Police have been catching people for a long time, even while following the Fourth Amendment. It may make law enforcement less efficient, but that's a reasonable tradeoff.
Besides, what were the police and FBI going to do about the guy? Assuming they conclude he's likely to turn violent in the near future, what can they do? If it's due to mental illness they can request involuntary commitment, but the ability to hold someone indefinitely without a conviction is a civil rights nightmare.
Nobody's going to see anything through my laptop's camera that would bother me to get out. It'd be way dull.
If somebody can do it, though, they can probably look through my personal files, and there is stuff there I'd rather wasn't public knowledge. They can likely intercept my passwords, and I really don't want that happening.
On the other hand, if you buy a ticket every drawing, you aren't spending much money, and it makes it easier to daydream about being rich. After all, it could happen, although it won't. I consider it entertainment.
How do you sue the bank for reversing a fraudulent transaction? The money was never legitimately there. It's like if you buy stolen property without knowing it: you haven't done anything illegal, but you don't get to keep the property.
First Nigerian scam email I ever got said they were sending the message to me because I was known to be honest. What I was asked to do was pretty obviously illegal. It amused me.
You have a negative impression of her. Now, think. Where did you get that impression? People keep talking about Benghazi without telling me anything she did wrong. They talk about the emails like they knew of specific criminal behavior. As far as I can tell, Republicans have been throwing baseless accusations against the Clintons for at least the last twenty years.
I've reached the point in this process where I pretty much ignore anything negative I hear about the Clintons without strong evidence backing it up.
There were several differences between my floppies and my ZIP cartridges, including media cost, capacity, and a few other things. One big one was that my floppies mostly worked.
Apple cares about the customers experience. If they don't deliver, people don't buy their stuff.
Jobs had a remarkable ability to tell what customers would want but didn't know it yet. He screwed up a lot, but he succeeded big when he succeeded. I don't know that there's people at Apple now with that ability. It's possible that someone high up is trying to do like Jobs without having the ability.
FWIW, I plug my iPhone into a charger and expensive headphones every workday. It would be a pain to change that. (It'd also be a pain to switch over to Android, but that's a one-time pain.)
The more good guys with guns you throw into the mix, the more likely they'll be shooting each other and innocents. Gun owners in the US are not required to go through tactical training so they can work together well in a situation like that.
Why would gun control be about controlling people? It's not like owning a firearm will help you if you've got a problem with the authorities. It may help you with other problems, but the government has enough people with guns that you're going to be taken down no matter what.
Do you have any actual evidence that liberals as a whole want to ban guns entirely? Some do, but your reasoning seems to be that they're doing what your paranoid fantasies say they'll start with.
Personal guns are of no use for defense against tyranny. A large group of brave men with their guns will lose to a much smaller military unit.
Besides, "assault rifles" aren't what you want. You want standard infantry rifles, and the Reagan administration got a law through banning private ownership of automatic weapons made after (IIRC) 1986.
You're way oversimplifying. Drag with ships is a combination of friction and wave-making, with friction dominating at lower speeds and wave-making at higher. The "velocity cubed" thing is a good approximation overall in normal circumstances. We can do better. (I'm going to oversimplify less than parent post.)
Friction drag is pretty much proportional to wetted area, so your calculation there holds: for a fourfold increase in frictional drag, we can move eight times as much cargo. Wave-making drag depends heavily on the length of the ship, with longer ships having less. There's a concept called "hull speed" where (IIRC) the bow wave trough goes back to the stern, and ships that have some reason to be economical stay below that. (Warships often want to be able to go faster, and this doesn't apply to hydrofoils and small boats and the like.) Therefore, a longer ship can move faster economically.
Speed is significant. Travel time between ports, which can easily be several thousand miles apart in the Pacific, is quite significant, and if one ship can make more round trips than another in a year, the first ship is moving more cargo. Therefore, other things being equal, longer is better, since it permits efficient operation at higher speeds.
It is already accepted scientific fact that Earth's capacity to carry a population of humans who live *comfortably* is around 2 billion,
Where does this come from? We're currently supporting over 7 billion, many of whom are admittedly living in very bad conditions. We're rapidly using up some resources, and obviously can't continue like this indefinitely, but we can adapt to limited resources. For example, we're getting better and better at getting electricity from renewable or permanent sources. As it is, we couldn't run the US indefinitely, since we're burning through oil reserves, and that's less then 400 million people.
Port efficiency can go down if there's relatively few cargo ships and they're really big, since if there's a ship docked half the time then the unloading facilities and such are idle half the time. WWII convoys created a similar problem by tying lots of smaller ships into one unit: ports would stand empty, a convoy would arrive and overwhelm the port facilities, then the port would be empty again.
Not every one. Cargill, for example, ran on a distributed basis. The manager of a Cargill plant would order raw materials from where they were cheapest, not necessarily from another Cargill plant. (This information was true at one time, but the Cargill exec, the guy who came up with "grain trains", I knew retired decades ago, so it may be out of date.)
The church used to do a bunch of this, and do it well thanks to the social pressure not to abuse it.
That can work in a homogenous society, but introduce distinct minorities and there will be social pressure not to serve them. My priest friend in South Dakota was trying to make her parishioners at least acknowledge that the nearby tribes were getting a raw deal (they're often living in terrible conditions), and pretty much hit a brick wall.
That's what the Preview window is supposed to do. Unfortunately, after I examine the window and hit Submit, errors seem to leap into my posting inexplicably, because I see the errors after hitting Submit and not before.
By today's measurements, the average US IQ in the 1930s would be something like 85. It's called the Flynn Effect. Since my ancestors in the 1930s were not particularly inferior to me genetically, it suggests that 15 points of IQ can easily be from cultural factors.
The Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". It says nothing about software, oddly enough. It says nothing about copyrights and patents.
It does say "for limited Times", and I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the writers of the Constitution weren't thinking of copyrights that last over a century, or were extended retroactively.
Which doesn't explain why some people are so much better at things than others, given similar education. It's no more true that anyone can learn math as I did than that anyone can play baseball like Barry Bonds did.
For what issues isn't it "their venue, their rules"? They can't deny you access to the event on grounds of race, sex, religion, and other cases of belonging to a protected class. They can't do or require illegal things. Other than that, they've pretty much got carte blanche. If you don't like the rules, don't go. You have no legal right to attend a concert on your own terms. You have no legal right to collect a refund because you misunderstood the rules.
Bars are typically held liable for what their customers do when they leave when there are specific laws violated. Typically, it's illegal for a bartender to serve alcohol to someone who's sufficiently drunk already. Typically, there are no laws involving cell phones at performances.
If you decide not to bring your phone because you don't want it bagged, that's your decision. If you then get into a situation where you really, really want your phone, that's a result of your decision. Can you cite a lawsuit in which event organizers were held liable because they discouraged or banned cell phones?
Also, there are typically a lot of laws that an event organizer has to deal with, and I'd think some of them would consult a lawyer. If so, why do venues and events continue to discourage or ban phones? My guess would be that the legal risks is minimal at most.
What most of us mean by "heart attack" is a physical constriction or blockage in a coronary artery ("myocardial infarction"). Defibrillation is going to do nothing. What they did for me is rush me to the catheter lab, where they stuck a tube in my groin and pulled the clot out. I felt the pain go away almost immediately.
As I understand it, the common defibrillator will do its own checking, and will fire off if it thinks the shock warranted, so they won't do any harm to a heart attack victim. There are heart problems that can be stopped with a defibrillator, but not all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Police have been catching people for a long time, even while following the Fourth Amendment. It may make law enforcement less efficient, but that's a reasonable tradeoff.
Besides, what were the police and FBI going to do about the guy? Assuming they conclude he's likely to turn violent in the near future, what can they do? If it's due to mental illness they can request involuntary commitment, but the ability to hold someone indefinitely without a conviction is a civil rights nightmare.
Nobody's going to see anything through my laptop's camera that would bother me to get out. It'd be way dull.
If somebody can do it, though, they can probably look through my personal files, and there is stuff there I'd rather wasn't public knowledge. They can likely intercept my passwords, and I really don't want that happening.
So, I see no reason to tape over the camera.
On the other hand, if you buy a ticket every drawing, you aren't spending much money, and it makes it easier to daydream about being rich. After all, it could happen, although it won't. I consider it entertainment.
So, what you're saying is that he'll order air strikes on the competition?
How do you sue the bank for reversing a fraudulent transaction? The money was never legitimately there. It's like if you buy stolen property without knowing it: you haven't done anything illegal, but you don't get to keep the property.
First Nigerian scam email I ever got said they were sending the message to me because I was known to be honest. What I was asked to do was pretty obviously illegal. It amused me.
You have a negative impression of her. Now, think. Where did you get that impression? People keep talking about Benghazi without telling me anything she did wrong. They talk about the emails like they knew of specific criminal behavior. As far as I can tell, Republicans have been throwing baseless accusations against the Clintons for at least the last twenty years.
I've reached the point in this process where I pretty much ignore anything negative I hear about the Clintons without strong evidence backing it up.
There were several differences between my floppies and my ZIP cartridges, including media cost, capacity, and a few other things. One big one was that my floppies mostly worked.
Apple cares about the customers experience. If they don't deliver, people don't buy their stuff.
Jobs had a remarkable ability to tell what customers would want but didn't know it yet. He screwed up a lot, but he succeeded big when he succeeded. I don't know that there's people at Apple now with that ability. It's possible that someone high up is trying to do like Jobs without having the ability.
FWIW, I plug my iPhone into a charger and expensive headphones every workday. It would be a pain to change that. (It'd also be a pain to switch over to Android, but that's a one-time pain.)
The more good guys with guns you throw into the mix, the more likely they'll be shooting each other and innocents. Gun owners in the US are not required to go through tactical training so they can work together well in a situation like that.
Why would gun control be about controlling people? It's not like owning a firearm will help you if you've got a problem with the authorities. It may help you with other problems, but the government has enough people with guns that you're going to be taken down no matter what.
Do you have any actual evidence that liberals as a whole want to ban guns entirely? Some do, but your reasoning seems to be that they're doing what your paranoid fantasies say they'll start with.
Personal guns are of no use for defense against tyranny. A large group of brave men with their guns will lose to a much smaller military unit.
Besides, "assault rifles" aren't what you want. You want standard infantry rifles, and the Reagan administration got a law through banning private ownership of automatic weapons made after (IIRC) 1986.
You're way oversimplifying. Drag with ships is a combination of friction and wave-making, with friction dominating at lower speeds and wave-making at higher. The "velocity cubed" thing is a good approximation overall in normal circumstances. We can do better. (I'm going to oversimplify less than parent post.)
Friction drag is pretty much proportional to wetted area, so your calculation there holds: for a fourfold increase in frictional drag, we can move eight times as much cargo. Wave-making drag depends heavily on the length of the ship, with longer ships having less. There's a concept called "hull speed" where (IIRC) the bow wave trough goes back to the stern, and ships that have some reason to be economical stay below that. (Warships often want to be able to go faster, and this doesn't apply to hydrofoils and small boats and the like.) Therefore, a longer ship can move faster economically.
Speed is significant. Travel time between ports, which can easily be several thousand miles apart in the Pacific, is quite significant, and if one ship can make more round trips than another in a year, the first ship is moving more cargo. Therefore, other things being equal, longer is better, since it permits efficient operation at higher speeds.
Where does this come from? We're currently supporting over 7 billion, many of whom are admittedly living in very bad conditions. We're rapidly using up some resources, and obviously can't continue like this indefinitely, but we can adapt to limited resources. For example, we're getting better and better at getting electricity from renewable or permanent sources. As it is, we couldn't run the US indefinitely, since we're burning through oil reserves, and that's less then 400 million people.
Port efficiency can go down if there's relatively few cargo ships and they're really big, since if there's a ship docked half the time then the unloading facilities and such are idle half the time. WWII convoys created a similar problem by tying lots of smaller ships into one unit: ports would stand empty, a convoy would arrive and overwhelm the port facilities, then the port would be empty again.
Not every one. Cargill, for example, ran on a distributed basis. The manager of a Cargill plant would order raw materials from where they were cheapest, not necessarily from another Cargill plant. (This information was true at one time, but the Cargill exec, the guy who came up with "grain trains", I knew retired decades ago, so it may be out of date.)
That can work in a homogenous society, but introduce distinct minorities and there will be social pressure not to serve them. My priest friend in South Dakota was trying to make her parishioners at least acknowledge that the nearby tribes were getting a raw deal (they're often living in terrible conditions), and pretty much hit a brick wall.
That's what the Preview window is supposed to do. Unfortunately, after I examine the window and hit Submit, errors seem to leap into my posting inexplicably, because I see the errors after hitting Submit and not before.
By today's measurements, the average US IQ in the 1930s would be something like 85. It's called the Flynn Effect. Since my ancestors in the 1930s were not particularly inferior to me genetically, it suggests that 15 points of IQ can easily be from cultural factors.
The Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". It says nothing about software, oddly enough. It says nothing about copyrights and patents.
It does say "for limited Times", and I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the writers of the Constitution weren't thinking of copyrights that last over a century, or were extended retroactively.
Which doesn't explain why some people are so much better at things than others, given similar education. It's no more true that anyone can learn math as I did than that anyone can play baseball like Barry Bonds did.
For what issues isn't it "their venue, their rules"? They can't deny you access to the event on grounds of race, sex, religion, and other cases of belonging to a protected class. They can't do or require illegal things. Other than that, they've pretty much got carte blanche. If you don't like the rules, don't go. You have no legal right to attend a concert on your own terms. You have no legal right to collect a refund because you misunderstood the rules.
Bars are typically held liable for what their customers do when they leave when there are specific laws violated. Typically, it's illegal for a bartender to serve alcohol to someone who's sufficiently drunk already. Typically, there are no laws involving cell phones at performances.
If you decide not to bring your phone because you don't want it bagged, that's your decision. If you then get into a situation where you really, really want your phone, that's a result of your decision. Can you cite a lawsuit in which event organizers were held liable because they discouraged or banned cell phones?
Also, there are typically a lot of laws that an event organizer has to deal with, and I'd think some of them would consult a lawyer. If so, why do venues and events continue to discourage or ban phones? My guess would be that the legal risks is minimal at most.
What most of us mean by "heart attack" is a physical constriction or blockage in a coronary artery ("myocardial infarction"). Defibrillation is going to do nothing. What they did for me is rush me to the catheter lab, where they stuck a tube in my groin and pulled the clot out. I felt the pain go away almost immediately.
As I understand it, the common defibrillator will do its own checking, and will fire off if it thinks the shock warranted, so they won't do any harm to a heart attack victim. There are heart problems that can be stopped with a defibrillator, but not all of them.