I think you jumped the shark a little there claiming that Naders goal was to get babies killed. Your entire basis for claiming he lied seems to be that he used the term "pillow-like". An air-bag actually is pillow or cushion-like. It's also rapidly inflated with an explosive charge, of course, but the basic function is to act as a cushion. So, that makes it not really a lie.
Now, I'm not sure I'm all that in favor of airbags being mandatory given the complexity and expense they add to a car in exchange for a relatively modest safety boost over just seatbelts. Your character assassination of Nader, however, reeks of hysteria. n
For us to not savagely criticize them, their "invention" has to be original and non-obvious to one skilled in the art. The simple fact is, when presented with the idea behind most of these patents (and even the idea isn't generally very original) many of us here on Slashdot could implement it easily and quickly without reading the patent. Ideas are not meant to be patentable so, if the idea is easily implementable, then clearly we're all super-geniuses. Oh, no, wait we're merely skilled in the art and the "invention" is obvious.
I've read the patents and everything they describe is trivial to implement. Note, however, that when I say "everything they describe" I'm talking about the things they actually describe the implementation details of. A patent is, after all, meant to be a blueprint for an invention. Voice control of the media device is something described in the patent with no details given whatsoever of how to implement it. So, actually implementing a voice-controlled media player might be a bit of a challenge and not trivial to implement, but their patent doesn't actually contain a solution to that challenge.
My question to James Logan would be how he can live with himself knowing that he has not invented anything and yet has created yet another artificial legal barrier to people who want to produce interesting works?
If the "threatening" now-faster-rate of sea level rise [wikipedia.org] is on the order of a 3.3 mm/year, then how is it that the sea levels in NY harbors have "risen more than a foot since the beginning of the 20th century (which would be 1900AD.)
Because the oceans are not a bathtub. There are a lot of forces driving the oceans. You might as well ask why the difference between high and low tide is greater than 16 meters in some locations and is closer to 0 meters in others.
Yes, by reducing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels we risk critically damaging the balance of nature, which relies on massive extraction and burning of fossil fuels... wait, something isn't right there.
That report presents a range of choices and outcomes, and qualifies predictions with uncertainties.
Of course they qualify their predictions with uncertainties. This isn't easy stuff, but it is the people who are the best at this particular subject doing their best to understand it. If we ignore all the science altogether and decide that the future is completely opaque and uncertain, all we're left with is the basic advice to choose the side of caution. Instead we seem to be beset by reckless morons screaming to err on the side of reckless abandon.
OT: You need to quit smoking. Constantly inhaling smoke and tar into your lungs is almost certainly going to make you sick. If you can't quit, at least try to cut back a bit. At the very least, you'll save a boatload of money. PS, the tobacco industry and the politics surround it is causing massive amounts of strife worldwide. That's not related to your health, but we thought we'd throw that out there.
Patient: I don't think anything is wrong with me? I don't really feel sick.
OT: Well, all research, not to mention common sense seems to indicate that smoking is unhealthy for people. Also, I saw you have a ten-minute coughing jag in the waiting room. You may think that everything is fine, but what you're experiencing isn't actually normal, you've just convinced yourself it is because you have a short memory and you're in denial.
Patient: What's the risk of quitting?
OT: Just trust us that quitting is what's best for you. We have plenty of literature on the thousands of studies that have been done that we can point you to.
Patient: Are there alternative treatments?
OT: Alternatives to quitting? I don't know. Voodoo magic to revive you as a zombie afterwards maybe?
Patient: If I quit, how much longer will I live?
OT: Just trust us, you'll probably live longer. I mean, you could be hit by a bus as soon as you step out of the office. I'm going to be completely honest here, some of the experts actually think it's too late for you. You've been smoking so long you might already be a walking dead man. Still, if the choice is between inhaling poison into your lungs or not, my medical opinion is that you'll probably live longer if you don't
Patient: How much is it going to cost me?
OT: Well, quitting smoking will actually save you money, since it's just an analogy for quitting oil, however, we can't say for sure. In the long run it should save you money too.
Patient: I'm thinking about getting a second opinion.
OT: Sure, just go down the hall and ask my good friend Dr. Smith about what he thinks about quitting smoking. We're all experts on human health here, what with being medical doctors and all. Heck, go to pretty much any doctor who didn't get their degree from a cereal box top. Even if they're a smoker themselves they will probably tell you to quit. Doctors are human too, of course, and there are some who are just in denial. Then there's the guys who are on the payroll of Phillip Morris. I wouldn't recommend one of them.
Patient: Isn't there some independent doctor I can go to?
OT: Independent of the medical profession and basic common sense you mean? Everybody who thinks smoking isn't bad for you is a charlatan and you can't trust them. All competent doctors agree that smoking isn't healthy.
Patient: You know, I don't really trust you. I think I'll take my chances and wait a bit longer.
OT: You're obviously in denial. I really wish you'd reconsider. At least please stop smoking in a closed room with your month old infant. I wish there were a way to force you to do that.
You don't have to be an expert in a field to conclude that you don't trust someone or their advice.
Sure, but you also don't have to be an expert in a field to see when someone is being an idiot for ignoring good advice. Incidentally, the mother of my child has chronic bronchitis. It was a gift from her father who staunchly believed that there was absolutely no health risk to smoking and would smoke like a chimneystack in a closed room with her from when she was a tiny, defenseless baby with undeveloped lungs. If you want to be a denialist, fine. Go find something to deny that only affects you. When the rest of us are in the same boat, don't go denying that we're sinking and preventing us from bailing out the water.
Well, ok, fair enough. Obviously no public information has ever been given about this before. I find that surprising, but you say that when you ask all that happens is that you get attacked, demeaned and insulted, so I'll help you out.
See, there's this thing called the greenhouse effect. Basically the atmosphere acts as an insulating layer and the conditions in the atmosphere alter how well that insulation works. If you've ever camped out in a hot desert with extremely dry, clear air and noticed how cold it can get at night, you may have personal experience that helps you understand this better. Water vapor is a greenhouse agent. and it reflects back heat that would otherwise escape into space. The same is true of gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Increased concentration of these gases in the atmosphere means more trapped heat. CO2 levels are steadily climbing in the atmosphere, therefore more heat is being trapped. There are some feedback mechanisms that work against this, such as accelerated plant growth, but clearly if that's slowing the increase in CO2, it's not doing so enough. As a result of increasing temperatures, ice in various places, such as the poles and various glaciers around the world melts. This melting cools the Earth back down but, since the average temperature seems to be on the rise, it's obviously not doing it enough. Not to mention the fact that the melting ice raises the sea-level. Since a large percentage of human infrastructure is right by the ocean, this can be a problem. Even quite small increases in sea level can cause major problems when storms come in. Also the meltwater affects ocean currents which can have important long-term effects on climate. Another issue involves human activities like farming, not to mention construction of all kinds. Humans build all kinds of things based on an (often naive) idea of stability. We look at things like average rainfall and 100-year flood levels. The problem is that global climate change from human greenhouse gases (and other causes) alters such things. The results can be that what was once a good place to farm can become an unsuitable wasteland, or that what was once a good place to build becomes a disaster area. Frankly, we don't need global-warming to make the idea of 100-year flood levels a joke. Any structural engineer will spend a lot of effort working on drainage for any particular project they're working on, but the consequences of all that drainage seem to constantly come as a surprise. The consequences are, of course, that floods in any built up area come faster and reach higher than they naturally would. That's without global warming of course, I just mention it because most people think of floods as natural disasters when most floods are actually, if not all man made, certainly enhanced by human activity. The point is that humans really can influence these natural processes. Our influence really can affect things on a global scale.
Now, there are a lot of things that we certainly don't know for sure about how these processes affect the Earth. Climate is a big, complex system that's impossible to completely get a handle on. The people who have actually devoted their lives to studying these things have, essentially universally, come to the conclusion that we are altering the climate. I wish I could get all of the complexity into one post, but I'm not an expert, plus I don't have a year or two to write it and you probably don't have a year or two to read it.
But the connotations of "ladyfriend" seem to belong to a time and place where such a relationship is at least a little beyond the pale. "Partner" seems to belong to a mature society that accepts that the relationship belongs to the people involved in it. Also, it doesn't require distinguishing between "ladyfriend" or "manfriend". Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever really heard "manfriend" used, so there's a bit of a balance problem with "ladyfriend" as well.
The whole "wasted vote" thing is probably the most damaging logical fallacy being used in politics right now.
Actually, the truly damaging thing is that it's not a logical fallacy. The spoiler effect means that voting for Nader makes Bush win, just as it means that voting for Perot makes Clinton win. 99% or greater of the supporters of Nader almost certainly had Bush as their last choice. Perot was probably a bit more mixed, but the majority of them almost certainly had Clinton as their last choice. The basis of the spoiler effect is simple plurality voting where each voter gets one vote to cast for one candidate. It's the perfect voting system when there are exactly two choices. If you add any additional choices, it breaks completely. No democracy can use such a system and legitimately call itself a democracy since it forces a completely unnecessary compromise in exercising the will of the voters. One of the other single pass systems or, preferably, a multi-pass system should be used unless there are two or fewer candidates. Anything else is a farce. Clearly the Democrats and Republicans recognize that the system is broken, which is why they run primaries to game the system.
Ladyfriend is still too similar to girlfriend. It has this euphemistic feel to it, as if you might say it in a whisper with a wink and nudge. Sweetheart is a little too saccharine and is more of a term of endearment. Common law spouse has too precise a definition and, aside from probably being irrelevant in most circumstances, probably isn't accurate. Love could possibly work, but has a broader definition (at least, in the area of romance).
Partner is nicely descriptive. It's still not perfect, obviously. Romantic partner has to be taken by implication and context. You could, for example, misinterpret it to business partner. Since he's an author, maybe a co-author or an editor.
It's pretty widely acknowledged, even by the courts, that corporations don't necessarily have absolute rights to private data they hold on you. The constitution also protects the right of free association (not explicitly stated in the first amendment, but various court findings have upheld it). So, private data on who you have communicated should be protected and does not belong exclusively to the telecom. The persons connected with that data do have a vested interest and a certain rights related to that data that makes a search of that data a search of those people and not just the telecom. Quite aside from that, you're ignoring the part about how the warrant needs to be supported by Oath or affirmation. Someone has to be under reasonable suspicion of something for probable cause. In your scenario, who is it that's under suspicion? Is it Verizon?
No, their actions aren't legal under the Constitution. It doesn't matter of course, since the constitution has no teeth. It's already been demonstrated with the telecom immunity bill that Congress has the de facto power to nullify any part of the constitution ex post facto without needing to modify the constitution. All it seems they need to do is create a legal chain long enough and arranged such that the concerned parties (i.e. all of us) have to start at one end in order to sue for redress. If they arrange things right, the courts can claim, while maintaining credibility, that no-one has standing to sue.
The really sad thing is that, of the two movies you mentioned, _Mars Attacks!_ has a more credible initial premise than the recent version of _War of the Worlds_. Seriously, which is a more credible invasion plan: send your ships to Earth to attack or bury your ships on Earth in preparation for an attack on people who don't even live there at the time?
They had a warrant to search and seize. That's what made it legal.
Text of the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
There are a few critical details there. First the search has to be reasonable, but there isn't a clear definition there, although any reasonable person would clearly think that this is not a reasonable search. Next warrants may only issue upon probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation. That's a very important restriction. Warrants can't legally be fishing expiditions, there has to be probable cause sworn to by either a witness or investigating officer. There's absolutely no way they had probably cause for all of those people.
The warrants simply weren't legal warrants in the first place.
I'm just going to repeat myself as I've already written this in response to someone else:
You're obviously hopelessly USian. In most of the English-speaking world, "partner" in this context does not mean "homosexual partner" although it can. It just means that the two people are a couple but are not married. To my knowledge, Iain Banks partner was, in fact, a woman.
You're obviously hopelessly USian. In most of the English-speaking world, "partner" in this context does not mean "homosexual partner" although it can. It just means that the two people are a couple but are not married. To my knowledge, Iain Banks partner was, in fact, a woman.
Based on the Slashdot summary, he does have a point. All the summary describes is a computer with multiple peripherals attached to it. Multiple monitors and sound devices and various input devices connected through who knows what buses. It sounds like they're just describing a home media server.
There was a time when American workers had balls, and they shot and killed Pinkertons. When people are beyond the reach of the law they may still not be out of range...
Then the Pinkertons (ok, the specific case I'm thinking of was Baldwin-Felts rather than Pinkerton) would murder them on the courthouse steps and weren't prosecuted for it. People who murder for a living and have powerful backing tend to have an advantage over people who have to do other work for a living.
Stuff like that cargo container probably fell off a ship on accident though and probably weighs a ton
Cargo ships are sent out intentionally overloaded and it's very common for cargo containers to fall off. Basically, beancounters have done the math and determined that it's more economical that way. Standard cargo containers weigh from 2 to 5 tons empty.
I'm pretty sure that the poster does get that. They also understand that many interactive applications that would have once responded essentially instantly in real-time can now crawl inexplicably due to how many layers they're sitting on.
As for not running or installing it... People often don't actually get that choice any more.
Has anyone considered interim solutions, such as an optional small generator trailer for extended trips? That way you could have your short range electric car 90+ percent of the time, then adapt it for long-range on the rare occasions you need it. Actually owning one wouldn't be possible for city dwellers of ordinary means since they wouldn't have garages or driveways to keep them in, but there's no reason they couldn't be relatively cheap rentals. Pull up to a stand of them at a filling station, swipe your credit card to unlock it, hitch it to your car and plug in power/control cables.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you jumped the shark a little there claiming that Naders goal was to get babies killed. Your entire basis for claiming he lied seems to be that he used the term "pillow-like". An air-bag actually is pillow or cushion-like. It's also rapidly inflated with an explosive charge, of course, but the basic function is to act as a cushion. So, that makes it not really a lie.
Now, I'm not sure I'm all that in favor of airbags being mandatory given the complexity and expense they add to a car in exchange for a relatively modest safety boost over just seatbelts. Your character assassination of Nader, however, reeks of hysteria. n
For us to not savagely criticize them, their "invention" has to be original and non-obvious to one skilled in the art. The simple fact is, when presented with the idea behind most of these patents (and even the idea isn't generally very original) many of us here on Slashdot could implement it easily and quickly without reading the patent. Ideas are not meant to be patentable so, if the idea is easily implementable, then clearly we're all super-geniuses. Oh, no, wait we're merely skilled in the art and the "invention" is obvious.
I've read the patents and everything they describe is trivial to implement. Note, however, that when I say "everything they describe" I'm talking about the things they actually describe the implementation details of. A patent is, after all, meant to be a blueprint for an invention. Voice control of the media device is something described in the patent with no details given whatsoever of how to implement it. So, actually implementing a voice-controlled media player might be a bit of a challenge and not trivial to implement, but their patent doesn't actually contain a solution to that challenge.
My question to James Logan would be how he can live with himself knowing that he has not invented anything and yet has created yet another artificial legal barrier to people who want to produce interesting works?
If the "threatening" now-faster-rate of sea level rise [wikipedia.org] is on the order of a 3.3 mm/year, then how is it that the sea levels in NY harbors have "risen more than a foot since the beginning of the 20th century (which would be 1900AD.)
Because the oceans are not a bathtub. There are a lot of forces driving the oceans. You might as well ask why the difference between high and low tide is greater than 16 meters in some locations and is closer to 0 meters in others.
Yes, by reducing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels we risk critically damaging the balance of nature, which relies on massive extraction and burning of fossil fuels... wait, something isn't right there.
That report presents a range of choices and outcomes, and qualifies predictions with uncertainties.
Of course they qualify their predictions with uncertainties. This isn't easy stuff, but it is the people who are the best at this particular subject doing their best to understand it. If we ignore all the science altogether and decide that the future is completely opaque and uncertain, all we're left with is the basic advice to choose the side of caution. Instead we seem to be beset by reckless morons screaming to err on the side of reckless abandon.
I'm imagining something more like this:
OT: You need to quit smoking. Constantly inhaling smoke and tar into your lungs is almost certainly going to make you sick. If you can't quit, at least try to cut back a bit. At the very least, you'll save a boatload of money. PS, the tobacco industry and the politics surround it is causing massive amounts of strife worldwide. That's not related to your health, but we thought we'd throw that out there.
Patient: I don't think anything is wrong with me? I don't really feel sick.
OT: Well, all research, not to mention common sense seems to indicate that smoking is unhealthy for people. Also, I saw you have a ten-minute coughing jag in the waiting room. You may think that everything is fine, but what you're experiencing isn't actually normal, you've just convinced yourself it is because you have a short memory and you're in denial.
Patient: What's the risk of quitting?
OT: Just trust us that quitting is what's best for you. We have plenty of literature on the thousands of studies that have been done that we can point you to.
Patient: Are there alternative treatments?
OT: Alternatives to quitting? I don't know. Voodoo magic to revive you as a zombie afterwards maybe?
Patient: If I quit, how much longer will I live?
OT: Just trust us, you'll probably live longer. I mean, you could be hit by a bus as soon as you step out of the office. I'm going to be completely honest here, some of the experts actually think it's too late for you. You've been smoking so long you might already be a walking dead man. Still, if the choice is between inhaling poison into your lungs or not, my medical opinion is that you'll probably live longer if you don't
Patient: How much is it going to cost me?
OT: Well, quitting smoking will actually save you money, since it's just an analogy for quitting oil, however, we can't say for sure. In the long run it should save you money too.
Patient: I'm thinking about getting a second opinion.
OT: Sure, just go down the hall and ask my good friend Dr. Smith about what he thinks about quitting smoking. We're all experts on human health here, what with being medical doctors and all. Heck, go to pretty much any doctor who didn't get their degree from a cereal box top. Even if they're a smoker themselves they will probably tell you to quit. Doctors are human too, of course, and there are some who are just in denial. Then there's the guys who are on the payroll of Phillip Morris. I wouldn't recommend one of them.
Patient: Isn't there some independent doctor I can go to?
OT: Independent of the medical profession and basic common sense you mean? Everybody who thinks smoking isn't bad for you is a charlatan and you can't trust them. All competent doctors agree that smoking isn't healthy.
Patient: You know, I don't really trust you. I think I'll take my chances and wait a bit longer.
OT: You're obviously in denial. I really wish you'd reconsider. At least please stop smoking in a closed room with your month old infant. I wish there were a way to force you to do that.
You don't have to be an expert in a field to conclude that you don't trust someone or their advice.
Sure, but you also don't have to be an expert in a field to see when someone is being an idiot for ignoring good advice. Incidentally, the mother of my child has chronic bronchitis. It was a gift from her father who staunchly believed that there was absolutely no health risk to smoking and would smoke like a chimneystack in a closed room with her from when she was a tiny, defenseless baby with undeveloped lungs. If you want to be a denialist, fine. Go find something to deny that only affects you. When the rest of us are in the same boat, don't go denying that we're sinking and preventing us from bailing out the water.
Well, ok, fair enough. Obviously no public information has ever been given about this before. I find that surprising, but you say that when you ask all that happens is that you get attacked, demeaned and insulted, so I'll help you out.
See, there's this thing called the greenhouse effect. Basically the atmosphere acts as an insulating layer and the conditions in the atmosphere alter how well that insulation works. If you've ever camped out in a hot desert with extremely dry, clear air and noticed how cold it can get at night, you may have personal experience that helps you understand this better. Water vapor is a greenhouse agent. and it reflects back heat that would otherwise escape into space. The same is true of gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Increased concentration of these gases in the atmosphere means more trapped heat. CO2 levels are steadily climbing in the atmosphere, therefore more heat is being trapped. There are some feedback mechanisms that work against this, such as accelerated plant growth, but clearly if that's slowing the increase in CO2, it's not doing so enough. As a result of increasing temperatures, ice in various places, such as the poles and various glaciers around the world melts. This melting cools the Earth back down but, since the average temperature seems to be on the rise, it's obviously not doing it enough. Not to mention the fact that the melting ice raises the sea-level. Since a large percentage of human infrastructure is right by the ocean, this can be a problem. Even quite small increases in sea level can cause major problems when storms come in. Also the meltwater affects ocean currents which can have important long-term effects on climate. Another issue involves human activities like farming, not to mention construction of all kinds. Humans build all kinds of things based on an (often naive) idea of stability. We look at things like average rainfall and 100-year flood levels. The problem is that global climate change from human greenhouse gases (and other causes) alters such things. The results can be that what was once a good place to farm can become an unsuitable wasteland, or that what was once a good place to build becomes a disaster area. Frankly, we don't need global-warming to make the idea of 100-year flood levels a joke. Any structural engineer will spend a lot of effort working on drainage for any particular project they're working on, but the consequences of all that drainage seem to constantly come as a surprise. The consequences are, of course, that floods in any built up area come faster and reach higher than they naturally would. That's without global warming of course, I just mention it because most people think of floods as natural disasters when most floods are actually, if not all man made, certainly enhanced by human activity. The point is that humans really can influence these natural processes. Our influence really can affect things on a global scale.
Now, there are a lot of things that we certainly don't know for sure about how these processes affect the Earth. Climate is a big, complex system that's impossible to completely get a handle on. The people who have actually devoted their lives to studying these things have, essentially universally, come to the conclusion that we are altering the climate. I wish I could get all of the complexity into one post, but I'm not an expert, plus I don't have a year or two to write it and you probably don't have a year or two to read it.
But the connotations of "ladyfriend" seem to belong to a time and place where such a relationship is at least a little beyond the pale. "Partner" seems to belong to a mature society that accepts that the relationship belongs to the people involved in it. Also, it doesn't require distinguishing between "ladyfriend" or "manfriend". Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever really heard "manfriend" used, so there's a bit of a balance problem with "ladyfriend" as well.
I'm curious how Nader is a baby-killer?
Yes, Ross Perot decided the outcome of the election. Without him, Clinton would not have won.
The whole "wasted vote" thing is probably the most damaging logical fallacy being used in politics right now.
Actually, the truly damaging thing is that it's not a logical fallacy. The spoiler effect means that voting for Nader makes Bush win, just as it means that voting for Perot makes Clinton win. 99% or greater of the supporters of Nader almost certainly had Bush as their last choice. Perot was probably a bit more mixed, but the majority of them almost certainly had Clinton as their last choice. The basis of the spoiler effect is simple plurality voting where each voter gets one vote to cast for one candidate. It's the perfect voting system when there are exactly two choices. If you add any additional choices, it breaks completely. No democracy can use such a system and legitimately call itself a democracy since it forces a completely unnecessary compromise in exercising the will of the voters. One of the other single pass systems or, preferably, a multi-pass system should be used unless there are two or fewer candidates. Anything else is a farce. Clearly the Democrats and Republicans recognize that the system is broken, which is why they run primaries to game the system.
Ladyfriend is still too similar to girlfriend. It has this euphemistic feel to it, as if you might say it in a whisper with a wink and nudge. Sweetheart is a little too saccharine and is more of a term of endearment. Common law spouse has too precise a definition and, aside from probably being irrelevant in most circumstances, probably isn't accurate. Love could possibly work, but has a broader definition (at least, in the area of romance).
Partner is nicely descriptive. It's still not perfect, obviously. Romantic partner has to be taken by implication and context. You could, for example, misinterpret it to business partner. Since he's an author, maybe a co-author or an editor.
It's pretty widely acknowledged, even by the courts, that corporations don't necessarily have absolute rights to private data they hold on you. The constitution also protects the right of free association (not explicitly stated in the first amendment, but various court findings have upheld it). So, private data on who you have communicated should be protected and does not belong exclusively to the telecom. The persons connected with that data do have a vested interest and a certain rights related to that data that makes a search of that data a search of those people and not just the telecom. Quite aside from that, you're ignoring the part about how the warrant needs to be supported by Oath or affirmation. Someone has to be under reasonable suspicion of something for probable cause. In your scenario, who is it that's under suspicion? Is it Verizon?
No, their actions aren't legal under the Constitution. It doesn't matter of course, since the constitution has no teeth. It's already been demonstrated with the telecom immunity bill that Congress has the de facto power to nullify any part of the constitution ex post facto without needing to modify the constitution. All it seems they need to do is create a legal chain long enough and arranged such that the concerned parties (i.e. all of us) have to start at one end in order to sue for redress. If they arrange things right, the courts can claim, while maintaining credibility, that no-one has standing to sue.
It seems many people are getting bored with Mars, it has been said (and I agree) don't send another rover unless you bring something back.
Yes, you're right, many people are boring idiots.
The really sad thing is that, of the two movies you mentioned, _Mars Attacks!_ has a more credible initial premise than the recent version of _War of the Worlds_. Seriously, which is a more credible invasion plan: send your ships to Earth to attack or bury your ships on Earth in preparation for an attack on people who don't even live there at the time?
They had a warrant to search and seize. That's what made it legal.
Text of the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
There are a few critical details there. First the search has to be reasonable, but there isn't a clear definition there, although any reasonable person would clearly think that this is not a reasonable search. Next warrants may only issue upon probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation. That's a very important restriction. Warrants can't legally be fishing expiditions, there has to be probable cause sworn to by either a witness or investigating officer. There's absolutely no way they had probably cause for all of those people.
The warrants simply weren't legal warrants in the first place.
I'm just going to repeat myself as I've already written this in response to someone else:
You're obviously hopelessly USian. In most of the English-speaking world, "partner" in this context does not mean "homosexual partner" although it can. It just means that the two people are a couple but are not married. To my knowledge, Iain Banks partner was, in fact, a woman.
You're obviously hopelessly USian. In most of the English-speaking world, "partner" in this context does not mean "homosexual partner" although it can. It just means that the two people are a couple but are not married. To my knowledge, Iain Banks partner was, in fact, a woman.
This is why businesses choose Microsoft.
Ah yes, no raging, chair-throwing, monkey-boy dancing whack-jobs running a solid organization like Microsoft, after all.
Based on the Slashdot summary, he does have a point. All the summary describes is a computer with multiple peripherals attached to it. Multiple monitors and sound devices and various input devices connected through who knows what buses. It sounds like they're just describing a home media server.
Plus, if they don't buy it, they might be sued.
There was a time when American workers had balls, and they shot and killed Pinkertons. When people are beyond the reach of the law they may still not be out of range...
Then the Pinkertons (ok, the specific case I'm thinking of was Baldwin-Felts rather than Pinkerton) would murder them on the courthouse steps and weren't prosecuted for it. People who murder for a living and have powerful backing tend to have an advantage over people who have to do other work for a living.
Stuff like that cargo container probably fell off a ship on accident though and probably weighs a ton
Cargo ships are sent out intentionally overloaded and it's very common for cargo containers to fall off. Basically, beancounters have done the math and determined that it's more economical that way. Standard cargo containers weigh from 2 to 5 tons empty.
I'm pretty sure that the poster does get that. They also understand that many interactive applications that would have once responded essentially instantly in real-time can now crawl inexplicably due to how many layers they're sitting on.
As for not running or installing it... People often don't actually get that choice any more.
Has anyone considered interim solutions, such as an optional small generator trailer for extended trips? That way you could have your short range electric car 90+ percent of the time, then adapt it for long-range on the rare occasions you need it. Actually owning one wouldn't be possible for city dwellers of ordinary means since they wouldn't have garages or driveways to keep them in, but there's no reason they couldn't be relatively cheap rentals. Pull up to a stand of them at a filling station, swipe your credit card to unlock it, hitch it to your car and plug in power/control cables.