Maybe this is too subtle a point, but the process of actually running for a major party's nomination and winning, then running for and winning the presidency is in itself probably the most important experience a President brings to office.
It means going to a lot of places you would never have gone, meeting an talking to people you'd never have talked to, crafting a message and seeing it crash, then going back to the drawing board and starting again.
The kind of experience you get by holding a safe seat in the senate for two or three terms is valuable too, but it's the kind of experience you can hire.
Yes, there are going to be some people who will find any reason you can concoct to vote one way or the other compelling. They may even have good reasons to find them compelling. Maybe grandma figures this might be her last chance to vote for a woman President -- or at least somebody who might a a result of that vote become President.
But, boyo, if McCain thinks this is going to seal the deal with a substantial Hillary partisans, he is in for a rude surpise. Olympia Snowe? Sure. Liddy Dole or K. B. Hutchinson? Maybe. But this thin streak of nothing? I know a lot of women of a feminist persuasion, along a wide swath of the militancy scale and let me tell you, all of them can smell condescension better than a shark can smell blood in the water.
If that's McCain's game, he really doesn't get it.
You've got the right kind of idea, but probably the wrong terminology.
What you are saying (if I may interpret broadly) is that credit reporting agencies have a duty of care towards the people whose information they traffic in. Naturally it would not be libel unless they were knowingly publishing defamatory information in a malicious or wildly irresponsible manner. Posting incorrect records in and of itself isn't anywhere near this standard.
And, in general, one is not liable for the criminal actions of others. So the falsehood being perpetrated by the identity thieves is not the responsibility of the agencies, who in a manner of speaking are a co-victim in that crime.
However, it is arguable that the agencies have a special duty to take reasonable care to prevent identity theft and to respond with prompt and reasonable action to any evidence or reports of identity theft. They have this duty because by trading in personal information, they exercise great power over the lives and reputations of others, a power from which they derive considerable economic benefit.
So the word you're looking for is negligence.
The problem with suing over this is putting a dollar figure on the damage done by the credit agencies' negligence. No dollar figure, nothing to sue for. What may be needed is for the legislature to create a statutory figure which could be used to sue the agencies.
Well, why not store the energy as unburned fossil fuels?
True, this does not work after we depend on >50% intermittent power sources, but that scenario goes under the heading "problems we'd be fortunate to have".
There is no quick fix for the fossil fuel problem. Not offshore drilling. Not nukes. These will have their place and time of course. But the plus side of this grim prognosis is that we do not have to require every practical measure we look at to be the answer to all our prayers.
Bradbury was one of the first science fiction authors to have a wider cultural impact outside of sci-fi fandom, and is still one of the most important.
Of course, there's no way to precisely rank the importance of writers in a genre; perhaps there were more influential writers within the genre, but clearly he is a writer of the first rank. Within his historical cohort, many have passed away: Poul Anderson, Isaac Asimov, James Blish, Robert Bloch, Arthur Clarke, Philip K. Dick, Gordy Dickson, Frank Herbert, Damon Knight, Stanislaw Lem, Kurt Vonnegut... all were his contemporaries, all gone. Even Gene Roddenberry and Rod Serling if you choose to include them.
Bradbury belongs to a seminal generation of science fiction writers. If you go back a decade earlier by birth date, you get a few names who are recognizably and undeniably part of the genre: H. Beam Piper, Robert Heinlein, Clifford D. Simak. Bradbury himself was a later bloomer, beginning his most important work in the 1950s, while his near exact contemporary Isaac Asimov was publishing a decade earlier, and who perhaps is a link to an earlier, pulpier age. If you go back even further, you get figures like Doc Smith (who was very advanced for his era) who were writing in a very different kind of genre.
The distinctive accomplishment of this generation of writers is that they raised the science fiction bar from thrilling adventure (although not stinting in that department) with serious literary craft, social critique, and scientific speculation, a fact that escaped the notice of wider audiences for years. Bradbury was one of the first to get noticed outside the club. And he did it without having to cross over into social satire, with sci-fi served up neat.
It's remarkable and happy news that Bradbury is still with us. There aren't many of that generation who are. Brian Aldiss, Anne McCaffrey, and Ursula LeGuin among the top tier writers. John Christopher, and Kate Wilhelm certainly.
The signs are stupid don't tell you anything useful.
In some places, all the hotels have the sign. It doesn't tell you what the carcinogens are, how much there is, where in the facility they are, how much exposure you might get, what the risk is, or what you could do to control the risk.
It's a pretty safe bet that any building has something that, if properly prepared and administered in sufficient quantities over a long enough time, causes cancer. The cigarettes in the hotel lobby shop mean the hotel has carcinogens. The charcoal grilled steaks in the restaurant have carcinogens. If you took apart the TV in the room and decocted the various plastics and rare metals into a kind of gritty slurry, you'd have something that you wouldn't want to put on your English muffins every morning.
And some hotels don't have the signs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this doesn't mean they're any different, the sign thing hasn't got there yet. Once all the hotels have the signs, then you're pretty much presented with a Hobson's choice: stay in a hotel that has carcinogens in it, or sleep in your car. Which probably has carcinogens in it.
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
Well, in the first place your chronology is off. The first Enron trial began in 2004. As of 9/11/2001, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were still in charge, and in fact the first public questioning by analysts of Enron's valuation were only a few months old at that time. The SEC investigation didn't begin until October 2001, so if it all were an attempt to cover up Enron evidence, it would quite literally be prescient.
In any case, there are easier ways to get rid of evidence if you have this kind of power. It is hardly necessary to destroy seven buildings when a fire starting near a single room would do. Even a simple burglary is both easier and more likely to succeed. Add this the fact that the destruction of so many buildings and lives means there would be commission afterwards to investigate. This commission could, of course, be controlled, but if the power to do this certainly it could much more readily have squelched the original investigation.
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
Anybody noticing the work would simply be told it was routine maintenance.
Now what work, exactly, could be (a) passed of as routine, (b) be so non-invasive that witnesses would fail to recall it later and (c) reliably bring the building down?
Remember, the whole reason or this theory is that the building could not have imploded without considerable preparation. If a few plastic explosive charges here or there could due the trick, why couldn't extensive structural damage followed by a raging fire?
Ah. yes: arm chair psychology! Way to go. You can't imagine the ovious motive of scaring the people so much they'll let you grab extraordinary powers, as they promtly did (funny how fast that USAPATRIOT ACT was written, huh?), but you can see into my soul! Very good.
Armchair it may be, but whereever it proceeds from it is well supported in evidence that conspiracy theories such as this do not explain the facts very well. It follows that since the "explanations" involved are not very convincing in terms of how they reconcile facts, they must be convincing for other reasons. The exact nature of those reasons are, admittedly, a topic of speculation. Who can know for certain? However, I think my explanation is both plausible, and more charitable than the more common assumption that conspiracy theorists are just bat-shit crazy.
Now, I want to go on record that I do think Enron's senior executives were evil, and that I believe the Bush administration is both evil and wildly incompetent at pursuing its nefarious aims. However, I don't think it is within their scope of competence (or incompetence) to execute this putative conspiracy, nor is there any evidence requiring explanations of this sort.
"Uncontrolled" collapses of very large buildings are exceedingly rare events, so nobody would really know a priori how the WTC collapses "ought" to have looked. After the fact, the way the floors pancaked doesn't seem at all improbable. As the force of the collapse propagates downward, it meets elements designed to spread a fraction of a single floor's weight onto vertical supports. Since the force of the collapse would be orders of magnitude greater than what these elements were designed to support, it seems probable that they would impede the progress of the collapse to about the same degree that a cloud of smoke would impede a lazily swung sledgehammer.
Of course, this is just after the fact rationalization, but the engineering analysis confirms it the intuition that no special measures would need to be taken in order for the collapse to proceed in a way that superficially resembles a controlled implosion.
This conspiracy theory has the usual problems of conspiracy theories, such as providing what mystery writers call "motive, means and opportunity". Motive is a particularly vexing issue, given that seven buildings were destroyed past recovery and numerous other ones damaged, it's hard to connect the end result to the purported motive. Another commonsense question would be whether a government that could not keep Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Echelon, or warrantless surveillance under wraps could have engaged in what must have been a substantial engineering effort on three busy Manhattan buildings without anybody noticing.
The real appeal of any conspiracy theory is this:it provides an illusion of control. Limited control, that is certain, but the seat of the pants risk evaluation is actually quite astute: if it were some cabal of government officials, you'd actually be less exposed than if twenty men, each armed with a tool costing $1, could kill nearly three thousand people and bring the country to a virtual standstill for weeks.
It needn't be as subtle as seeing patterns where there are none, although we know that happens all the time.
In simple terms, things tend to fall down. Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.
People whose experience with construction is limited to building models tend to imagine buildings are much lighter relative to the strength of materials in them then they are.
Then remind me, what the denominator the fraction 375/1000 is supposed to represent?
I'd have a fair idea if we were talking about the ACLU, or Focus on the Family, or some group like that. I'm not at all sure what agreeing 100% of the time with the editors of CNet would mean, except that I'm guessing that I'd probably be posting this from Windows.
"eminent domain" and "easement" are orthogonal notions. A government, or a private entity empowered by the government (such as a railroad) can acquire easements by eminent domain in the same way they obtain complete title. "Easement" is not a back door to deprive owners of the use of their land without meeting the requirements of eminent domain.
Easements are rights to use the land for a certain purpose, or to forbid certain uses of the land. Easements can arise in any number of ways, through your own actions , or through the actions of the prior owners of the land, including the way they subdivided the land. The government can't just create an easement that deprives you of the value of your land without exercising eminent domain.
I am not a lawyer, and in any case you'd need a lawyer who knows your state's law, but I think I'm safe to make a general observation here: easements are rights, which the owner has an obligation to respect; but they are also rights which can be created or expanded by long established usage. So it follows you have to watch the party that holds the easement and make sure he doesn't take more than he's entitled to. If you are completely OK with a huge utility box on your lawn for years and years, then want it gone when you are about to sell your house, you'll probably be out of luck.
So the time to complain is when you think the holder of the easement is starting to encroach on things he doesn't have a right to do.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Or look at the Arab dictatorships of the Middle East: sure, a lot of them are wealthy, but they're basically all failures.
should take a look at the Middle Eastern regimes, which are typically not regimes we would admire I agree. Thinking about them as the same is a lazy habit.
Oil is a curse to a country that doesn't have something bigger, economically. The regimes of the Middle East that are supported by oil wealth are not failures -- in their own terms.
Wealth you conjure out of otherwise worthless ground covers a lot of mediocrity and incompetence. It can buy a lot of favors from people who otherwise don't give a damn about your country; it nibble at he line between the honest and the corrupt, until the only honest people left are suckers.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
We have a right to call their form of government invalid.
As a matter of pragmatism, we live with it. That's what recognizing a government means. It purely pragmatic. You make agreements with a government because it's pragmatic. You keep them because you want your word to mean something.
But recognizing a government's "right" to oppress its citizens is not to recognize a moral right, or to disavow your own moral right to stand, and indeed act against it.
It just means we recognizing the futility of doing anything directly against it at this time.
So, what are the Japanese names of the fish in question?
After all, the North American "Trout" is really closer to a salmon than the European "Trout". A North American "Bass" is really just a big sunfish. People came over here and used the old fish names for critters of similar size and habits.
The "Chilean Sea Bass" was a deliberate renaming of the Patagonian Toothfish to have a more commercially desirable name.
So, all in all there are at least five different distinct families of fish that are called "bass".
If you read TFA, you will see that the capsule was falling faster than the intended deployment speed, causing the drogue chutes to cut away before the main chute could be deployed.
So this clearly a bug in the test procedure. The test procedure was testing outside the intended speed range. Whether this was at a speed the system should ultimately work at or not, we don't know from the information given.
In other words, the test failure doesn't necessarily show the parachute design, fabrication or installation was faulty. Of course this must be sobering for anybody who's on the short list to be on the first team that relies on the system.
To make money for the vendor who controls the specification and owns key patents?
Seriously, Wireless USB seems to be pretty much a direct competitor to Bluetooth. It is faster than the current generation of Bluetooth but no faster than the next version of Bluetooth as planned. I get the impression it is intended to be simpler than Bluetooth. Bluetooth as service discovery and connection security features that are practical stumbling blocks for average users. Aside from weaknesses in its protocols, the biggest weakness in Bluetooth security that users find it inconvenient. They often leave their devices in insecure configurations and vendors often deliver devices with trivial passkeys like 1234.
WUSB claims to implement security in a simpler way, and intuition tells me that there must be a better way, but still I'll believe it when I see it.
WUSB apparently doesn't have service discovery or security. This clearly makes it more of a bona fide "cable replacement" and certainly simplifies managing the WUSB pairing. This will certainly make connecting devices like cameras simpler; on the other hand it will be up to device driver and operating system developers to figure out how to handle devices that offer an array of services, such as phones. So a lot of application interface standardization goes out the window. That's too bad, although it's questionable whether users currently benefit that much from that.
Although these are significant differences, I'm not sure that they'll be decisive in favor of one technology or the other. I'm betting that everything will depend on how cheap throwing a WUSB interface in a device is compared to throwing a Bluetooth interface in. If one interface costs a nickel and the other costs a dime, I'd bet on the nickel interface.
This could be fixed if they simply specified the minimum mechanical strength of the sockets and plugs.
A lot of USB cables and devices have connectors you can bend with finger pressure. That's Ok for things like printers that are unplugged once in a blue moon, but it's not good for things like cameras that are frequently connected and disconnected.
e.g. the length of time a victim retains his money is inversely proportional to his foolishness.
Everybody is at least a little foolish, some of the time. It follows that everybody will be scammed, sooner or later. Sooner if you are credulous and naive, later if you are skeptical and well informed.
Well, to start with the article we're responding to.
Otherwise, I commend to you to the indices of last thirty years of Science New and the topics global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this is too subtle a point, but the process of actually running for a major party's nomination and winning, then running for and winning the presidency is in itself probably the most important experience a President brings to office.
It means going to a lot of places you would never have gone, meeting an talking to people you'd never have talked to, crafting a message and seeing it crash, then going back to the drawing board and starting again.
The kind of experience you get by holding a safe seat in the senate for two or three terms is valuable too, but it's the kind of experience you can hire.
Oh, buruther.
Yes, there are going to be some people who will find any reason you can concoct to vote one way or the other compelling. They may even have good reasons to find them compelling. Maybe grandma figures this might be her last chance to vote for a woman President -- or at least somebody who might a a result of that vote become President.
But, boyo, if McCain thinks this is going to seal the deal with a substantial Hillary partisans, he is in for a rude surpise. Olympia Snowe? Sure. Liddy Dole or K. B. Hutchinson? Maybe. But this thin streak of nothing? I know a lot of women of a feminist persuasion, along a wide swath of the militancy scale and let me tell you, all of them can smell condescension better than a shark can smell blood in the water.
If that's McCain's game, he really doesn't get it.
You've got the right kind of idea, but probably the wrong terminology.
What you are saying (if I may interpret broadly) is that credit reporting agencies have a duty of care towards the people whose information they traffic in. Naturally it would not be libel unless they were knowingly publishing defamatory information in a malicious or wildly irresponsible manner. Posting incorrect records in and of itself isn't anywhere near this standard.
And, in general, one is not liable for the criminal actions of others. So the falsehood being perpetrated by the identity thieves is not the responsibility of the agencies, who in a manner of speaking are a co-victim in that crime.
However, it is arguable that the agencies have a special duty to take reasonable care to prevent identity theft and to respond with prompt and reasonable action to any evidence or reports of identity theft. They have this duty because by trading in personal information, they exercise great power over the lives and reputations of others, a power from which they derive considerable economic benefit.
So the word you're looking for is negligence.
The problem with suing over this is putting a dollar figure on the damage done by the credit agencies' negligence. No dollar figure, nothing to sue for. What may be needed is for the legislature to create a statutory figure which could be used to sue the agencies.
He's using "literally" in its figurative sense, of course.
Well, why not store the energy as unburned fossil fuels?
True, this does not work after we depend on >50% intermittent power sources, but that scenario goes under the heading "problems we'd be fortunate to have".
There is no quick fix for the fossil fuel problem. Not offshore drilling. Not nukes. These will have their place and time of course. But the plus side of this grim prognosis is that we do not have to require every practical measure we look at to be the answer to all our prayers.
Who is this supposed to be a nuisance to?
I should think not.
Bradbury was one of the first science fiction authors to have a wider cultural impact outside of sci-fi fandom, and is still one of the most important.
Of course, there's no way to precisely rank the importance of writers in a genre; perhaps there were more influential writers within the genre, but clearly he is a writer of the first rank. Within his historical cohort, many have passed away: Poul Anderson, Isaac Asimov, James Blish, Robert Bloch, Arthur Clarke, Philip K. Dick, Gordy Dickson, Frank Herbert, Damon Knight, Stanislaw Lem, Kurt Vonnegut ... all were his contemporaries, all gone. Even Gene Roddenberry and Rod Serling if you choose to include them.
Bradbury belongs to a seminal generation of science fiction writers. If you go back a decade earlier by birth date, you get a few names who are recognizably and undeniably part of the genre: H. Beam Piper, Robert Heinlein, Clifford D. Simak. Bradbury himself was a later bloomer, beginning his most important work in the 1950s, while his near exact contemporary Isaac Asimov was publishing a decade earlier, and who perhaps is a link to an earlier, pulpier age. If you go back even further, you get figures like Doc Smith (who was very advanced for his era) who were writing in a very different kind of genre.
The distinctive accomplishment of this generation of writers is that they raised the science fiction bar from thrilling adventure (although not stinting in that department) with serious literary craft, social critique, and scientific speculation, a fact that escaped the notice of wider audiences for years. Bradbury was one of the first to get noticed outside the club. And he did it without having to cross over into social satire, with sci-fi served up neat.
It's remarkable and happy news that Bradbury is still with us. There aren't many of that generation who are. Brian Aldiss, Anne McCaffrey, and Ursula LeGuin among the top tier writers. John Christopher, and Kate Wilhelm certainly.
So, yes, it's newsworthy that he's still with us.
The signs are stupid don't tell you anything useful.
In some places, all the hotels have the sign. It doesn't tell you what the carcinogens are, how much there is, where in the facility they are, how much exposure you might get, what the risk is, or what you could do to control the risk.
It's a pretty safe bet that any building has something that, if properly prepared and administered in sufficient quantities over a long enough time, causes cancer. The cigarettes in the hotel lobby shop mean the hotel has carcinogens. The charcoal grilled steaks in the restaurant have carcinogens. If you took apart the TV in the room and decocted the various plastics and rare metals into a kind of gritty slurry, you'd have something that you wouldn't want to put on your English muffins every morning.
And some hotels don't have the signs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this doesn't mean they're any different, the sign thing hasn't got there yet. Once all the hotels have the signs, then you're pretty much presented with a Hobson's choice: stay in a hotel that has carcinogens in it, or sleep in your car. Which probably has carcinogens in it.
Well, in the first place your chronology is off. The first Enron trial began in 2004. As of 9/11/2001, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were still in charge, and in fact the first public questioning by analysts of Enron's valuation were only a few months old at that time. The SEC investigation didn't begin until October 2001, so if it all were an attempt to cover up Enron evidence, it would quite literally be prescient.
In any case, there are easier ways to get rid of evidence if you have this kind of power. It is hardly necessary to destroy seven buildings when a fire starting near a single room would do. Even a simple burglary is both easier and more likely to succeed. Add this the fact that the destruction of so many buildings and lives means there would be commission afterwards to investigate. This commission could, of course, be controlled, but if the power to do this certainly it could much more readily have squelched the original investigation.
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
Now what work, exactly, could be (a) passed of as routine, (b) be so non-invasive that witnesses would fail to recall it later and (c) reliably bring the building down?
Remember, the whole reason or this theory is that the building could not have imploded without considerable preparation. If a few plastic explosive charges here or there could due the trick, why couldn't extensive structural damage followed by a raging fire?
Armchair it may be, but whereever it proceeds from it is well supported in evidence that conspiracy theories such as this do not explain the facts very well. It follows that since the "explanations" involved are not very convincing in terms of how they reconcile facts, they must be convincing for other reasons. The exact nature of those reasons are, admittedly, a topic of speculation. Who can know for certain? However, I think my explanation is both plausible, and more charitable than the more common assumption that conspiracy theorists are just bat-shit crazy.
Now, I want to go on record that I do think Enron's senior executives were evil, and that I believe the Bush administration is both evil and wildly incompetent at pursuing its nefarious aims. However, I don't think it is within their scope of competence (or incompetence) to execute this putative conspiracy, nor is there any evidence requiring explanations of this sort.
Well, that just means as you scale members to take larger loads, it is shear strength that becomes your limiting factor, doesn't it?
Which would explain (in an extremely general and hand waving way) why buildings would tend to fall down rather than over.
Presuming, of course, that such efforts existed.
"Uncontrolled" collapses of very large buildings are exceedingly rare events, so nobody would really know a priori how the WTC collapses "ought" to have looked. After the fact, the way the floors pancaked doesn't seem at all improbable. As the force of the collapse propagates downward, it meets elements designed to spread a fraction of a single floor's weight onto vertical supports. Since the force of the collapse would be orders of magnitude greater than what these elements were designed to support, it seems probable that they would impede the progress of the collapse to about the same degree that a cloud of smoke would impede a lazily swung sledgehammer.
Of course, this is just after the fact rationalization, but the engineering analysis confirms it the intuition that no special measures would need to be taken in order for the collapse to proceed in a way that superficially resembles a controlled implosion.
This conspiracy theory has the usual problems of conspiracy theories, such as providing what mystery writers call "motive, means and opportunity". Motive is a particularly vexing issue, given that seven buildings were destroyed past recovery and numerous other ones damaged, it's hard to connect the end result to the purported motive. Another commonsense question would be whether a government that could not keep Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Echelon, or warrantless surveillance under wraps could have engaged in what must have been a substantial engineering effort on three busy Manhattan buildings without anybody noticing.
The real appeal of any conspiracy theory is this:it provides an illusion of control. Limited control, that is certain, but the seat of the pants risk evaluation is actually quite astute: if it were some cabal of government officials, you'd actually be less exposed than if twenty men, each armed with a tool costing $1, could kill nearly three thousand people and bring the country to a virtual standstill for weeks.
"Losing data" would be an operational mess for the organization.
"Disclosing data to criminals", which is what happened, is a mess for its customers.
It needn't be as subtle as seeing patterns where there are none, although we know that happens all the time.
In simple terms, things tend to fall down. Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.
People whose experience with construction is limited to building models tend to imagine buildings are much lighter relative to the strength of materials in them then they are.
Run for the hills!
Then remind me, what the denominator the fraction 375/1000 is supposed to represent?
I'd have a fair idea if we were talking about the ACLU, or Focus on the Family, or some group like that. I'm not at all sure what agreeing 100% of the time with the editors of CNet would mean, except that I'm guessing that I'd probably be posting this from Windows.
"eminent domain" and "easement" are orthogonal notions. A government, or a private entity empowered by the government (such as a railroad) can acquire easements by eminent domain in the same way they obtain complete title. "Easement" is not a back door to deprive owners of the use of their land without meeting the requirements of eminent domain.
Easements are rights to use the land for a certain purpose, or to forbid certain uses of the land. Easements can arise in any number of ways, through your own actions , or through the actions of the prior owners of the land, including the way they subdivided the land. The government can't just create an easement that deprives you of the value of your land without exercising eminent domain.
I am not a lawyer, and in any case you'd need a lawyer who knows your state's law, but I think I'm safe to make a general observation here: easements are rights, which the owner has an obligation to respect; but they are also rights which can be created or expanded by long established usage. So it follows you have to watch the party that holds the easement and make sure he doesn't take more than he's entitled to. If you are completely OK with a huge utility box on your lawn for years and years, then want it gone when you are about to sell your house, you'll probably be out of luck.
So the time to complain is when you think the holder of the easement is starting to encroach on things he doesn't have a right to do.
should take a look at the Middle Eastern regimes, which are typically not regimes we would admire I agree. Thinking about them as the same is a lazy habit.
Oil is a curse to a country that doesn't have something bigger, economically. The regimes of the Middle East that are supported by oil wealth are not failures -- in their own terms.
Wealth you conjure out of otherwise worthless ground covers a lot of mediocrity and incompetence. It can buy a lot of favors from people who otherwise don't give a damn about your country; it nibble at he line between the honest and the corrupt, until the only honest people left are suckers.
We have a right to call their form of government invalid.
As a matter of pragmatism, we live with it. That's what recognizing a government means. It purely pragmatic. You make agreements with a government because it's pragmatic. You keep them because you want your word to mean something.
But recognizing a government's "right" to oppress its citizens is not to recognize a moral right, or to disavow your own moral right to stand, and indeed act against it.
It just means we recognizing the futility of doing anything directly against it at this time.
One day China's great firewall will block itself because it includes word "tibet" in it's blocking rules.
Where have you gone, Mr. Spock?
A nation turns it's lonely eyes to you...
So, what are the Japanese names of the fish in question?
After all, the North American "Trout" is really closer to a salmon than the European "Trout". A North American "Bass" is really just a big sunfish. People came over here and used the old fish names for critters of similar size and habits.
The "Chilean Sea Bass" was a deliberate renaming of the Patagonian Toothfish to have a more commercially desirable name.
So, all in all there are at least five different distinct families of fish that are called "bass".
True as well as witty.
If you read TFA, you will see that the capsule was falling faster than the intended deployment speed, causing the drogue chutes to cut away before the main chute could be deployed.
So this clearly a bug in the test procedure. The test procedure was testing outside the intended speed range. Whether this was at a speed the system should ultimately work at or not, we don't know from the information given.
In other words, the test failure doesn't necessarily show the parachute design, fabrication or installation was faulty. Of course this must be sobering for anybody who's on the short list to be on the first team that relies on the system.
To make money for the vendor who controls the specification and owns key patents?
Seriously, Wireless USB seems to be pretty much a direct competitor to Bluetooth. It is faster than the current generation of Bluetooth but no faster than the next version of Bluetooth as planned. I get the impression it is intended to be simpler than Bluetooth. Bluetooth as service discovery and connection security features that are practical stumbling blocks for average users. Aside from weaknesses in its protocols, the biggest weakness in Bluetooth security that users find it inconvenient. They often leave their devices in insecure configurations and vendors often deliver devices with trivial passkeys like 1234.
WUSB claims to implement security in a simpler way, and intuition tells me that there must be a better way, but still I'll believe it when I see it.
WUSB apparently doesn't have service discovery or security. This clearly makes it more of a bona fide "cable replacement" and certainly simplifies managing the WUSB pairing. This will certainly make connecting devices like cameras simpler; on the other hand it will be up to device driver and operating system developers to figure out how to handle devices that offer an array of services, such as phones. So a lot of application interface standardization goes out the window. That's too bad, although it's questionable whether users currently benefit that much from that.
Although these are significant differences, I'm not sure that they'll be decisive in favor of one technology or the other. I'm betting that everything will depend on how cheap throwing a WUSB interface in a device is compared to throwing a Bluetooth interface in. If one interface costs a nickel and the other costs a dime, I'd bet on the nickel interface.
This could be fixed if they simply specified the minimum mechanical strength of the sockets and plugs.
A lot of USB cables and devices have connectors you can bend with finger pressure. That's Ok for things like printers that are unplugged once in a blue moon, but it's not good for things like cameras that are frequently connected and disconnected.
e.g. the length of time a victim retains his money is inversely proportional to his foolishness.
Everybody is at least a little foolish, some of the time. It follows that everybody will be scammed, sooner or later. Sooner if you are credulous and naive, later if you are skeptical and well informed.
It's a valid theory, but not very precise or useful, precisely because it is infallible.
Well, to start with the article we're responding to.
Otherwise, I commend to you to the indices of last thirty years of Science New and the topics global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomenon.