not equivalents.