So, if I hit you in the eye with baseball bat, it's your fault for complaining?
You using a laptop somewhere in a classroom is not the same as a physical assault, and you know it. Don't be stupid.
I see that you, too seem to subscribe to the philosophy that being self-entitled, you have the right to do anything you wish in public.
I said no such thing and you know that, too. I am free to do anything that does not break the law and does not harm you in any way -- and use of a laptop fits both conditions. Stop being stupid and obtuse.
Unfortunately, I don't have an attention disorder but like many people, react to annoying flashing lights in my forward field of view...
And thus you hold firm to the policy that anything that anyone does that you find annoying should be banned. I find your deliberate misunderstanding to be annoying, and thus I ban you.
No, the problem is not with me...
Yes, it is. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but that, too, is a problem with you.
I am pleased to see you fit the following rather well:
You are so far out in left field we should ask you to paint the left field wall while you are there.
I am not a student, and recognizing the source of a problem (who it belongs to) has nothing to do with empathy towards the person with a problem. Yes, it's sad that people with ADHD are forced to attend lectures, but that doesn't give them the right to control the lives of other people.
Anyone claiming 'tough, get used to it' is a mannerless fool like the kind who shouts on cellphones next to you.
The difference, of course, is that people who shout on cellphones next to you are interfering with your ability to hear the lecture, while those who use a laptop are not blocking your view in any way. YOU choose to look at their screen. It's your issue, not theirs.
Civility belongs in the classroom, too.
And civility includes keeping your nose out of other people's business and paying attention to your own. The person sitting behind you, or next to you, using a laptop is not interfering with your ability to participate in the lecture. The only reason there is a problem is because you cannot focus, which is your problem, not theirs. If it wasn't a laptop, there'd be something else. Someone doing a crossword puzzle three rows over, or someone using a scratchy-sounding pencil, or reading a book...
A curious choice of words. What if somebody is a brilliant theoretician but they easily lose focus when people nearby do distracting things?
Brilliant theoreticians are not attending undergraduate college classes while they come up with their brilliant theories. I'd say the lecture itself would be much more distracting to such people than any laptop use. Should we ban lectures because a brilliant theoretician might be in the room and theorizing?
What if somebody recently suffered a loss or trauma and they're doing their best to buck up and keep attending lectures, but the person beside them surfing YouTube is the "the last straw?" Another weak-minded, unmotivated individual?
Yes. And if someone using a laptop somewhere in the room is "the last straw", I'm certain there will be some other "last straw" if you manage to ban laptops. "Stop chewing that gum, you bastard, I'm trying to grieve over here. Stop looking at me, you damn bastard. And you, you with that funny looking haircut... get off my damn lawn you youngsters..."
In short, everyone does something that annoys other people sometime. You can't ban other people from the room while you are attending a lecture, but you can learn to deal with your own ADHD issues and not demand that others stop being annoying. Yes, if you are so distracted by someone using a laptop somewhere near you then you have an attention deficit disorder that needs medication.
It never applies to any situation except when someone is already accused of, and is making a defense in court for, copyright infringement.
Except for all those times when the lawyers get together prior to trial and sip their coffee and chat about the weather and mention to each other that if you take my client to court we'll have a positive, affirmative defense that you aren't going to break, so either your client can waste his money and time paying us when we win or he can just walk away and then he does. Or when the potential plaintiff realizes that fair use will almost certainly apply and never wastes his money and time to start with. Yes, other than all those times, the law about fair use only applies when you are in court.
Yes, Virginia, it has a laser diode in it that lights it up when underwater; and it's even touted by professional angler Mike Iaconelli
Once upon a time, we (I) were involved in an experiment measuring waves breaking on the shore on the Oregon coast. We had the idea of putting a laser with a line generator pointing at the bottom, monitored by a camera, and we could monitor the erosion or accretion of the beach. It wasn't bright enough (the laser, not the idea) to see in the daylight, so we waited patiently until dark.
We fired up the camera and the laser. About ten seconds later the first dungeness crab showed up. It planted itself right under the laser beam. The waves would come by and try to move it, but it held on for dear life. About ten seconds later, a second crab showed up. Then another. Then another. They all fought to be right under the light, holding onto the bottom and digging in so the waves wouldn't move them. In about five minutes, the beach eroded to the point that the line was no longer visible off the bottom of the image.
Now, I don't know what fish would do with this kind of thing, but crabs appear to love red light at night. I will not go further afield into the obvious puns...
and they do this by forcing them to rely upon incomplete information sources. Or worse, information sources which the court can manipulate in a prejudicial fashion. If the only definition of a word that you can use is the one the judge gives you, then he can give you a false one, and you won't know any better.
But the defense and prosecution both will know, and error in jury instruction is a well-defined basis for appeal. That's why there isn't just a judge in the room. That's why the defendant has a lawyer. That's why the case for the people isn't presented by some random bricklayer hauled in for the day.
The courts are not the place for random people to create law, they are the place where the laws are to be applied fairly and evenly. That's the plan. The fact that it sometimes doesn't work that way is no reason to throw the whole process out the window and have chaos.
Thus proving the reason why use of Wikipedia fails to meet even the most basic smell test regarding appropriate activities of a juror. Wikipedia provides a definition of a legal term that does not match the legal definition, or common sense, for that matter.
Why would you want someone deciding your fate who does not have the wherewithal / desire to find the absolute truth of the case.
Why would you expect that reading Wikipedia will give you the "absolute truth" of anything, much less the absolute truth in a case where two people are presenting different sides of an alleged crime?
It is the job of the court to determine "the truth" in such a case, and the process includes legal determinations of what information is relevant and may be presented to the jury. You may think that the sexual history of a rape victim in a case is relevant and something you need to know, but to determine the truth you need know only whether the alleged perpetrator acted in a way that violated criminal law. Yeah, she was dressed provacatively, and she has a history of sleeping with everyone with trousers, but the only relevant issue for THIS case is if THIS pair of trousers had consent or not.
With delivery services, you already paid and bought the item, essentially the deal's been closed. You can now try to return it and exchange it for an undamaged good, i.e. send it back, wait for the new item to arrive and hope it ain't damaged.
Where I work, I have the option of buying through contract with Dell, or buying from a local computer store. (Not a chain, a small outfit.)
Commodity things I don't want to mess with, and really high end things that I want 24/7 support for, I buy from Dell. I just got a couple of C6100 servers and 48 Tb of disk array, because Dell really wanted to make the sale and cut the price, and I have some expectation they know what they are doing in those areas.
But for everything else I go to the local store. They know me there, I can walk in and say "I want X", I can say "let me look at the motherboard you'll be using", and a lot of the time, "can you leave out the Windows on that special and make it even better?" (And when I really DID want a system with "windows" on it, they had a few left with XP so I was not stuck buying crap 7.) If something doesn't work, I stop by the store on the way into work and get it replaced.
For example, I have bought a replacement battery for an older laptop online. It's a chinese knock-off, and the laptop knows that and automatically goes into hibernate while telling me to get a real battery. The retailer is running me through hoops with things to try to get it to work. So far, it has stopped going into hibernate, the laptop reports "100%" for charge status, but as soon as I yank the power the system shuts off. Phe!)
Most of all, I have much better control over what I am buying and a lot less trouble finding out the technical details. "I need something with two PCI slots and a PCI-X." More important, I can say "I want cheap stable technology" for the data collection systems I put together. The most recent system I'm dealing with was bought by someone else, is a Dell, and has so many bells and whistles that I don't know if the reason it doesn't work quite right is due to an OS/hardware incompatibility or what. And why the hell is this thing shutting itself off after running for a few hours, and why does the network stop working on a regular basis? Is it an Ubuntu problem, a Dell problem, or what? The only reason I'm forced to use Ubuntu and not a repo I'm familiar with and know does what I want is because the fancy Dell machine has a bleeding edge disk controller that Ubuntu supports but SuSE and CentOS does not.
Of course, I also live in a small city with a large vocal activist community that keeps reminding us to "buy local, think global", who have been able to do things like keep the big-box stores out. If this discussion was taking place here, you'd be drowned out by people telling you to support the local shops. Funny though, we used to have a really good book/magazine store that carried everything I wanted and some that I asked for special, but they closed soon after the Borders came into town. I'm guessing that the "buy local" crowd is all talk, no money.
It's a balance of evidence thing. Extraordinary claims - e.g. that there is a gigantic secret plot that involves installing a foreign-born muslim black communist president as a first step toward destroying the nation - require extraordinary evidence.
I tire of your endless hyperbole and repeated avoidance of the point at hand. To leap from a simple idea that maybe Obama wasn't born in the US to some grand "gigantic secret plot" is just, well, typical of the kind of thinking you represent so well. The kind that calls anyone they don't agree with "stupid" and "insane".
I think I've figured out why. You are too busy creating wild-ass claims on behalf of other people so you can feel superior and don't have to actually listen to what they say. You'd rather leap from one conversation with a cab driver to a blanket condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with you as just another nutty cab driver.
Isn't is amazing how many stupid and insane people there are in the world? And how they all manage to feed themselves and actually accomplish significant things. A rational person might look at that and wonder if his judgements were as unbiased as he truly thinks they are.
Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising.
It is not surprising to anyone who understands that the typical claim of "right wing nutjob" is applied to anyone who is to the right of the middle of left field. That includes a large amount of left field, as well as all of center field.
The implication of that is that "center" is somewhere just within the left field out-of-bounds line. This is how MSNBC and most media have become "center" and "unbiased", while true centrists have become "right wing".
I've never seen Neptune with my own eyes, but I'm pretty confident in my belief that it exists based on the overwhelming weight of fact and evidence.
We are not talking about a physical object like a planet, which you can, indeed, see with your own eyes if you buy a telescope. We are talking about an event that happened forty or more years ago that you weren't there to see, and which most of the people talking about it weren't there to see. We're also not talking about something that nobody would really have a reason to lie about. There is a significant difference.
If you want to deny the existence of Neptune, we are not "agreeing to disagree."
Because you have chosen to trust the sources you trust instead of looking for yourself.
Any sane, rational adult would say that you are misinformed and that I am adequately informed.
Yes, and now it's devolved into an automatic claim if insanity for people who don't believe the things you do. You keep proving my point with every word you write.
Now what was your point about Obama again?
I made no point about Obama, which I'm reasonably certain you realize, but are seeking a straw man that you can knock about while you fail to deal with the real point. Since you feign ignorance of the point, I'll reiterate in simpler terms.
1. Someone said "Obama was born in the US." You believe them, thus they are telling the "simple truth".
2. Someone said "here's a copy of his birth certificate." Again, you believe them, thus they are telling the truth.
3. Someone said "that certificate is a forged because...". You don't believe them. To you, their statement is "simply false". They are, thus, "stupid" and "misinformed" and now "clearly insane".
The point is not whether Obama was or was not born in the US, the point is that you define "stupid" in a way that depends on who you believe, not because of any actual stupidity or your own personal knowledge of the facts. It's all because of who you choose to believe or not. And if this part isn't clear, I'll say it in small words: truth does not depend upon who says it, but what is said. Dan Rather was not speaking the truth when he reported that Bush had not completed his military service requirements, even though he waved about certain papers that proved it, and even though he was Dan Rather of CBS News and certainly above reproach for any possibility of being a liar.
Also, they do not explain why she has these pills with her.
Because her mother gave them to her? D'oh.
If they are already searching her for a knife, that means right then and there that there is something else going on that you are not being told and you are also assuming this 12 year old is raised in a white picket fence community and "the big evil" is just out to get her. The drugs were also gotten from a community hospital, which again says lower income.
Really? Because someone goes to an Army hospital they are automatically "lower income"? And "lower income" is relevant to this problem exactly how, again?
Do you honestly think people will be tipping off security about a good kid bringing a knife to school?
Yes. "Good kids" are often ratted on by people who don't like them, and often it is the "bad kids" who don't like the good ones. Sometimes the people who don't like "good kids" make stuff up. That's why they're called "bad kids".
Prescription drugs are as dangerous as illegal drugs to a young person.
You are one of the "all drugs are drugs" crowd, I see. No difference between an OTC pain medicine and morphine, right?
...but when you are 12 years old, why in the hell are you walking around with 800mg ibuprofen.
Because she had a headache and her mother gave it to her? Because she is 12 years old, getting her first periods and is suffering from abdominal cramping with pain like she's never felt before. D'oh.
Something else was going on and I think you were too quick to assume the kid was innocent in this case
And I think you are too quick with the assumption she's a drug addicted homeless weapons dealer. You only left out "scumbag pimp" and "radical right-wing abortion clinic bomber."
Having an 800mg Ibuprofen in your pocket is hardly earth-shattering, and this is absolutely an overreaction.
There are mood-altering substances with much shorter lists, like valium (diazepam).
Are there mood-altering side effects to Ibuprofen? If not, then it is irrelevant what the list of side-effects of a mood-altering drug are compared to Ibuprofen. She wasn't taking Ibuprofen for the side-effects.
The maximum daily dosage for a 12-year-old is about 40 mg per kg of body mass.
It is alleged that the CDC tables show the average weight for a 12 year old girl is 94 pounds. That's 43kg. The maximum dose is therefor 1700 mg. That's twice the amount in the pills she had.
There are a lot more serious drugs the kid could have been found to have, but there are laws about prescription medications.
Making Ibuprofen a prescription drug is stupid, other than for political or financial reasons. E.g., insurance will pay for your prescription drugs and not OTC. Do you really imagine that someone who wants to take 800mg of Ibuprofen will be prevented from doing so just because that size is prescription?
The state does have a right to prosecute since this was technically illegal, but hopefully a good judge just sees that the lesson was learned.
Yes, and that lesson was that she should have taken four of the 200mg size pills, with any associated stomach problems from the additional fillers. I was once prescribed the 800mg Ibuprofens and I asked the doctor why I would not just take four of the 200mg size I already had on the shelf. His answer was that there was more of a chance of stomach issues with the four pills than with the one large one. He wound up handing me some Celebrex samples and they were a miracle.
Actually TFA wasn't about people believing things the researchers didn't agree with, it was about people believing things that are simply false.
Do you have personal knowledge of where Obama was born? I mean, you were there and saw it with your own eyes? If not, you believe the claim he was not born in the US is false because you believe someone else who told you that, or because you choose not to believe someone who told you the opposite.
Thus we're back at my statement, which is that people who don't believe what you do are automatically "stupid". It cannot be that they do not trust the same sources you do, or that they have other sources that you do not trust.
What happened to the concept that rational adults can agree to disagree on things? That loss has more to do with the balkanization of politics today than anything else.
there is a good bit of evidence from other studies that people find ideologically conformant information comfortable and ideologically nonconformant information uncomfortable(albeit to varying degrees:
Just as there is a tendency to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you, or believes something you don't, is stupid. Obviously, people who believe conservative ideas are stupid or misinformed. There can be no other excuse.
Already, you really don't have the choice of whether you are going to need healthcare. At some point you will.
Citation needed.
Are you claiming that someone who never goes to the doctor, like a Christian Scientist, will need healthcare against his will?
People really can live their lives never seeing a doctor. They may not live as LONG as anyone else, but they still have the right to choose. The only legal cases I know of deal with choices made by guardians on behalf of others (parents for children, e.g.), not with adults choosing for themselves.
This is why paramedics are prohibited from treating a conscious adult who refuses their services. And why DNR rules are obeyed.
Given that the cornerstone of your argument in support of the government overstepping its constitutional authority in the Obamacare bill has vaporized, the result of your argument goes with it.
this reminds me of how the CEO of Green Hills was spreading FUD saying how insure Linux was because anyone could embed backdoors in not only Linux but into gcc. He was trying to say how much better their software was because it was not open source.
I think his argument would be something like this: for Linux, most people will (by default) be trusting the repo designer(s) to not have inserted a backdoor into anything in the repo. That's a relatively large number of people compared to the number that could insert a backdoor into his code.
While it is true that anyone who is really paranoid will get the source to everything in the repo and recompile it, there is still the issue of what you recompile it with. Either you hand-code in assembly a base-level C compiler that you use to compile the GCC compiler after you examine it for back doors, or you have to trust the source of the pre-compiled gcc compiler not to have put backdoor code into that. And examining the gcc compiler source for backdoors will be a herculean task.
The fact that Linux is open source means that others can obtain the source and modify it to create back doors, which is a much easier task than recreating the functionality of the code and putting in a trap. For example, I can take the source to crt0.o and add something bad to it much easier than trying to duplicate the initialization process and do the bad thing.
Everyone has to trust someone at some point. Who do you trust?
What you think about private email wasn't the point, or even if there is such a thing as "private email". The point was that Theo made a specific comment about posting a private email and compared the ethical status of that to the insertion of a backdoor by the FBI. This implies that he both considers there to BE ethical implications to posting private email (which you clearly do not) and that the FBI did something that outweighs his own ethical standards regarding posting such.
The fact that Theo used his position of power to show the email to everyone does mean that he is at least tacitly endorsing and/or making the claim. Otherwise he could have just ignored it.
After reading TFA, I came to the conclusion that Theo believes it is true. He used the excuse that exposing the dastardly FBI shenanigans justified the posting of a private email. If you don't think the FBI did it, you can't use it as the excuse for posting the email.
It would have been nice if the claim came with a reference to the code that was inserted. "I believe it enough to use it as an excuse to post private email from someone I don't like, but not enough to bother looking at the code to see if it really happened" is kinda lame.
I say that knowing I wouldn't know what to look for, but he would.
Eharmony happily accepted me, but never found a match until just a day or two before the monthly bill came due. For almost every one, by the time I got to the site to check them out, they'd unilaterally closed the contact.
Were I a suspicious person by nature, I'd say that EH was salting the mine trying to keep me on the hook. I wriggled free, though.
I think the only relevant qualification that EH looks at is the credit rating and credit line on your credit card.
Not if the pipes are fat enough. Put a hamster in one end and blow. You do know how to blow, don't you? Just put your lips together... But given the story about Comcast and congestion, you might want to do it at 1AM or so.
I was going to say you could order the hamsters from Amazon and have them deliver to themselves, but I don't see that they sell real hamsters. Would a Zhu Zhu pet hamster do any significant damage?
What's most interesting is that a search on Amazon for "hamsters for sale" returns "Zentrex-3 Diet Pills" as the fourth item on the list. I have no idea what the connection between hamsters and Zentrex-3 is.
Except that by default, when a law is unconstitutional it is struck down in its entirety, to prevent such unintended consequences.
This isn't even a "by default" situation. Too many lawmakers (and Mr. Obama) are on record as saying that the mandatory purchase clause is critical to the success of the law itself. (No, not for the nonsense bits like the ridiculous paperwork requirements for any payment by a company more than $600, but for the actual heath care bits.) You can't run an "insurance" system where lots of people get lots of care without paying lots of money unless all the healthy people are forced to pay lots of money into the system, too. TANSTAAFL.
I just hope it is obvious to the courts when they determine what parts remain after throwing the mandatory purchase part out.
And, of course, since all those fine folks in congress who voted for this had such a wonderfully long time to review the bill prior to voting on it, the lack of any severability clause must be a deliberate choice, and thus intended to be that way. That's despite Pelosi's grand statement that "we'll pass the bill and then we'll know what's in it...".
If all someone can argue is that "think of the children" so we have to keep the entire bill, well, a simple law forcing insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions that were previously insured could be passed in two weeks to cover that problem. It need not have all the crap like exemptions for Nebraska or payment reporting requirements or whatever else they stuffed into the thing...
Sure, the tea party people claim they want it repealed, but it's going to be interesting to actually ask them 'So you want insurance companies to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions again?'.
Yes. Don't stop reading there. If it is pre-existing, then what you are trying to buy is not "insurance", it is welfare. Your question is thus a non-sequitor.
I am adamantly opposed to insurance companies backing out of paying for conditions for people who have insurance, or refusing to allow a transfer of insurance for those who have a condition. Or refusing to sell to risk groups.
I am adamantly in favor of people making their own decisions about what insurance they will buy for themselves and their dependents. If that means "none", then that's fine. It is their responsibility to manage this issue. If that means they then require charity to help them when their decision turns out to be a bad one, that's fine, too. Charity does not mean "taxes". Charity means voluntary contributions.
So, yes, that means if someone chooses not to buy insurance for their children and one of them comes down with a "pre-existing condition", I'm fully in support of the insurance company turning them away. The insurance company sells insurance, not welfare or charity. This would be no different than someone who chooses not to buy flood insurance who then tries to buy it after his house is washed away, hoping he'll get someone to rebuild his house for him.
As an aside, I'll suggest that the mandatory charity we call "taxes" does more to harm the voluntary charities than anything else. Why bother donating money to a charity that does something when you know that Daddy Government will do it for them with money you already "donate"? The only upside to "taxes" is that the current tax law does allow deductions for charitable giving, but on a less than one-to-one basis. If the crazies every get this "fair tax" law enacted, that deduction goes away and the tax-deduction reason for charity goes away.
No matter how...um...uninformed...
Yeah, if only everyone was as smart as you, they'd all agree with you. Can't be because they honestly disagree with you and think you are wrong. Nope. Not possible.
Slashdot Mirror
You using a laptop somewhere in a classroom is not the same as a physical assault, and you know it. Don't be stupid.
I see that you, too seem to subscribe to the philosophy that being self-entitled, you have the right to do anything you wish in public.
I said no such thing and you know that, too. I am free to do anything that does not break the law and does not harm you in any way -- and use of a laptop fits both conditions. Stop being stupid and obtuse.
Unfortunately, I don't have an attention disorder but like many people, react to annoying flashing lights in my forward field of view...
And thus you hold firm to the policy that anything that anyone does that you find annoying should be banned. I find your deliberate misunderstanding to be annoying, and thus I ban you.
No, the problem is not with me...
Yes, it is. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but that, too, is a problem with you.
You are so far out in left field we should ask you to paint the left field wall while you are there.
I am not a student, and recognizing the source of a problem (who it belongs to) has nothing to do with empathy towards the person with a problem. Yes, it's sad that people with ADHD are forced to attend lectures, but that doesn't give them the right to control the lives of other people.
The difference, of course, is that people who shout on cellphones next to you are interfering with your ability to hear the lecture, while those who use a laptop are not blocking your view in any way. YOU choose to look at their screen. It's your issue, not theirs.
Civility belongs in the classroom, too.
And civility includes keeping your nose out of other people's business and paying attention to your own. The person sitting behind you, or next to you, using a laptop is not interfering with your ability to participate in the lecture. The only reason there is a problem is because you cannot focus, which is your problem, not theirs. If it wasn't a laptop, there'd be something else. Someone doing a crossword puzzle three rows over, or someone using a scratchy-sounding pencil, or reading a book ...
Brilliant theoreticians are not attending undergraduate college classes while they come up with their brilliant theories. I'd say the lecture itself would be much more distracting to such people than any laptop use. Should we ban lectures because a brilliant theoretician might be in the room and theorizing?
What if somebody recently suffered a loss or trauma and they're doing their best to buck up and keep attending lectures, but the person beside them surfing YouTube is the "the last straw?" Another weak-minded, unmotivated individual?
Yes. And if someone using a laptop somewhere in the room is "the last straw", I'm certain there will be some other "last straw" if you manage to ban laptops. "Stop chewing that gum, you bastard, I'm trying to grieve over here. Stop looking at me, you damn bastard. And you, you with that funny looking haircut ... get off my damn lawn you youngsters..."
In short, everyone does something that annoys other people sometime. You can't ban other people from the room while you are attending a lecture, but you can learn to deal with your own ADHD issues and not demand that others stop being annoying. Yes, if you are so distracted by someone using a laptop somewhere near you then you have an attention deficit disorder that needs medication.
Which means it is written in the law.
It never applies to any situation except when someone is already accused of, and is making a defense in court for, copyright infringement.
Except for all those times when the lawyers get together prior to trial and sip their coffee and chat about the weather and mention to each other that if you take my client to court we'll have a positive, affirmative defense that you aren't going to break, so either your client can waste his money and time paying us when we win or he can just walk away and then he does. Or when the potential plaintiff realizes that fair use will almost certainly apply and never wastes his money and time to start with. Yes, other than all those times, the law about fair use only applies when you are in court.
Much like many of the other civil laws.
Once upon a time, we (I) were involved in an experiment measuring waves breaking on the shore on the Oregon coast. We had the idea of putting a laser with a line generator pointing at the bottom, monitored by a camera, and we could monitor the erosion or accretion of the beach. It wasn't bright enough (the laser, not the idea) to see in the daylight, so we waited patiently until dark.
We fired up the camera and the laser. About ten seconds later the first dungeness crab showed up. It planted itself right under the laser beam. The waves would come by and try to move it, but it held on for dear life. About ten seconds later, a second crab showed up. Then another. Then another. They all fought to be right under the light, holding onto the bottom and digging in so the waves wouldn't move them. In about five minutes, the beach eroded to the point that the line was no longer visible off the bottom of the image.
Now, I don't know what fish would do with this kind of thing, but crabs appear to love red light at night. I will not go further afield into the obvious puns...
But the defense and prosecution both will know, and error in jury instruction is a well-defined basis for appeal. That's why there isn't just a judge in the room. That's why the defendant has a lawyer. That's why the case for the people isn't presented by some random bricklayer hauled in for the day.
The courts are not the place for random people to create law, they are the place where the laws are to be applied fairly and evenly. That's the plan. The fact that it sometimes doesn't work that way is no reason to throw the whole process out the window and have chaos.
Thus proving the reason why use of Wikipedia fails to meet even the most basic smell test regarding appropriate activities of a juror. Wikipedia provides a definition of a legal term that does not match the legal definition, or common sense, for that matter.
Why would you expect that reading Wikipedia will give you the "absolute truth" of anything, much less the absolute truth in a case where two people are presenting different sides of an alleged crime?
It is the job of the court to determine "the truth" in such a case, and the process includes legal determinations of what information is relevant and may be presented to the jury. You may think that the sexual history of a rape victim in a case is relevant and something you need to know, but to determine the truth you need know only whether the alleged perpetrator acted in a way that violated criminal law. Yeah, she was dressed provacatively, and she has a history of sleeping with everyone with trousers, but the only relevant issue for THIS case is if THIS pair of trousers had consent or not.
Where I work, I have the option of buying through contract with Dell, or buying from a local computer store. (Not a chain, a small outfit.)
Commodity things I don't want to mess with, and really high end things that I want 24/7 support for, I buy from Dell. I just got a couple of C6100 servers and 48 Tb of disk array, because Dell really wanted to make the sale and cut the price, and I have some expectation they know what they are doing in those areas.
But for everything else I go to the local store. They know me there, I can walk in and say "I want X", I can say "let me look at the motherboard you'll be using", and a lot of the time, "can you leave out the Windows on that special and make it even better?" (And when I really DID want a system with "windows" on it, they had a few left with XP so I was not stuck buying crap 7.) If something doesn't work, I stop by the store on the way into work and get it replaced.
For example, I have bought a replacement battery for an older laptop online. It's a chinese knock-off, and the laptop knows that and automatically goes into hibernate while telling me to get a real battery. The retailer is running me through hoops with things to try to get it to work. So far, it has stopped going into hibernate, the laptop reports "100%" for charge status, but as soon as I yank the power the system shuts off. Phe!)
Most of all, I have much better control over what I am buying and a lot less trouble finding out the technical details. "I need something with two PCI slots and a PCI-X." More important, I can say "I want cheap stable technology" for the data collection systems I put together. The most recent system I'm dealing with was bought by someone else, is a Dell, and has so many bells and whistles that I don't know if the reason it doesn't work quite right is due to an OS/hardware incompatibility or what. And why the hell is this thing shutting itself off after running for a few hours, and why does the network stop working on a regular basis? Is it an Ubuntu problem, a Dell problem, or what? The only reason I'm forced to use Ubuntu and not a repo I'm familiar with and know does what I want is because the fancy Dell machine has a bleeding edge disk controller that Ubuntu supports but SuSE and CentOS does not.
Of course, I also live in a small city with a large vocal activist community that keeps reminding us to "buy local, think global", who have been able to do things like keep the big-box stores out. If this discussion was taking place here, you'd be drowned out by people telling you to support the local shops. Funny though, we used to have a really good book/magazine store that carried everything I wanted and some that I asked for special, but they closed soon after the Borders came into town. I'm guessing that the "buy local" crowd is all talk, no money.
I tire of your endless hyperbole and repeated avoidance of the point at hand. To leap from a simple idea that maybe Obama wasn't born in the US to some grand "gigantic secret plot" is just, well, typical of the kind of thinking you represent so well. The kind that calls anyone they don't agree with "stupid" and "insane".
I think I've figured out why. You are too busy creating wild-ass claims on behalf of other people so you can feel superior and don't have to actually listen to what they say. You'd rather leap from one conversation with a cab driver to a blanket condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with you as just another nutty cab driver.
Isn't is amazing how many stupid and insane people there are in the world? And how they all manage to feed themselves and actually accomplish significant things. A rational person might look at that and wonder if his judgements were as unbiased as he truly thinks they are.
Bye.
It is not surprising to anyone who understands that the typical claim of "right wing nutjob" is applied to anyone who is to the right of the middle of left field. That includes a large amount of left field, as well as all of center field.
The implication of that is that "center" is somewhere just within the left field out-of-bounds line. This is how MSNBC and most media have become "center" and "unbiased", while true centrists have become "right wing".
We are not talking about a physical object like a planet, which you can, indeed, see with your own eyes if you buy a telescope. We are talking about an event that happened forty or more years ago that you weren't there to see, and which most of the people talking about it weren't there to see. We're also not talking about something that nobody would really have a reason to lie about. There is a significant difference.
If you want to deny the existence of Neptune, we are not "agreeing to disagree."
Because you have chosen to trust the sources you trust instead of looking for yourself.
Any sane, rational adult would say that you are misinformed and that I am adequately informed.
Yes, and now it's devolved into an automatic claim if insanity for people who don't believe the things you do. You keep proving my point with every word you write.
Now what was your point about Obama again?
I made no point about Obama, which I'm reasonably certain you realize, but are seeking a straw man that you can knock about while you fail to deal with the real point. Since you feign ignorance of the point, I'll reiterate in simpler terms.
1. Someone said "Obama was born in the US." You believe them, thus they are telling the "simple truth".
2. Someone said "here's a copy of his birth certificate." Again, you believe them, thus they are telling the truth.
3. Someone said "that certificate is a forged because ...". You don't believe them. To you, their statement is "simply false". They are, thus, "stupid" and "misinformed" and now "clearly insane".
The point is not whether Obama was or was not born in the US, the point is that you define "stupid" in a way that depends on who you believe, not because of any actual stupidity or your own personal knowledge of the facts. It's all because of who you choose to believe or not. And if this part isn't clear, I'll say it in small words: truth does not depend upon who says it, but what is said. Dan Rather was not speaking the truth when he reported that Bush had not completed his military service requirements, even though he waved about certain papers that proved it, and even though he was Dan Rather of CBS News and certainly above reproach for any possibility of being a liar.
Because her mother gave them to her? D'oh.
If they are already searching her for a knife, that means right then and there that there is something else going on that you are not being told and you are also assuming this 12 year old is raised in a white picket fence community and "the big evil" is just out to get her. The drugs were also gotten from a community hospital, which again says lower income.
Really? Because someone goes to an Army hospital they are automatically "lower income"? And "lower income" is relevant to this problem exactly how, again?
Do you honestly think people will be tipping off security about a good kid bringing a knife to school?
Yes. "Good kids" are often ratted on by people who don't like them, and often it is the "bad kids" who don't like the good ones. Sometimes the people who don't like "good kids" make stuff up. That's why they're called "bad kids".
Prescription drugs are as dangerous as illegal drugs to a young person.
You are one of the "all drugs are drugs" crowd, I see. No difference between an OTC pain medicine and morphine, right?
Because she had a headache and her mother gave it to her? Because she is 12 years old, getting her first periods and is suffering from abdominal cramping with pain like she's never felt before. D'oh.
Something else was going on and I think you were too quick to assume the kid was innocent in this case
And I think you are too quick with the assumption she's a drug addicted homeless weapons dealer. You only left out "scumbag pimp" and "radical right-wing abortion clinic bomber."
Having an 800mg Ibuprofen in your pocket is hardly earth-shattering, and this is absolutely an overreaction.
Are there mood-altering side effects to Ibuprofen? If not, then it is irrelevant what the list of side-effects of a mood-altering drug are compared to Ibuprofen. She wasn't taking Ibuprofen for the side-effects.
The maximum daily dosage for a 12-year-old is about 40 mg per kg of body mass.
It is alleged that the CDC tables show the average weight for a 12 year old girl is 94 pounds. That's 43kg. The maximum dose is therefor 1700 mg. That's twice the amount in the pills she had.
There are a lot more serious drugs the kid could have been found to have, but there are laws about prescription medications.
Making Ibuprofen a prescription drug is stupid, other than for political or financial reasons. E.g., insurance will pay for your prescription drugs and not OTC. Do you really imagine that someone who wants to take 800mg of Ibuprofen will be prevented from doing so just because that size is prescription?
The state does have a right to prosecute since this was technically illegal, but hopefully a good judge just sees that the lesson was learned.
Yes, and that lesson was that she should have taken four of the 200mg size pills, with any associated stomach problems from the additional fillers. I was once prescribed the 800mg Ibuprofens and I asked the doctor why I would not just take four of the 200mg size I already had on the shelf. His answer was that there was more of a chance of stomach issues with the four pills than with the one large one. He wound up handing me some Celebrex samples and they were a miracle.
Do you have personal knowledge of where Obama was born? I mean, you were there and saw it with your own eyes? If not, you believe the claim he was not born in the US is false because you believe someone else who told you that, or because you choose not to believe someone who told you the opposite.
Thus we're back at my statement, which is that people who don't believe what you do are automatically "stupid". It cannot be that they do not trust the same sources you do, or that they have other sources that you do not trust.
What happened to the concept that rational adults can agree to disagree on things? That loss has more to do with the balkanization of politics today than anything else.
Just as there is a tendency to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you, or believes something you don't, is stupid. Obviously, people who believe conservative ideas are stupid or misinformed. There can be no other excuse.
Citation needed.
Are you claiming that someone who never goes to the doctor, like a Christian Scientist, will need healthcare against his will?
People really can live their lives never seeing a doctor. They may not live as LONG as anyone else, but they still have the right to choose. The only legal cases I know of deal with choices made by guardians on behalf of others (parents for children, e.g.), not with adults choosing for themselves.
This is why paramedics are prohibited from treating a conscious adult who refuses their services. And why DNR rules are obeyed.
Given that the cornerstone of your argument in support of the government overstepping its constitutional authority in the Obamacare bill has vaporized, the result of your argument goes with it.
I think his argument would be something like this: for Linux, most people will (by default) be trusting the repo designer(s) to not have inserted a backdoor into anything in the repo. That's a relatively large number of people compared to the number that could insert a backdoor into his code.
While it is true that anyone who is really paranoid will get the source to everything in the repo and recompile it, there is still the issue of what you recompile it with. Either you hand-code in assembly a base-level C compiler that you use to compile the GCC compiler after you examine it for back doors, or you have to trust the source of the pre-compiled gcc compiler not to have put backdoor code into that. And examining the gcc compiler source for backdoors will be a herculean task.
The fact that Linux is open source means that others can obtain the source and modify it to create back doors, which is a much easier task than recreating the functionality of the code and putting in a trap. For example, I can take the source to crt0.o and add something bad to it much easier than trying to duplicate the initialization process and do the bad thing.
Everyone has to trust someone at some point. Who do you trust?
What you think about private email wasn't the point, or even if there is such a thing as "private email". The point was that Theo made a specific comment about posting a private email and compared the ethical status of that to the insertion of a backdoor by the FBI. This implies that he both considers there to BE ethical implications to posting private email (which you clearly do not) and that the FBI did something that outweighs his own ethical standards regarding posting such.
After reading TFA, I came to the conclusion that Theo believes it is true. He used the excuse that exposing the dastardly FBI shenanigans justified the posting of a private email. If you don't think the FBI did it, you can't use it as the excuse for posting the email.
It would have been nice if the claim came with a reference to the code that was inserted. "I believe it enough to use it as an excuse to post private email from someone I don't like, but not enough to bother looking at the code to see if it really happened" is kinda lame.
I say that knowing I wouldn't know what to look for, but he would.
Were I a suspicious person by nature, I'd say that EH was salting the mine trying to keep me on the hook. I wriggled free, though.
I think the only relevant qualification that EH looks at is the credit rating and credit line on your credit card.
I was going to say you could order the hamsters from Amazon and have them deliver to themselves, but I don't see that they sell real hamsters. Would a Zhu Zhu pet hamster do any significant damage?
What's most interesting is that a search on Amazon for "hamsters for sale" returns "Zentrex-3 Diet Pills" as the fourth item on the list. I have no idea what the connection between hamsters and Zentrex-3 is.
This isn't even a "by default" situation. Too many lawmakers (and Mr. Obama) are on record as saying that the mandatory purchase clause is critical to the success of the law itself. (No, not for the nonsense bits like the ridiculous paperwork requirements for any payment by a company more than $600, but for the actual heath care bits.) You can't run an "insurance" system where lots of people get lots of care without paying lots of money unless all the healthy people are forced to pay lots of money into the system, too. TANSTAAFL.
I just hope it is obvious to the courts when they determine what parts remain after throwing the mandatory purchase part out.
And, of course, since all those fine folks in congress who voted for this had such a wonderfully long time to review the bill prior to voting on it, the lack of any severability clause must be a deliberate choice, and thus intended to be that way. That's despite Pelosi's grand statement that "we'll pass the bill and then we'll know what's in it...".
If all someone can argue is that "think of the children" so we have to keep the entire bill, well, a simple law forcing insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions that were previously insured could be passed in two weeks to cover that problem. It need not have all the crap like exemptions for Nebraska or payment reporting requirements or whatever else they stuffed into the thing...
Yes. Don't stop reading there. If it is pre-existing, then what you are trying to buy is not "insurance", it is welfare. Your question is thus a non-sequitor.
I am adamantly opposed to insurance companies backing out of paying for conditions for people who have insurance, or refusing to allow a transfer of insurance for those who have a condition. Or refusing to sell to risk groups.
I am adamantly in favor of people making their own decisions about what insurance they will buy for themselves and their dependents. If that means "none", then that's fine. It is their responsibility to manage this issue. If that means they then require charity to help them when their decision turns out to be a bad one, that's fine, too. Charity does not mean "taxes". Charity means voluntary contributions.
So, yes, that means if someone chooses not to buy insurance for their children and one of them comes down with a "pre-existing condition", I'm fully in support of the insurance company turning them away. The insurance company sells insurance, not welfare or charity. This would be no different than someone who chooses not to buy flood insurance who then tries to buy it after his house is washed away, hoping he'll get someone to rebuild his house for him.
As an aside, I'll suggest that the mandatory charity we call "taxes" does more to harm the voluntary charities than anything else. Why bother donating money to a charity that does something when you know that Daddy Government will do it for them with money you already "donate"? The only upside to "taxes" is that the current tax law does allow deductions for charitable giving, but on a less than one-to-one basis. If the crazies every get this "fair tax" law enacted, that deduction goes away and the tax-deduction reason for charity goes away.
No matter how...um...uninformed...
Yeah, if only everyone was as smart as you, they'd all agree with you. Can't be because they honestly disagree with you and think you are wrong. Nope. Not possible.