Seriously, the is no comparison in capability between say, an X-Box 360. Consoles will still be the choice for graphic-intensive gaming. The iPad just doesn't have the horsepower with a Cortex-A8 processor. And if it did, it would burn your hands because there's no fan.
Scenario: Two guys are drinking in a bar. The get in an argument over something really stupid. Later, when leaving the bar, one of them yells an insult at the other. A fight ensues. The police show up and make some arrests. They have the second guy dead to rights on assault, because he was angry and threw the first punch, and the other guy has a black eye. What would you have the prosecutor do?
In most cases, the prosecutor charges him with simple assault and offers that if he pleads to disorderly conduct. The prosecutor can prove either charge, as there are multiple witnesses.
Fraid not. Some people are born misanthropes and they become BOFH as soon as you give them the authority. Same as any profession. There are always bad apples on the tree.
I'd like to see a study in audiences composed mostly parents of the performers are compared to audiences of unrelated adults.
Just this weekend I heard somebody trying to convince radio listeners that knowing when to start and stop clapping was a fine example of the "the wisdom of crowds." I like to see situations where real sociologists put such notions in their pseudoscientific place.
Easy mistake. I made the same mistake when I first read it. Had to go back and read it a couple times before I saw it. Yeah, we all know know that not all terrorists are Muslim. But we're not used to it.
Short memories. I remember when a large proportion of terrorists were Catholic.
Isn't that a bedrock principle of our justice system? What would you do if you were on a jury where the prosecutor was allowed to talk about evidence and not even the defendant's attorney was allowed to to see the order that showed it was legally obtained?
Should the jury at that point disregard the evidence because they can presume it was illegally obtained?
That really depends. If the government insists on acting as if the court hadn't decided anything there's really no way for the court to enforce its decisions. Really, it only has the power to affect how courts rule in cases that are brought to court.
They only take cases where there is a dispute as to what the law says. That's how they got in the business of deciding constitutional issues. Laws often conflict with one another. In the case of ordinary laws, they're typically self-enacting. You make a law that says X is illegal, that supercedes any law that says it's legal. But the Constitution can't be so easily changed. Statutes can't override it. So laws are often found to be in conflict with one or another part of the Constitution.
That really doesn't happen in spy cases and they would be charged (if at all) under the same laws. See Walter and Gwendolyn Myers, Chi Mak, Donald Keyser, Leandro Aragoncillo, Lawrence Franklin, etc. They all got trials and prison time in the USA.
The real risk for Google is that the government could shut them down.
You realize that's complete nonsense though, don't you? In the real world, rights are the principles that society and the law uphold regarding personal freedom. Anything right someone thinks they have that isn't universally or near-universally respected might as well not exist.
If these things were really natural things that every human being possesses, there would never have been a need to write them down, except as observations of scientists and philosophers who said, "That's funny. Nobody ever tries to limit the free expression of another person. There must be something in human nature that prevents people from doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Any spy agency has plenty to hide.
Seriously, the is no comparison in capability between say, an X-Box 360. Consoles will still be the choice for graphic-intensive gaming. The iPad just doesn't have the horsepower with a Cortex-A8 processor. And if it did, it would burn your hands because there's no fan.
...what he did will still be a crime.
Scenario: Two guys are drinking in a bar. The get in an argument over something really stupid. Later, when leaving the bar, one of them yells an insult at the other. A fight ensues. The police show up and make some arrests. They have the second guy dead to rights on assault, because he was angry and threw the first punch, and the other guy has a black eye. What would you have the prosecutor do?
In most cases, the prosecutor charges him with simple assault and offers that if he pleads to disorderly conduct. The prosecutor can prove either charge, as there are multiple witnesses.
Like most extreme positions, yours is foolish.
What's wrong with reddit?
What isn't?
Whoa whoa, what have to do those guys in ALF with the rest of monsters you list here? They wouldn't hurt rabbits nor human beings.
Well there have been car bombs.
Fraid not. Some people are born misanthropes and they become BOFH as soon as you give them the authority. Same as any profession. There are always bad apples on the tree.
As a manager, I'm pleased that you are all giving me so many ideas I can implement immediately to increase operational efficiency.
In what way?
I'd like to see a study in audiences composed mostly parents of the performers are compared to audiences of unrelated adults.
Just this weekend I heard somebody trying to convince radio listeners that knowing when to start and stop clapping was a fine example of the "the wisdom of crowds." I like to see situations where real sociologists put such notions in their pseudoscientific place.
I agree "It turns out" is a lousy way to express a scientific finding. "Scientists demonstrate" is a much better phrase to use.
That has nothing to do with it. Clapping is not expected at a scientific presentation. Because it's not expected, people mostly don't do it.
That's called Internet Explorer isn't it?
Easy mistake. I made the same mistake when I first read it. Had to go back and read it a couple times before I saw it. Yeah, we all know know that not all terrorists are Muslim. But we're not used to it.
Short memories. I remember when a large proportion of terrorists were Catholic.
Always trying to claim credit. It wasn't the Peoples' Front of Judea. Those guys are bumbling idiots. This was the Judean Peoples' Front.
Because there has been a body of very effective bug finders who find bugs for profit.
Not likely. It's an "up to" meaning "not more than." Any amount less than $100,001 is in compliance with that policy.
Isn't that a bedrock principle of our justice system? What would you do if you were on a jury where the prosecutor was allowed to talk about evidence and not even the defendant's attorney was allowed to to see the order that showed it was legally obtained?
Should the jury at that point disregard the evidence because they can presume it was illegally obtained?
That really depends. If the government insists on acting as if the court hadn't decided anything there's really no way for the court to enforce its decisions. Really, it only has the power to affect how courts rule in cases that are brought to court.
They only take cases where there is a dispute as to what the law says. That's how they got in the business of deciding constitutional issues. Laws often conflict with one another. In the case of ordinary laws, they're typically self-enacting. You make a law that says X is illegal, that supercedes any law that says it's legal. But the Constitution can't be so easily changed. Statutes can't override it. So laws are often found to be in conflict with one or another part of the Constitution.
That really doesn't happen in spy cases and they would be charged (if at all) under the same laws. See Walter and Gwendolyn Myers, Chi Mak, Donald Keyser, Leandro Aragoncillo, Lawrence Franklin, etc. They all got trials and prison time in the USA.
The real risk for Google is that the government could shut them down.
You realize that's complete nonsense though, don't you? In the real world, rights are the principles that society and the law uphold regarding personal freedom. Anything right someone thinks they have that isn't universally or near-universally respected might as well not exist.
If these things were really natural things that every human being possesses, there would never have been a need to write them down, except as observations of scientists and philosophers who said, "That's funny. Nobody ever tries to limit the free expression of another person. There must be something in human nature that prevents people from doing that.
Except according to the Supreme Court, maybe you don't.
Just wait. The Supremes will find a way to take that away too.