The Fifth Amendment doesn't give you the right to remain silent. It only protects you against self-incrimination.
You can be compelled to testify against someone else. Pleading the 5th won't get you out of that, if you refuse you can be held in contempt. The reason you have to actually plead the Fifth is because you are telling the court why you refuse to answer.
Because the First Amendment doesn't just protect speech, but also freedom of the press. If the press can't observe and gather evidence, it can't be particularly effective.
"Today's top story: the Government did stuff today. Probably. And now sports!"
The primary consumer of power is the screen on most smartphones
One of the most baffling design decisions in Android is the fact that when your battery is low the phone keeps turning the screen on to warn you about it. A simple beep coupled with blinking the LED indicator every so often would be sufficient.
That's like if your car started up a second engine to run a generator to power the low fuel indicator.
my smartphone usually lasts about 6-7 days on a charge as-is, primarily because it does very little aside from phone stuff. Turn on the WiFi and that drops to around 3 days in normal use (simply being connected, without actually using the internet).
Turning on the WiFi halves your battery life? I find that hard to believe. The WiFi draw should be so low to be basically irrelevant. Looking at the breakdown in my phone (Galaxy S3), WiFi doesn't even show up in the power draw. And turning it on or off makes absolutely no difference to any of the percentages, which are:
Screen 29% Firefox 17% Android System 16% Android OS 12% Device Idle 7% Cell Standby 6% Exchange Services 4% Google Play Services 3% Email 3%
I'm guessing the missing 3% is spread among a lot of things which are individually drawing too little power to be displayed in this list. When the WiFi is on, it must be one of them. Even if it accounted for the entire 3%, there is no way it would affect the battery life to the degree you're claiming.
I'm not necessarily buying into the premise, but as an engineering problem it's interesting...
To hide the fact that you were recording all the time you could send a payload of the same size periodically. Say X minutes of recording will be a maximum of Y bytes. Every X minutes you send Y bytes (filtered and compressed as you said), even if you don't have Y bytes to send. If you were monitoring the network you would see no change between when it's supposed to be recording and when it's not.
Whoa, slow down there George Jetson. I don't even have a cellphone.
I only communicate over ham radios using Morse Code to transmit ciphertext that can only be decoded with a one-time pad provided to me through a dead-drop.
That would probably just increase congestion overall. The other lanes will be slower, which means cars stay on the road longer, and the congestion will stretch further back on the road. That will affect everybody.
How many highways have a second on ramp that goes directly into the left lane? While you're waiting to merge (and then eventually get over to your "premium" lane), you are stuck in the same traffic. And then when you're exiting you will have the same problem in reverse. Imagine stopping or significantly slowing down in the premium lane because you have to wait to squeeze your way into the more packed proles' lane. Suddenly, your premium lane is moving as slowly as the other lanes, even though there are less cars in that lane. Oops. You better hope the people stuck in traffic that you are cutting in front of are feeling especially generous.*
The most optimal solution to traffic is to use as much of the road as possible. If there are less cars in one lane and more in others, it will always be less efficient.
*Alternate idea: You could pay people to stay in the slow lanes and yield to people changing lanes from the left. Better yet, why not just pay people not to be on the road at all? (Did I just solve traffic with UBI?)
No it's not. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method. It does not preclude forming hypotheses and seeking evidence. You assume the 2 are mutually exclusive, but they're not.
The Higgs boson existed whether we had evidence or not, whether we even had a theory of its existence or not, whether we existed as a species or not.
The difference is that we found evidence for the Higgs Boson. We didn't know it existed before we found the evidence. To presume the existence of things before there is evidence means you presume the existence of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. The moon is a giant dragon's egg! I have no evidence, but apparently it can't be denied according to you and everybody else! Tomorrow it just might crack open and a thousand thousand dragons will emerge and drink the Sun's fire!
I know (think) you're joking. But why do so many of these replies equate evidence solely with things you can see. We can't see dark matter, but we can see it's effects.
Instead, smart people don't deny it. They simply state there is no evidence for it and discard it.
Pedantic difference. Discarding it is denial as it results in effectively the same thing, i.e. it is not used as a prior for any future conclusions. In the future, the moon might crack open and release a thousand-thousand dragons who drink the Sun's fire, but until then I deny (***discard***) the idea that the moon is a dragon egg, and I don't base any other conclusion on the assumption that it is. Are you saying that I should?
You're right about one thing, I do "believe" (read: have concluded the existence of) many things I can't see. The difference is that there is evidence for those things, unlike God, for which there is absolutely none.
Yeah, clearly believing in God is thinking "outside the box".
I didn't say I deny the existence of anything I can't see... although some of the things you mentioned are directly observable: air pressure (I'm literally looking outside my window at trees blowing in the wind), round Earth (objects disappearing over the horizon, the phases of the moon, etc.). I've even seen germs with my own eyes, using an amazing invention called a microscope (maybe you've heard of it).
There is a huge difference between all the things you mentioned and God, and it's not that they're invisible (even though they're not). It's that there is observable and verifiable evidence of all of those things, and diddly-squat for the magical man in the sky.
My mind is open to absolutely any idea, but the price of admission is evidence. If you can't pay the cover charge, you get bounced at the door.
With the satellites in LEO, relatively few debris will end up with velocity higher than at the impact moment, while moving at roughly similar trajectory as initially. That means most debris scattered in random directions would enter elliptical orbits with velocity roughly similar to initial at the point of impact. And that means apoapsis going significantly up, and periapsis - down. And lowering the periapsis significantly in LEO means one thing: reentry.
About all the debris that were knocked out of circular orbits, by the time of two revolutions later were already burned up, whether going directly down from the impact, or going up towards the new apoapsis, and then heading down almost a revolution later.
I deny the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. The alternative is foolhardy. If you can believe anything without evidence, then you can believe anything without evidence. It is the first (of many, but still) step along the path to being a suicide bomber.
Moon is no egg Khaleesi. Moon is Goddess, wife of Sun. It is known.
Primarily due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Events which increase entropy are vastly more likely than those that decrease entropy. So the Universe tends towards higher entropy. When the Universe reaches maximum entropy, i.e. heat death, no more change can occur, and time stops.
The best analogy I've heard (stolen from a documentary I don't remember the name of), is to think of a sand castle. In a sand castle, the grains of sand are highly ordered into a very specific shape and structure. We can consider this as a state of low entropy. Any disturbance of this order, due to wind, the tide, someone stepping on it, etc., increases the disorder of the sand castle, reducing it ultimately to a pile of sand.
The pile of sand is our state of high entropy. It's very difficult to increase the disorder of the pile of sand: no matter how much you mix it up, it will largely remain a pile of sand.
There is nothing fundamental to the laws of physics that prevents the perfect combination of wind to come along and blow a pile of sand into the shape of a sand castle. But obviously such an event is incredibly unlikely, compared to all the ways the sand can be reduced back to a pile.
Of course, it is possible to reduce the entropy of a system locally, but this requires external energy to be introduced, which will lead to a net increase in the Universe. Consider how much energy you have to expend to construct a sand castle, versus how much energy it would take some asshole to come along and kick it down.
I guess what I'm saying is, building sandcastles is a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but Aristotle was a fucking idiot.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Those giants are standing on Aristotle's foot.
Holy crap how pedantic can you be.
Judges can compel you to testify, just not against yourself.
The Fifth Amendment doesn't give you the right to remain silent. It only protects you against self-incrimination.
You can be compelled to testify against someone else. Pleading the 5th won't get you out of that, if you refuse you can be held in contempt. The reason you have to actually plead the Fifth is because you are telling the court why you refuse to answer.
Because the First Amendment doesn't just protect speech, but also freedom of the press. If the press can't observe and gather evidence, it can't be particularly effective.
"Today's top story: the Government did stuff today. Probably. And now sports!"
The primary consumer of power is the screen on most smartphones
One of the most baffling design decisions in Android is the fact that when your battery is low the phone keeps turning the screen on to warn you about it. A simple beep coupled with blinking the LED indicator every so often would be sufficient.
That's like if your car started up a second engine to run a generator to power the low fuel indicator.
my smartphone usually lasts about 6-7 days on a charge as-is, primarily because it does very little aside from phone stuff. Turn on the WiFi and that drops to around 3 days in normal use (simply being connected, without actually using the internet).
Turning on the WiFi halves your battery life? I find that hard to believe. The WiFi draw should be so low to be basically irrelevant. Looking at the breakdown in my phone (Galaxy S3), WiFi doesn't even show up in the power draw. And turning it on or off makes absolutely no difference to any of the percentages, which are:
Screen 29%
Firefox 17%
Android System 16%
Android OS 12%
Device Idle 7%
Cell Standby 6%
Exchange Services 4%
Google Play Services 3%
Email 3%
I'm guessing the missing 3% is spread among a lot of things which are individually drawing too little power to be displayed in this list. When the WiFi is on, it must be one of them. Even if it accounted for the entire 3%, there is no way it would affect the battery life to the degree you're claiming.
Maybe you are crazy? :D
Samsung has some serious courage.
I'm not necessarily buying into the premise, but as an engineering problem it's interesting...
To hide the fact that you were recording all the time you could send a payload of the same size periodically. Say X minutes of recording will be a maximum of Y bytes. Every X minutes you send Y bytes (filtered and compressed as you said), even if you don't have Y bytes to send. If you were monitoring the network you would see no change between when it's supposed to be recording and when it's not.
OK, I'll add it to the list:
1. So-called judges.
2. The press.
3. Cellebrite.
Whoa, slow down there George Jetson. I don't even have a cellphone.
I only communicate over ham radios using Morse Code to transmit ciphertext that can only be decoded with a one-time pad provided to me through a dead-drop.
That would probably just increase congestion overall. The other lanes will be slower, which means cars stay on the road longer, and the congestion will stretch further back on the road. That will affect everybody.
How many highways have a second on ramp that goes directly into the left lane? While you're waiting to merge (and then eventually get over to your "premium" lane), you are stuck in the same traffic. And then when you're exiting you will have the same problem in reverse. Imagine stopping or significantly slowing down in the premium lane because you have to wait to squeeze your way into the more packed proles' lane. Suddenly, your premium lane is moving as slowly as the other lanes, even though there are less cars in that lane. Oops. You better hope the people stuck in traffic that you are cutting in front of are feeling especially generous.*
The most optimal solution to traffic is to use as much of the road as possible. If there are less cars in one lane and more in others, it will always be less efficient.
*Alternate idea: You could pay people to stay in the slow lanes and yield to people changing lanes from the left. Better yet, why not just pay people not to be on the road at all? (Did I just solve traffic with UBI?)
BoRegardless isn't OP's real name, and hell does not exist.
Have I been pedantic enough?
Children generally lack billions of dollars to file lawsuits and lobby (read: bribe) politicians.
Denial due to a lack of evidence is unscientific
No it's not. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method. It does not preclude forming hypotheses and seeking evidence. You assume the 2 are mutually exclusive, but they're not.
The Higgs boson existed whether we had evidence or not, whether we even had a theory of its existence or not, whether we existed as a species or not.
The difference is that we found evidence for the Higgs Boson. We didn't know it existed before we found the evidence. To presume the existence of things before there is evidence means you presume the existence of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. The moon is a giant dragon's egg! I have no evidence, but apparently it can't be denied according to you and everybody else! Tomorrow it just might crack open and a thousand thousand dragons will emerge and drink the Sun's fire!
How does it taste?
I know (think) you're joking. But why do so many of these replies equate evidence solely with things you can see. We can't see dark matter, but we can see it's effects.
Instead, smart people don't deny it. They simply state there is no evidence for it and discard it.
Pedantic difference. Discarding it is denial as it results in effectively the same thing, i.e. it is not used as a prior for any future conclusions. In the future, the moon might crack open and release a thousand-thousand dragons who drink the Sun's fire, but until then I deny (***discard***) the idea that the moon is a dragon egg, and I don't base any other conclusion on the assumption that it is. Are you saying that I should?
You're right about one thing, I do "believe" (read: have concluded the existence of) many things I can't see. The difference is that there is evidence for those things, unlike God, for which there is absolutely none.
Yeah, clearly believing in God is thinking "outside the box".
I didn't say I deny the existence of anything I can't see... although some of the things you mentioned are directly observable: air pressure (I'm literally looking outside my window at trees blowing in the wind), round Earth (objects disappearing over the horizon, the phases of the moon, etc.). I've even seen germs with my own eyes, using an amazing invention called a microscope (maybe you've heard of it).
There is a huge difference between all the things you mentioned and God, and it's not that they're invisible (even though they're not). It's that there is observable and verifiable evidence of all of those things, and diddly-squat for the magical man in the sky.
My mind is open to absolutely any idea, but the price of admission is evidence. If you can't pay the cover charge, you get bounced at the door.
The first answer is pretty interesting:
With the satellites in LEO, relatively few debris will end up with velocity higher than at the impact moment, while moving at roughly similar trajectory as initially. That means most debris scattered in random directions would enter elliptical orbits with velocity roughly similar to initial at the point of impact. And that means apoapsis going significantly up, and periapsis - down. And lowering the periapsis significantly in LEO means one thing: reentry.
About all the debris that were knocked out of circular orbits, by the time of two revolutions later were already burned up, whether going directly down from the impact, or going up towards the new apoapsis, and then heading down almost a revolution later.
I meant relative to each other.
I deny the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. The alternative is foolhardy. If you can believe anything without evidence, then you can believe anything without evidence. It is the first (of many, but still) step along the path to being a suicide bomber.
Moon is no egg Khaleesi. Moon is Goddess, wife of Sun. It is known.
Primarily due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Events which increase entropy are vastly more likely than those that decrease entropy. So the Universe tends towards higher entropy. When the Universe reaches maximum entropy, i.e. heat death, no more change can occur, and time stops.
The best analogy I've heard (stolen from a documentary I don't remember the name of), is to think of a sand castle. In a sand castle, the grains of sand are highly ordered into a very specific shape and structure. We can consider this as a state of low entropy. Any disturbance of this order, due to wind, the tide, someone stepping on it, etc., increases the disorder of the sand castle, reducing it ultimately to a pile of sand.
The pile of sand is our state of high entropy. It's very difficult to increase the disorder of the pile of sand: no matter how much you mix it up, it will largely remain a pile of sand.
There is nothing fundamental to the laws of physics that prevents the perfect combination of wind to come along and blow a pile of sand into the shape of a sand castle. But obviously such an event is incredibly unlikely, compared to all the ways the sand can be reduced back to a pile.
Of course, it is possible to reduce the entropy of a system locally, but this requires external energy to be introduced, which will lead to a net increase in the Universe. Consider how much energy you have to expend to construct a sand castle, versus how much energy it would take some asshole to come along and kick it down.
I guess what I'm saying is, building sandcastles is a waste of time.
I'd say "Pot, meet kettle.", but I think that would just involve you looking in the mirror.