As for why we're doing it at night, the moon has a temperature swing of over 200 degrees between day and night, we don't want any volatile compounds to evaporate before we get a chance to look.
The article suggests there'll be no imagery at all, either of the impact or any dust cloud.
Thanks professor! You are a professor, aren't you? I mean, you wouldn't come here expressing something as scientific fact when you had no experience in the field whatsoever, would you?
The key here is the thought process of the person taking the action.
When you taser someone, you would rightly expect them to be temporarily disabled and not permanently injured or killed. When you shoot someone... well, you see where I'm going with this. You can't lump it in with shooting from anyone's perspective.
Any officer who uses more than minimal force (a hand on the arm, etc) against a member of the public should be prosecuted, and forced to defend their actions before a jury, as a matter of course.
"Minimal force" is too ambiguous. Better make it a mandatory jury trial for making any physical contact with a member of the public or their property. Same for running a red light or breaking the speed limit while responding to an emergency. Or a cop raising his voice above conversation level in a public place.
Or, y'know, we could try relying on common sense at least some of the time.
Try not to use words in a context that is ambiguous as to whether it's a noun or a verb. I thought someone had created a system that could generate holograms of sea-going vessels.
Also, is this a story, or was the submitter just unable to fit it into 140 characters for Twitter?
Sorry, none of that justifies the police taking the risk of killing her.
None of what? I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened. Pinning someone to the ground runs the risk of killing them. Chasing a shoplifter across a road runs a risk of killing them.
Tasers should only be used in situations where the use of deadly force could be justified
Is that the official police department guideline, or is that just your (not unreasonable) opinion?
Increasingly, even quiet, cooperative people are pinned down
Who says she was cooperative?
Police, however, say the incident isn't that clear cut.
Oh, but of course they would, wouldn't they? Obviously this woman, on the other hand, wouldn't have any reason to bend the truth in her favour.
There are two sides to every story, and, next to word-of-mouth, reading about an incident on the internet is probably the worst way of coming to a safe conclusion on what happened.
who at worst is guilty of conspiracy to illegally export some telephones?
What about trespass (she refused to leave private property on request), refusing to follow the instruction of a police officer with regard to said request, and subsequently resisting arrest?
Unfortunately, we're going to get a lot of people posting here claiming that simply because the police demanded she do something, and she didn't, that they were justified. The simple truth is, no, they weren't.
But - and I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here - who gets to decide what's justified and what isn't? The police obviously have to have guidelines, which may or may not have been followed in this case, but there will always be people who disagree with those anyway.
You don't get to do anything you like to someone simply because you have a badge and they didn't do what you told them to.
But you do get to taser someone if they're resisting arrest:
The video shows two Nashua police officers holding down and struggling with Xiaojie.
It takes two (or sometimes three) to struggle. Note that the video also doesn't show what occured immediately before.
999 was chosen partly because it was easy to dial in the dark, or by the disabled - you could just grab the whole disc and turn it as far as it would go, three times.
But, you're confident that some guy at NASA (trying to sound important)
(doing his job)
"knows" that none of them are going to affect Toutatis's path
I'm confident that the guys at NASA know better than any of us how large and how close an asteroid would have to be to have such an effect, and the probability of such an asteroid remaining undetected at this time. If they're doing their jobs properly, they probably have a very good handle on those numbers, and it seems reasonable to assume that such an event is too improbable to mention.
Or do you want p-values to be specified whenever someone abuses the word "know" in such a heinous fashion?
Neglecting to consider that Toutatis could easily hit another (or pass very near another) reasonably sized object
Yes, I'm sure Lance Benner of NASA's Near Earth Object Program forgot to check whether there are any such objects in the vicinity. Better tell him quick.
Two different things. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest it will do so. Lacking evidence, I think you've made what most people would probably think was an unreasonable assumption - that there are zero charitable institutions founded by atheists. Given the number of charitable foundations in the world, and the number of atheists (if nothing else) it would seem reasonable there's more than 0.
A more fitting reply might have been "So, I take it that you do not believe there are no penguins in Peru?"
The light does stretch out, which (I think) contributes to, but is not solely responsible for, red shift. But, the space through which it has yet to travel will continue to stretch - so travel time is still increased. Of course this is all subject to reference frames and relativity and all other kinds of craziness - as far as the light itself is concerned, no time has passed *head asplode*.
If we were separated (at time of sending) by one light year in a rapidly expanding universe, and I shone a laser at you, and by the time it reached you the distance between us had expanded to two light years, then the light would have travelled (in our reference frame) 1.5 light years and would taken (in our reference frame) 1.5 light years to do so. Note that, I think, we could consider ourselves to be in the same inertial reference frame because it's space which has expanded - we haven't actually accelerated relative to each other.
Also, the expansion of space does make it possible for things to recede at relative velocities greater than c, but it doesn't violate any laws of physics (it also renders such objects forever unreachable).
IAN,ASBAC,AP (I am not, as should be abundantly clear, a physicist)
Manson is evil, the guy who killed the rapist of his daughter is not evil. See the difference?
What about a mentally ill person who kills (repeatedly, if you like) and is incapable of even understanding what he has done? If the guy who's daughter was raped gets a free pass, what about the guy who kills the guy who punched his daughter in the face? Or the guy who kills the guy who pushed his way into line ahead of his daughter?
If that was true, the light would take a lot longer than 13 billion light years to reach us, because space would have expanded so much in the intervening time. They must have been closer than 13bly then, and further than 13bly now.
S&A Group were the vendors of a cart dumper called the "PROM Blaster" for Atari 2600 videogames... The archival exception for computer software did not apply to programs stored within permanent storage media (in this case a videogame cartridge) because these forms of media are not subject to the sort of risks that the archival clause was designed to guard against. As a result, the court ruled that dumping a videogame cartridge for archival purposes is not covered by the archival clause of copyright law.
And that's without considering the fact that the guy is selling the original ROMs.
Slashdot Mirror
As for why we're doing it at night, the moon has a temperature swing of over 200 degrees between day and night, we don't want any volatile compounds to evaporate before we get a chance to look.
The article suggests there'll be no imagery at all, either of the impact or any dust cloud.
You'll have your own unique hum
It's glandular, you insensitive clod!
Thanks professor! You are a professor, aren't you? I mean, you wouldn't come here expressing something as scientific fact when you had no experience in the field whatsoever, would you?
The key here is the thought process of the person taking the action.
When you taser someone, you would rightly expect them to be temporarily disabled and not permanently injured or killed. When you shoot someone... well, you see where I'm going with this. You can't lump it in with shooting from anyone's perspective.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/12/12/1331243/engineers-use-electrical-hum-to-fight-crime
Any officer who uses more than minimal force (a hand on the arm, etc) against a member of the public should be prosecuted, and forced to defend their actions before a jury, as a matter of course.
"Minimal force" is too ambiguous. Better make it a mandatory jury trial for making any physical contact with a member of the public or their property. Same for running a red light or breaking the speed limit while responding to an emergency. Or a cop raising his voice above conversation level in a public place.
Or, y'know, we could try relying on common sense at least some of the time.
No, but apparently you're okay with equating tasering with being shot, which sounds pretty ridiculous.
Kickstarter Technology Projects Ship
Try not to use words in a context that is ambiguous as to whether it's a noun or a verb. I thought someone had created a system that could generate holograms of sea-going vessels.
Also, is this a story, or was the submitter just unable to fit it into 140 characters for Twitter?
Sorry, none of that justifies the police taking the risk of killing her.
None of what? I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened. Pinning someone to the ground runs the risk of killing them. Chasing a shoplifter across a road runs a risk of killing them.
Tasers should only be used in situations where the use of deadly force could be justified
Is that the official police department guideline, or is that just your (not unreasonable) opinion?
Increasingly, even quiet, cooperative people are pinned down
Who says she was cooperative?
Police, however, say the incident isn't that clear cut.
Oh, but of course they would, wouldn't they? Obviously this woman, on the other hand, wouldn't have any reason to bend the truth in her favour.
There are two sides to every story, and, next to word-of-mouth, reading about an incident on the internet is probably the worst way of coming to a safe conclusion on what happened.
who at worst is guilty of conspiracy to illegally export some telephones?
What about trespass (she refused to leave private property on request), refusing to follow the instruction of a police officer with regard to said request, and subsequently resisting arrest?
Unfortunately, we're going to get a lot of people posting here claiming that simply because the police demanded she do something, and she didn't, that they were justified. The simple truth is, no, they weren't.
But - and I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here - who gets to decide what's justified and what isn't? The police obviously have to have guidelines, which may or may not have been followed in this case, but there will always be people who disagree with those anyway.
You don't get to do anything you like to someone simply because you have a badge and they didn't do what you told them to.
But you do get to taser someone if they're resisting arrest:
The video shows two Nashua police officers holding down and struggling with Xiaojie.
It takes two (or sometimes three) to struggle. Note that the video also doesn't show what occured immediately before.
999 was chosen partly because it was easy to dial in the dark, or by the disabled - you could just grab the whole disc and turn it as far as it would go, three times.
But, you're confident that some guy at NASA (trying to sound important)
(doing his job)
"knows" that none of them are going to affect Toutatis's path
I'm confident that the guys at NASA know better than any of us how large and how close an asteroid would have to be to have such an effect, and the probability of such an asteroid remaining undetected at this time. If they're doing their jobs properly, they probably have a very good handle on those numbers, and it seems reasonable to assume that such an event is too improbable to mention.
Or do you want p-values to be specified whenever someone abuses the word "know" in such a heinous fashion?
Neglecting to consider that Toutatis could easily hit another (or pass very near another) reasonably sized object
Yes, I'm sure Lance Benner of NASA's Near Earth Object Program forgot to check whether there are any such objects in the vicinity. Better tell him quick.
Two different things. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest it will do so. Lacking evidence, I think you've made what most people would probably think was an unreasonable assumption - that there are zero charitable institutions founded by atheists. Given the number of charitable foundations in the world, and the number of atheists (if nothing else) it would seem reasonable there's more than 0.
A more fitting reply might have been "So, I take it that you do not believe there are no penguins in Peru?"
The light does stretch out, which (I think) contributes to, but is not solely responsible for, red shift. But, the space through which it has yet to travel will continue to stretch - so travel time is still increased. Of course this is all subject to reference frames and relativity and all other kinds of craziness - as far as the light itself is concerned, no time has passed *head asplode*.
If we were separated (at time of sending) by one light year in a rapidly expanding universe, and I shone a laser at you, and by the time it reached you the distance between us had expanded to two light years, then the light would have travelled (in our reference frame) 1.5 light years and would taken (in our reference frame) 1.5 light years to do so. Note that, I think, we could consider ourselves to be in the same inertial reference frame because it's space which has expanded - we haven't actually accelerated relative to each other.
Also, the expansion of space does make it possible for things to recede at relative velocities greater than c, but it doesn't violate any laws of physics (it also renders such objects forever unreachable).
IAN,ASBAC,AP (I am not, as should be abundantly clear, a physicist)
Their next test will cull out the slightly less stupid
Like the people who believe aliens have visited Earth? ;)
The same things happen to atheists, muslims, buddhists, satanists...
Manson is evil, the guy who killed the rapist of his daughter is not evil. See the difference?
What about a mentally ill person who kills (repeatedly, if you like) and is incapable of even understanding what he has done? If the guy who's daughter was raped gets a free pass, what about the guy who kills the guy who punched his daughter in the face? Or the guy who kills the guy who pushed his way into line ahead of his daughter?
Manson is evil
But if he repents, he's not?
TL;DR: evil is subjective
I believe
And so we're back to that again...
If that was true, the light would take a lot longer than 13 billion light years to reach us, because space would have expanded so much in the intervening time. They must have been closer than 13bly then, and further than 13bly now.
Mere possession of a lawfully created copy is not infringement.
What about this?
S&A Group were the vendors of a cart dumper called the "PROM Blaster" for Atari 2600 videogames ... The archival exception for computer software did not apply to programs stored within permanent storage media (in this case a videogame cartridge) because these forms of media are not subject to the sort of risks that the archival clause was designed to guard against. As a result, the court ruled that dumping a videogame cartridge for archival purposes is not covered by the archival clause of copyright law.
And that's without considering the fact that the guy is selling the original ROMs.
I'm a proctologist, you insensitive clod!
Earth Avoids Collisions With Pair of Asteroids
This has been happening every day for years.
Fibonacci thinks so, and I think he is on to something.
I hope you're not holding your breath for his next paper.