except in the RARE excpetion where a minor is tried as an adult for something serious like murder
I don't know how rare it may be, but I don't care. there is something fundamentally flawed with people who say out of one side of their face that a 15 year old is too unsophisticated to decide that they want to suck cocks, then from the other side of their face say that an 8 year old knew exactly what he was doing when he killed someone. it's perverted and obscene.
interesting. when I was in a volunteer fd many years ago, we just used spring-loaded center punches for car rear windows. for larger glass, like a plate-glass door or window, we used the pick end of a pick-axe.
I seem to recall a newspaper picture at some point that showed missiles on the roof of the building, but I think that the secret service has always declined to comment on the defense systems in place. I'm not sure that it would make the most sense to put missiles at the WH; there may be other locations in the vicinity that would offer better protection.
Where I live, there are clever signs on the road that say:
Hang up and drive!
$124 fine
So I'm sitting at a light and a local cop in an SUV drives by and he is... wait for it... talking on his fucking cell phone. If those charged with enforcing the law, (and traffic laws are laws after all), are incapable of abiding by the law, then I'm not sure there's a good answer to this "problem."
As a new developer at a young-ish software company, I've been told my communication skills need some work.
Is your manager telling you that your communication skills need work, or is it your co-workers?
If it's your manager, then part of his/her job is to help you improve; he/she needs to suggest how you can improve your communications skills.
If it's not your manager, then talk to (communicate with) your manager, tell them you're concerned that your communication skills may need some work and ask them for suggestions. It's part of their job to help you improve, so they should have no problem offering advice.
If your manager isn't willing to offer any help, then think about looking for a new job and moving on.
Unless you really believe the nutball theory that evil UN men in black will use those databases to swoop in and start confiscating guns indiscriminately then it's pretty implausible that holding gun sellers and owners accountable would violate anyone's rights.
It was exactly that "nutball" confiscation of guns, perpetrated by James against Protestants, that led to the assertion of the right in the British Bill of Rights and which in turn led to its inclusion in our Second Amendment.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean by holding gun sellers and owners accountable. Hold them accountable for what? Are you suggesting that gun sellers and owners are, by definition, guilty of some crime for which they must be held responsible? If they've done something "wrong" and have been judged guilty, as you seem to suggest, what's the point of a list? Why not just punish them?
It's little to do with soldiers. Everyone's a fucking hero any more here. If a cop or a fireman or heaven-forbid a mail person just does their job, they're now a "hero". If someone walks down the street and doesn't fall into a quivering mass at the corner, pissing itself over the cars and shit driving by, then that someone is a fucking hero.
The Pentagon just argued that Seal Team 6 was on loan to the CIA when they went after Bin Laden,
It was my understanding from the beginning that it was a CIA operation with JSOC people temporarily assigned. IOW, I don't think this was ever a "secret". I think this is not unusual and sometimes works in reverse, (CIA/SOG temporarily assigned to JSOC units), as well.
especially for a person landing for the first time at a given airport.
This was not the flying pilot's first time landing at KSFO. It was his first time landing a B777 at KSFO. Though the training pilot had only 40-something hours flying the B777, he's been an airline pilot for nearly 20 years and, therefore, has many thousands of hours flying jets, including the B747.
I'm not trying to apologize for the guy; he (and the others in the pointy-end) fucked up huge and two people died and others are probably permanently injured because of it. Let's try to get it right for their sakes, if nothing else.
It could be that the pilot flying lined up on the edge of what they saw, which was the seawall, instead of lining up on the runway edge, fifty feet further up.
Which is why you don't "target" the edge of the runway, but rather the excessively clearly marked TDZ. This airplane was not coming down "a few feet" short, it was coming down many hundreds of feet short.
Yes it can be landed in that manner. However, to do so requires a working Instrument Landing System for the runway on which the plane intends to land. In this case, it appears that at least part of the ILS system for runway 28L, the glide slope part, was not working, (due to maintenance). This part of the landing system tells the pilot how high the plane should be at a given distance from the runway. It creates a sort-of invisible slide (usually 3 degrees) that the plane flies down, with the bottom of the slide being near the end of the runway, (specifically in/near the touch-down zone or TDZ). In this case, the pilots apparently were flying the approach manually, so they had to judge for themselves how to descend to the runway. All pilots are trained to do this, so it's not some mysterious procedure that only a few know how to do. The problem in this case is that the plane was descending to a point well short of the runway, a point in the water, and the question is why did the pilot(s) flying the approach not realize and act on the error until about 7 seconds before impact, which was too late to do anything about it. In terms of the appropriateness of manually flying the approach, the weather conditions at San Francisco on Saturday are probably the most suitable.
Fascinating. The pilots were ancient Roman religious officials who foretell the future? Seems like they messed that one up.
Oh, wait. I guess you meant "auger". Maybe you could take some time off from writing headlines and give Korean flight crews some remedial training in hand-flying approaches in B777's? Whadda ya say?
It appears to me that the plane rotated clockwise as it skid across the ground. As you noted, such a rotation would cause the right engine to get "stuck" in the area it's found, at the wing root on the right side and the temperature at the back end of the motor will likely be around 1,500 Fahrenheit. From the picture I saw of the right side of the plane, there appeared to be a burn-through just forward of the wing root, next to where the back of the engine was resting. Also, the tail impacting the ground caused the mains to slam into the ground with enough force to break them off. That may have caused a fuel tank breach, or at least a leak. I think a fire may have started in the cargo hold, maybe fed by a small amount of fuel.
The article cites says that there is plenty of precedent in court decisions that support a notion of personal privacy. The article also says that the so-called right is frequently debated. Regardless of what the SCOTUS and others have ruled in the past, regardless of the weight precedent holds, a new and different ruling can appear in the future. An explicit amendment, (especially a properly worded one), to the Constitution would help to put any right to privacy on firmer ground. As others have pointed out, an amendment doesn't ensure compliance, but I think it's a much higher bar than precedent.
Phht. I've been executed three times for the same thing. No deterrence at all. Last time they got pissed cuz I was giggling the whole time singing 'you can get anything you want at alice's restaurant.'
I think it's a matter of court decisions rather than an explicit assertion. As I understand it, a defendant cannot assert "the 5th" after he/she has begun answering questions. Also, for a defendant, asserting "the 5th" cannot be considered in a criminal case, but it, (silence), can be considered in a civil case. Again, that's for a defendant. A witness in a court proceeding can selectively assert "the 5th", but can be compelled to answer via a contempt charge, an immunity arrangement or maybe just a really nice "pretty please". This appears to be how the Amendment has been interpreted in the Courts.
The situation involving the IRS person testifying before Congress is nuanced: some believe she cannot selectively apply "the 5th", in other words they consider her to be a "defendant", while others believe she is a "witness" and is therefore able to selectively assert "the 5th".
With regard to what this article was about, the person in question - before being arrested - had chosen to answer police questions, until they asked something specific about shotgun shells found at the crime scene. The person would not answer that question and the police used his silence as evidence to pursue an investigation and eventual arrest of the person.
You're a motherfucking retarded cunt, you know that? Did you even bother to read the motherfucking ruling you retarded shitbag?
I'm confused. Is the ac a cunt or a shitbag? Or are you suggesting they're one in the same? If so, how exactly does that work? Do you use a funnel? Or do you shit in a bag and then pipe it in like icing on a cake? Or is it a one-person thing where you construct a curved trough sort of thing that fits nicely over the crotch and directs the shit forward to its receptacle? How long is it expected to remain in there, just a few minutes or do you leave it there overnight to allow the different flavors to merge and mingle? In other words, do you consider this an eat-it-now, or eat-it-later thing?
I'm also not clear on the "retarded" part. Since that term is traditionally applied in the context of intelligence, are you suggesting that cunts and/or shitbags are typically possessive of intelligence, but in the case of the ac, that intelligence has not "properly" formed? Or is this simply a reflection of position, i.e. not advanced, like the way advanced and retarded are used in relation to the throttle in an airplane?
This is why you DO NOT SAY ANYTHING to ANY QUESTION if you are being detained by the police.
My understanding, albeit pedestrian, is that you are required to identify yourself, i.e. speak your name, and that some jurisdictions additionally require you to say where you live.
Slashdot Mirror
except in the RARE excpetion where a minor is tried as an adult for something serious like murder
I don't know how rare it may be, but I don't care. there is something fundamentally flawed with people who say out of one side of their face that a 15 year old is too unsophisticated to decide that they want to suck cocks, then from the other side of their face say that an 8 year old knew exactly what he was doing when he killed someone. it's perverted and obscene.
I think they are trying to "make a point", but it seems the point is on top of their heads.
./ this evening. :)
Perhaps since the software was being hosted over AWS, they'll next go after Amazon for selling surveillance systems.
I would say this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard, but I've only just started reading
interesting. when I was in a volunteer fd many years ago, we just used spring-loaded center punches for car rear windows. for larger glass, like a plate-glass door or window, we used the pick end of a pick-axe.
weed in most states, cocaine, heroine, people.
I seem to recall a newspaper picture at some point that showed missiles on the roof of the building, but I think that the secret service has always declined to comment on the defense systems in place. I'm not sure that it would make the most sense to put missiles at the WH; there may be other locations in the vicinity that would offer better protection.
Where I live, there are clever signs on the road that say:
Hang up and drive!
$124 fine
So I'm sitting at a light and a local cop in an SUV drives by and he is... wait for it... talking on his fucking cell phone. If those charged with enforcing the law, (and traffic laws are laws after all), are incapable of abiding by the law, then I'm not sure there's a good answer to this "problem."
12 MILLION people died in WWII.
I think it was more like 50 million, but who's counting.
Ain't nobody got time for that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh7UgAprdpM
As a new developer at a young-ish software company, I've been told my communication skills need some work.
Is your manager telling you that your communication skills need work, or is it your co-workers?
If it's your manager, then part of his/her job is to help you improve; he/she needs to suggest how you can improve your communications skills.
If it's not your manager, then talk to (communicate with) your manager, tell them you're concerned that your communication skills may need some work and ask them for suggestions. It's part of their job to help you improve, so they should have no problem offering advice.
If your manager isn't willing to offer any help, then think about looking for a new job and moving on.
Unless you really believe the nutball theory that evil UN men in black will use those databases to swoop in and start confiscating guns indiscriminately then it's pretty implausible that holding gun sellers and owners accountable would violate anyone's rights.
It was exactly that "nutball" confiscation of guns, perpetrated by James against Protestants, that led to the assertion of the right in the British Bill of Rights and which in turn led to its inclusion in our Second Amendment.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean by holding gun sellers and owners accountable. Hold them accountable for what? Are you suggesting that gun sellers and owners are, by definition, guilty of some crime for which they must be held responsible? If they've done something "wrong" and have been judged guilty, as you seem to suggest, what's the point of a list? Why not just punish them?
It's little to do with soldiers. Everyone's a fucking hero any more here. If a cop or a fireman or heaven-forbid a mail person just does their job, they're now a "hero". If someone walks down the street and doesn't fall into a quivering mass at the corner, pissing itself over the cars and shit driving by, then that someone is a fucking hero.
The Pentagon just argued that Seal Team 6 was on loan to the CIA when they went after Bin Laden,
It was my understanding from the beginning that it was a CIA operation with JSOC people temporarily assigned. IOW, I don't think this was ever a "secret". I think this is not unusual and sometimes works in reverse, (CIA/SOG temporarily assigned to JSOC units), as well.
especially for a person landing for the first time at a given airport.
This was not the flying pilot's first time landing at KSFO. It was his first time landing a B777 at KSFO. Though the training pilot had only 40-something hours flying the B777, he's been an airline pilot for nearly 20 years and, therefore, has many thousands of hours flying jets, including the B747.
I'm not trying to apologize for the guy; he (and the others in the pointy-end) fucked up huge and two people died and others are probably permanently injured because of it. Let's try to get it right for their sakes, if nothing else.
It could be that the pilot flying lined up on the edge of what they saw, which was the seawall, instead of lining up on the runway edge, fifty feet further up.
Which is why you don't "target" the edge of the runway, but rather the excessively clearly marked TDZ. This airplane was not coming down "a few feet" short, it was coming down many hundreds of feet short.
Yes it can be landed in that manner. However, to do so requires a working Instrument Landing System for the runway on which the plane intends to land. In this case, it appears that at least part of the ILS system for runway 28L, the glide slope part, was not working, (due to maintenance). This part of the landing system tells the pilot how high the plane should be at a given distance from the runway. It creates a sort-of invisible slide (usually 3 degrees) that the plane flies down, with the bottom of the slide being near the end of the runway, (specifically in/near the touch-down zone or TDZ). In this case, the pilots apparently were flying the approach manually, so they had to judge for themselves how to descend to the runway. All pilots are trained to do this, so it's not some mysterious procedure that only a few know how to do. The problem in this case is that the plane was descending to a point well short of the runway, a point in the water, and the question is why did the pilot(s) flying the approach not realize and act on the error until about 7 seconds before impact, which was too late to do anything about it. In terms of the appropriateness of manually flying the approach, the weather conditions at San Francisco on Saturday are probably the most suitable.
Right. But you might be tortured, burned at the stake or have your vestigial head removed from your body by a "properly managed" religion.
Korean pilots augur ...
Fascinating. The pilots were ancient Roman religious officials who foretell the future? Seems like they messed that one up.
Oh, wait. I guess you meant "auger". Maybe you could take some time off from writing headlines and give Korean flight crews some remedial training in hand-flying approaches in B777's? Whadda ya say?
It appears to me that the plane rotated clockwise as it skid across the ground. As you noted, such a rotation would cause the right engine to get "stuck" in the area it's found, at the wing root on the right side and the temperature at the back end of the motor will likely be around 1,500 Fahrenheit. From the picture I saw of the right side of the plane, there appeared to be a burn-through just forward of the wing root, next to where the back of the engine was resting. Also, the tail impacting the ground caused the mains to slam into the ground with enough force to break them off. That may have caused a fuel tank breach, or at least a leak. I think a fire may have started in the cargo hold, maybe fed by a small amount of fuel.
... or 3d-printed dildos ...
wait... what?
Yeah, not true. The Constitution and the laws derived from it apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> The US needs a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy.
No, it doesn't. The Constitutional right to privacy is already well established in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States
The problem is that it is not observed.
The article cites says that there is plenty of precedent in court decisions that support a notion of personal privacy. The article also says that the so-called right is frequently debated. Regardless of what the SCOTUS and others have ruled in the past, regardless of the weight precedent holds, a new and different ruling can appear in the future. An explicit amendment, (especially a properly worded one), to the Constitution would help to put any right to privacy on firmer ground. As others have pointed out, an amendment doesn't ensure compliance, but I think it's a much higher bar than precedent.
Phht. I've been executed three times for the same thing. No deterrence at all. Last time they got pissed cuz I was giggling the whole time singing 'you can get anything you want at alice's restaurant.'
Being a "tin plated overbearing dictator with delusions of godhood" is not cool and shouldn't be tolerated generally.
And that, precisely, is the trouble with tribbles.
I think it's a matter of court decisions rather than an explicit assertion. As I understand it, a defendant cannot assert "the 5th" after he/she has begun answering questions. Also, for a defendant, asserting "the 5th" cannot be considered in a criminal case, but it, (silence), can be considered in a civil case. Again, that's for a defendant. A witness in a court proceeding can selectively assert "the 5th", but can be compelled to answer via a contempt charge, an immunity arrangement or maybe just a really nice "pretty please". This appears to be how the Amendment has been interpreted in the Courts.
The situation involving the IRS person testifying before Congress is nuanced: some believe she cannot selectively apply "the 5th", in other words they consider her to be a "defendant", while others believe she is a "witness" and is therefore able to selectively assert "the 5th".
With regard to what this article was about, the person in question - before being arrested - had chosen to answer police questions, until they asked something specific about shotgun shells found at the crime scene. The person would not answer that question and the police used his silence as evidence to pursue an investigation and eventual arrest of the person.
You're a motherfucking retarded cunt, you know that? Did you even bother to read the motherfucking ruling you retarded shitbag?
I'm confused. Is the ac a cunt or a shitbag? Or are you suggesting they're one in the same? If so, how exactly does that work? Do you use a funnel? Or do you shit in a bag and then pipe it in like icing on a cake? Or is it a one-person thing where you construct a curved trough sort of thing that fits nicely over the crotch and directs the shit forward to its receptacle? How long is it expected to remain in there, just a few minutes or do you leave it there overnight to allow the different flavors to merge and mingle? In other words, do you consider this an eat-it-now, or eat-it-later thing?
I'm also not clear on the "retarded" part. Since that term is traditionally applied in the context of intelligence, are you suggesting that cunts and/or shitbags are typically possessive of intelligence, but in the case of the ac, that intelligence has not "properly" formed? Or is this simply a reflection of position, i.e. not advanced, like the way advanced and retarded are used in relation to the throttle in an airplane?
This is why you DO NOT SAY ANYTHING to ANY QUESTION if you are being detained by the police.
My understanding, albeit pedestrian, is that you are required to identify yourself, i.e. speak your name, and that some jurisdictions additionally require you to say where you live.