In cases of domestic violence or where there was a sexual assault they will sometimes press the case to trial in order to build out a useful record against the Defendant. This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that evidence of a past accusation is not proof of a present crime. Other times the prosecutor recognizes that pressing the case to trial is the only way he can even inconvenience the guilty son of a bitch, and so brings the reasonable charge knowing he'll lose because the evidence is merely compelling, rather than iron-clad. I believe the rule of prosecutorial ethics in most of the U.S. is that as long as you have a reasonable expectation that you/could/ win, you can bring the charge.
(Which is apparently OK to do for stars, but not people?)
Don't tell that to the dataminers, you'll destroy their minds. That's basically the only reason Facebook and the other networks have value - the ability to infer the traits of unknown individuals from the expressed traits of their connections.
I don't think either of us have any studies to throw back and forth -- but generally -- I know plenty of stupid people with very intelligent parents, and vice versa.
Now obviously (to all but you) I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek about this, but realistically foam padding the world doesn't serve humanity's long term interest.
To all but me and all the outraged posters above claiming that bad parenting is part of natural selection -- sure.
Are you a creationist? Most people have realised that we're not engineered, but have eveloped. [sic]
Evolution is a method, not a result. The result is a complex system of physical structures that function in a particular way. Sarcasm (and spelling failures) aside, engineered is a perfectly acceptable term for explaining that the way humans respond to their environment is predictable given the design of our bodies. You can go ahead and insist that design requires a designer if you want, you're off topic and wasting your time -- but hey maybe you can "score a point" there somewhere.
It isn't. Parents' failure to protect their children from eating dangerous objects reduces their amount of surviving offspring, and is natural selection.
You're mixing your social darwinism with your evolutionary theory. Here, our society is stepping in to protect our young. That is, as a species we are promoting our own genetic survival and diversity. There are words in there that are part of the theory of natural selection -- but the two are distinct. Natural selection is just the tendency of useful traits to persist by giving their bearers an advantage in survival and procreation. The parents choice to protect or not protect their children is an aspect of social selection -- and unless you believe that inattentive parenting is tied to a genetic trait - it has nothing to do with evolution.
Just going to put this out there -- how is eating a dangerous man made object natural selection? We're engineered to avoid obvious dangers and to explore our world. Part of that is that humans DO have as a adaptive trait the willingness to eat almost anything. We learn what is poisons and our elders are supposed to keep our infants/ignorant from eating that stuff. I mean, nightshade berries are very pretty round red balls that would probably be fun to play with -- should I let my one year old play with them?
Remember -- these are being sold AS toys. I am a bit of a magnetism geek, I have a small collection of neodymium magnets that I've used for the odd-ball home project or geek sculpture -- but I've also injured myself (skin crushed and torn) by those magnets. I do not want to imagine what would happen to my intestines if I swallowed a pair of them a few minutes apart -- guessing the answer would involved perforation.
As a litigator, I have trouble advising people on how to vote on any given judge. There are some judges I would like to see removed from the bench - simply because they're bad (don't read motions, show up late, don't listen to argument, make their decision when they receive the Complaint, ignore case law when it suits them, are consistently head-shakingly wrong, etc) - others I would like to see removed because their courtroom demeanor or procedure slow down cases and make litigation much more expensive.
Now here's the problem -- I can't tell you who these judges are. I won't even say anything about them when I can do so anonymously. Why? Because I know most of them will still be judges next week, and I'll have to appear before them. (remember, these are the/bad/ judges). The best I can do is pass around the local bar association's voter guide. Because the folks that write that guide are all attorneys the packet is mostly a bland recitation that most judges are qualified, occasionally with a very soft rebuke "needs to work on being more efficient and prepared" with the worst of the worst bad actors singled out at the ends as "not qualified."
Saddly, I think the informed voters get lost in the shuffle of folks that just show up and hit yes on every judge's retention ballot./sigh
The article is focused on power and transportation - we're heading for 100 dead as a result of Sandy. The plurality of those deaths occurred in New York City. Last night they added a few more dead to the list, including a pair of toddlers that were pulled away from their mother by a sudden wave -- while she was trying to run down the street fleeing her burning home. That one is haunting me.
Yes, but they sued Samsung for infringing that patent on the theory that the Samsung device had rounded corners and was rectangular with a bezel. Hence -- rounded corners.
There's nothing wrong with using the cost and length of litigation as a club against an opponent at the negotiating table. Particularly when both sides have deep pockets and the case is likely to include a mid sized six-figure litigation budget (if not more). That is reality. There's also the advantage of "less money now is worth more than more money later" cash in hand that goes immediately into the till is a very useful thing. A prospect of cash eventually *if* you win, much less so.
The money side of this is pretty ballsy though "hey, yeah, we just went after Samsung for every dollar they ever made on devices we think are infringing, but you only get going forward cash." That's a bad deal -- but that doesn't mean it's bad faith.
All the same, I hope Moogle rejects the offer and goes for the jugular.
SAN DIEGO -- Move over vampires, goblins and haunted houses, this kind of Halloween terror aims to shake up even the toughest warriors: An untold number of so-called zombies are coming to a counterterrorism summit attended by hundreds of Marines, Navy special ops, soldiers, police, firefighters and others to prepare them for their worst nightmares.
"This is a very real exercise, this is not some type of big costume party," said Brad Barker, president of Halo Corp, a security firm hosting the Oct. 31 training demonstration during the summit at a 44-acre Paradise Point Resort island on a San Diego bay. "Everything that will be simulated at this event has already happened, it just hasn't happened all at once on the same night. But the training is very real, it just happens to be the bad guys we're having a little fun with."
Hundreds of military, law enforcement and medical personnel will observe the Hollywood-style production of a zombie attack as part of their emergency response training.
In the scenario, a VIP and his personal detail are trapped in a village, surrounded by zombies when a bomb explodes. The VIP is wounded and his team must move through the town while dodging bullets and shooting back at the invading zombies. At one point, some members of the team are bit by zombies and must be taken to a field medical facility for decontamination and treatment.
Source.Bombs... bullets, hmm, looks like those aren't unnarmed human shapes. It's just a "standard" tactical simulation with the "fun" twist that the bad guys are dressed up to look like zombies. So... looks like you might be having a bit of a paranoid fantasy there sir.
If that's not the event you're talking about, perhaps you should add a citation to support your extreme claim.
It does not matter if the bomb or missile is fired from a drone or a human piloted aircraft - the pilot has a bad direct view of the target and relies upon indirect views - GPS information, video from a camera mounted on the bottom of the aircraft, or ground guidance. Bombs and missiles are inherently imprecise -- we brag about being able to hit targets like "a window" or "a car" -- sounds precise right -- except that a car is about 6 x 15' - so the "target" is about 90 square feet of space. Your "high valued target" is in that space, but if the munition is even a foot off he's alive unless it explodes. So bombs and missiles are designed to explode. In particular they are designed to explode in a messy way that sprays lots of shrapnel around - because it is the shrapnel that kills, not the heat and blast force of the bomb. Now -- that bomb is made to kill the target if it lands "close" to him or her, as in - within a 15-30 foot radius. And we're dropping these into towns and cities.
So, yes, bombs and missiles are messy. They kill lots of people, do lots of damage to the surrounding area, rip up the roads, knock down buildings. It's not the use of/drones/ that leads to high civilian casualties, its the use of drones dropping bombs and missiles. If we switched to drones that fired large caliber bullets precisely enough to hit a target, that problem would be lessened. Hey, guess what: we want to be able to do that.
So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with using drones instead of risking American lives to accomplish the same bad results. Maybe my fellow gamers thought about all this, maybe they thought about how useful (read broken) it is to have the use of an unmanned aircraft in the few games that allow them - in order to sight enemy troops and avoid risking your "life," or maybe they just though "WOOH! Gaming with real blood." I don't know -- but the underlying conceit of this post is that these gamers are morally wrong somehow for choosing to support drone strikes because drone strikes are inherently bad. It's BS.
Not to mention that, when typing on a screen, you must keep your eyes on that "keyboard" like a fucking moron. I haven't looked at my keyboard in decades, because I clearly feel where the keys are.
How does that even work? My hands are on the keyboard when I type on my tablet, I can't type and look at the keyboard at the same time. Usually I just stare off into space focusing on what I want to sound while tapping away.
I only lose about 10-15 wpm going from my keyboard to my XOOM. And the XOOM is out-of-date hardware. (I average 67-78 WPM [more when on a roll] on a keyboard, for a frame of reference).
The error rate is higher, and the auto-correct is a bit tricky. But typing "at speed" isn't the issue.
Re:Total crap -- /. summary is wrong (stunning!)
on
The Great Meteor Grab
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Specifically: the "precedent" here is actually very old that valuable minerals found on the unburdened (i.e. not covered in dirt) parts of land belong to the owner of that property. These regulations are just clarifying that/yes/ meteorites are valuable minerals - when found on the surface of federal lands they belong to the federal government and you can't just take them because you want to. Also, you cannot just go into public lands and take a fencepost because you think it'd make a nice addition to your yard.
Total crap -- /. summary is wrong (stunning!)
on
The Great Meteor Grab
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The attached articles are talking about regulations for metorites found on the surface of federal land. Last time I checked (1) asteroids aren't metorites until they fall out of the sky[1]; (2) asteroids in space aren't found on the surface of federal lands; and (3) the U.S. Gov't has no jurisdiction out where thar be asteroids.
Total fail.
1. "A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space that survives impact with the Earth's surface." Wiki source.
Depends on state and local laws - whether the property is private, whether he owns the road, etc. "out in the middle of no-where" is not the first place I expect to find a hidden camera. Look up your state's public recording laws.
Depending on your state and locality, you might be able to hire a private investigator for less than the cost of a new camera. Ask around until you find one that already has that equipment and pay him to go do the set-up for you. If this is happening more than a couple times a week, he/she could hang out on or near the property and catch them in the act.
It never occurred to me to use a PI until I became an attorney -- now I get to use them all the time. I've found a few in the Chicago area that are very resourceful practical people with good people skills -- excellent people to know in almost any walk of life.
Slashdot Mirror
In cases of domestic violence or where there was a sexual assault they will sometimes press the case to trial in order to build out a useful record against the Defendant. This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that evidence of a past accusation is not proof of a present crime. Other times the prosecutor recognizes that pressing the case to trial is the only way he can even inconvenience the guilty son of a bitch, and so brings the reasonable charge knowing he'll lose because the evidence is merely compelling, rather than iron-clad. I believe the rule of prosecutorial ethics in most of the U.S. is that as long as you have a reasonable expectation that you /could/ win, you can bring the charge.
(Which is apparently OK to do for stars, but not people?)
Don't tell that to the dataminers, you'll destroy their minds. That's basically the only reason Facebook and the other networks have value - the ability to infer the traits of unknown individuals from the expressed traits of their connections.
Not biased -- I'd say wrong here and there -- but wrong isn't the same as biased.
I don't think either of us have any studies to throw back and forth -- but generally -- I know plenty of stupid people with very intelligent parents, and vice versa.
Now obviously (to all but you) I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek about this, but realistically foam padding the world doesn't serve humanity's long term interest.
To all but me and all the outraged posters above claiming that bad parenting is part of natural selection -- sure.
Are you a creationist? Most people have realised that we're not engineered, but have eveloped. [sic]
Evolution is a method, not a result. The result is a complex system of physical structures that function in a particular way. Sarcasm (and spelling failures) aside, engineered is a perfectly acceptable term for explaining that the way humans respond to their environment is predictable given the design of our bodies. You can go ahead and insist that design requires a designer if you want, you're off topic and wasting your time -- but hey maybe you can "score a point" there somewhere.
It isn't. Parents' failure to protect their children from eating dangerous objects reduces their amount of surviving offspring, and is natural selection.
You're mixing your social darwinism with your evolutionary theory. Here, our society is stepping in to protect our young. That is, as a species we are promoting our own genetic survival and diversity. There are words in there that are part of the theory of natural selection -- but the two are distinct. Natural selection is just the tendency of useful traits to persist by giving their bearers an advantage in survival and procreation. The parents choice to protect or not protect their children is an aspect of social selection -- and unless you believe that inattentive parenting is tied to a genetic trait - it has nothing to do with evolution.
Just going to put this out there -- how is eating a dangerous man made object natural selection? We're engineered to avoid obvious dangers and to explore our world. Part of that is that humans DO have as a adaptive trait the willingness to eat almost anything. We learn what is poisons and our elders are supposed to keep our infants/ignorant from eating that stuff. I mean, nightshade berries are very pretty round red balls that would probably be fun to play with -- should I let my one year old play with them?
Remember -- these are being sold AS toys. I am a bit of a magnetism geek, I have a small collection of neodymium magnets that I've used for the odd-ball home project or geek sculpture -- but I've also injured myself (skin crushed and torn) by those magnets. I do not want to imagine what would happen to my intestines if I swallowed a pair of them a few minutes apart -- guessing the answer would involved perforation.
As a litigator, I have trouble advising people on how to vote on any given judge. There are some judges I would like to see removed from the bench - simply because they're bad (don't read motions, show up late, don't listen to argument, make their decision when they receive the Complaint, ignore case law when it suits them, are consistently head-shakingly wrong, etc) - others I would like to see removed because their courtroom demeanor or procedure slow down cases and make litigation much more expensive.
/bad/ judges). The best I can do is pass around the local bar association's voter guide. Because the folks that write that guide are all attorneys the packet is mostly a bland recitation that most judges are qualified, occasionally with a very soft rebuke "needs to work on being more efficient and prepared" with the worst of the worst bad actors singled out at the ends as "not qualified."
/sigh
Now here's the problem -- I can't tell you who these judges are. I won't even say anything about them when I can do so anonymously. Why? Because I know most of them will still be judges next week, and I'll have to appear before them. (remember, these are the
Saddly, I think the informed voters get lost in the shuffle of folks that just show up and hit yes on every judge's retention ballot.
The article is focused on power and transportation - we're heading for 100 dead as a result of Sandy. The plurality of those deaths occurred in New York City. Last night they added a few more dead to the list, including a pair of toddlers that were pulled away from their mother by a sudden wave -- while she was trying to run down the street fleeing her burning home. That one is haunting me.
Yes, but they sued Samsung for infringing that patent on the theory that the Samsung device had rounded corners and was rectangular with a bezel. Hence -- rounded corners.
Also, is that 2.25% of retail, or wholesale?
There's nothing wrong with using the cost and length of litigation as a club against an opponent at the negotiating table. Particularly when both sides have deep pockets and the case is likely to include a mid sized six-figure litigation budget (if not more). That is reality. There's also the advantage of "less money now is worth more than more money later" cash in hand that goes immediately into the till is a very useful thing. A prospect of cash eventually *if* you win, much less so.
The money side of this is pretty ballsy though "hey, yeah, we just went after Samsung for every dollar they ever made on devices we think are infringing, but you only get going forward cash." That's a bad deal -- but that doesn't mean it's bad faith.
All the same, I hope Moogle rejects the offer and goes for the jugular.
SAN DIEGO -- Move over vampires, goblins and haunted houses, this kind of Halloween terror aims to shake up even the toughest warriors: An untold number of so-called zombies are coming to a counterterrorism summit attended by hundreds of Marines, Navy special ops, soldiers, police, firefighters and others to prepare them for their worst nightmares. "This is a very real exercise, this is not some type of big costume party," said Brad Barker, president of Halo Corp, a security firm hosting the Oct. 31 training demonstration during the summit at a 44-acre Paradise Point Resort island on a San Diego bay. "Everything that will be simulated at this event has already happened, it just hasn't happened all at once on the same night. But the training is very real, it just happens to be the bad guys we're having a little fun with."
Hundreds of military, law enforcement and medical personnel will observe the Hollywood-style production of a zombie attack as part of their emergency response training.
In the scenario, a VIP and his personal detail are trapped in a village, surrounded by zombies when a bomb explodes. The VIP is wounded and his team must move through the town while dodging bullets and shooting back at the invading zombies. At one point, some members of the team are bit by zombies and must be taken to a field medical facility for decontamination and treatment.
Source.Bombs... bullets, hmm, looks like those aren't unnarmed human shapes. It's just a "standard" tactical simulation with the "fun" twist that the bad guys are dressed up to look like zombies. So ... looks like you might be having a bit of a paranoid fantasy there sir.
If that's not the event you're talking about, perhaps you should add a citation to support your extreme claim.
Point of order -- we may not use this crap in 50 years. Technology has a bad habit of doing sudden and unexpected things with your cheese.
explosives-enthusiastic people
is my new band name.
especially since down in the US your politicians seem to be waging a war against coal unlike Canada.
Citation? Support? Anything? Nope, just a random slam. Okay.
Or more likely 2% high level, 11% civilian, 20% probably terrorists, 67% misc.
It does not matter if the bomb or missile is fired from a drone or a human piloted aircraft - the pilot has a bad direct view of the target and relies upon indirect views - GPS information, video from a camera mounted on the bottom of the aircraft, or ground guidance. Bombs and missiles are inherently imprecise -- we brag about being able to hit targets like "a window" or "a car" -- sounds precise right -- except that a car is about 6 x 15' - so the "target" is about 90 square feet of space. Your "high valued target" is in that space, but if the munition is even a foot off he's alive unless it explodes. So bombs and missiles are designed to explode. In particular they are designed to explode in a messy way that sprays lots of shrapnel around - because it is the shrapnel that kills, not the heat and blast force of the bomb. Now -- that bomb is made to kill the target if it lands "close" to him or her, as in - within a 15-30 foot radius. And we're dropping these into towns and cities.
/drones/ that leads to high civilian casualties, its the use of drones dropping bombs and missiles. If we switched to drones that fired large caliber bullets precisely enough to hit a target, that problem would be lessened. Hey, guess what: we want to be able to do that.
So, yes, bombs and missiles are messy. They kill lots of people, do lots of damage to the surrounding area, rip up the roads, knock down buildings. It's not the use of
So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with using drones instead of risking American lives to accomplish the same bad results. Maybe my fellow gamers thought about all this, maybe they thought about how useful (read broken) it is to have the use of an unmanned aircraft in the few games that allow them - in order to sight enemy troops and avoid risking your "life," or maybe they just though "WOOH! Gaming with real blood." I don't know -- but the underlying conceit of this post is that these gamers are morally wrong somehow for choosing to support drone strikes because drone strikes are inherently bad. It's BS.
Not to mention that, when typing on a screen, you must keep your eyes on that "keyboard" like a fucking moron. I haven't looked at my keyboard in decades, because I clearly feel where the keys are.
How does that even work? My hands are on the keyboard when I type on my tablet, I can't type and look at the keyboard at the same time. Usually I just stare off into space focusing on what I want to sound while tapping away.
I only lose about 10-15 wpm going from my keyboard to my XOOM. And the XOOM is out-of-date hardware. (I average 67-78 WPM [more when on a roll] on a keyboard, for a frame of reference). The error rate is higher, and the auto-correct is a bit tricky. But typing "at speed" isn't the issue.
Specifically: the "precedent" here is actually very old that valuable minerals found on the unburdened (i.e. not covered in dirt) parts of land belong to the owner of that property. These regulations are just clarifying that /yes/ meteorites are valuable minerals - when found on the surface of federal lands they belong to the federal government and you can't just take them because you want to. Also, you cannot just go into public lands and take a fencepost because you think it'd make a nice addition to your yard.
The attached articles are talking about regulations for metorites found on the surface of federal land. Last time I checked (1) asteroids aren't metorites until they fall out of the sky[1]; (2) asteroids in space aren't found on the surface of federal lands; and (3) the U.S. Gov't has no jurisdiction out where thar be asteroids.
Total fail.
1. "A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space that survives impact with the Earth's surface." Wiki source.
Depends on state and local laws - whether the property is private, whether he owns the road, etc. "out in the middle of no-where" is not the first place I expect to find a hidden camera. Look up your state's public recording laws.
Depending on your state and locality, you might be able to hire a private investigator for less than the cost of a new camera. Ask around until you find one that already has that equipment and pay him to go do the set-up for you. If this is happening more than a couple times a week, he/she could hang out on or near the property and catch them in the act.
It never occurred to me to use a PI until I became an attorney -- now I get to use them all the time. I've found a few in the Chicago area that are very resourceful practical people with good people skills -- excellent people to know in almost any walk of life.
Don't forget the social instability that will follow in China once you slam the doors of the factory closed.