Democracy is like walking down the street and on one sidewalk is a gang, on the other sidewalk is another gang. If you walk on either sidewalk you are going to get mugged and/or raped. If you walk in the middle of the road you are going to get hit by a car.
Wherein the person being persecuted files a malicious prosecution case. Malicious prosecution being illegal is an entirely different issue than the question of whether a person being investigated has a right to interfere with the investigation simply because they believe themselves to be innocent. And furthermore, in what way was investigating a person who appears to be laundering money "malicious prosecution"? The police are supposed to investigate reports of money laundering.
You no more have the right to interfere with an ongoing investigation than you have the right to punch the officer doing it. If you think the investigation is persecution, bring it to court. If you don't want to talk, plead the fifth. What you don't have the right to do is lie to the police who are doing their job investigating suspicious financial transactions.
the police in the USA fabricate suspicion as needed.
They'll stop your car, see some empty cans of energy drink, if you let them search the car and they find cash they can fabricate the suspicion "drug money!" and confiscate it on the spot. You then have a huge legal battle to get the money back.
I think under these conditions the police are no better than bandits and lying to them, hiding things from them, become the natural thing to do.
The illusion of effectiveness was the only real deterrent the TSA had to keeping terrorists from bringing explosives onto planes. Now that the illusion is gone, what's stopping them?
I would have thought that the terrorists would have been doing dry runs with disposable assets like (Richard Reid, shoe bomber) and would know exactly how vulnerable the system is. Reids shoes did have real explosives in them but they were (apparently deliberately) configured so as to be inert. There was no threat to the airplane (you don't set off plastic explosives by igniting it with a match).
This was likely part of a larger scheme to map out the vulnerabilities in the air transit system. You can bet that the terrorists have known for a long time just how ineffective the TSA is.
The larger question is why haven't planes been falling out of the sky all this time? My guess is they are saving it for something really big, something special and memorable.
Until Obama, or the puppeteers who make his mouth move and words come out, find some stooge to encourage to make some terrorist act that actually happens.
The FBI are always entrapping idiots into planning acts of terrorism. It shouldn't be too hard to see to it that one of these hare-brained schemes comes to fruition, thousands of Americans die and the American public demand to be spied on again.
I would assume thats what Obama and his masters are currently planning.
They are controlled by radio which can be detected.
Why would I need to control it? I'd program it with a path and actions and it would execute them in radio silence.
It could be set up with on-line remote control to fly it in manually then upload a program and disconnect the radio. Ie fly it up to the edge of the detection network, survey the location, plan a flight path to get to the objective as safely and reliably as possible, upload the program then disconnect the radio and the drone performs its recon or attack run. This is not science fiction.
I can completely understand the rest of Europes desire to see the UK leave the EU. As a British citizen who finds life in the UK dull, drab, overcrowded and the only respite from the dullness and drabness is the violence and crime caused by the deep social problems confronting the UK, I'm really really glad that its so easy for me to live and work anywhere else in the EU. I can't understand why so many people want to come to the UK, they must be very misguided and misinformed.
Sadly, people like me are almost the only people who actually benefit from the UK being a member of the EU. Oh, me and most of the business leaders in the UK.
What about the innocent people being filmed by the police, and by innocent I mean those who have not yet been proven guilty? Or does Seattle also have some magical hacker system that can provide due process and justice within the same 24 hour period?
The main purpose of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something.
In atmosphere, nukes produce blast because of high energy x-rays igniting atmosphere. This won't happen in space.
So how would letting off a nuke near or on an asteroid produce reaction and change the course of the asteroid?
Basically, the x-rays will ignite the surface of the asteroid instead. If the material in the asteroid is sub-optimal for this purpose, there have been designs of turning a nuclear bomb into a kinetic weapon that should work in this regard. Basically the bomb sits in an x-ray reflective shell, and when the bomb explodes, the x-rays bounce around the shell before the exploded bits of the bomb destroy it and exit an aperture. At the end of the aperture is a large, dense block of x-ray absorbing material. This material is vaporized by the x-rays and is all traveling in a similar direction as the x-rays were all going in that general direction. This plasma moving at relativistic speeds then slams into the target like a nuclear shot gun blast. IIRC, this design was built for using nuclear bombs against space ships and it was estimated that it could direct 95% of the energy of the bomb at the intended target.
Wouldn't it be a simple matter to check the flight data recorder to see if the engine in question actually did what the FIB (intentionally written that way) said it did?
You might miss out on the opportunity to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit in order to take a short cut through an otherwise long and expensive legal process. I believe this is called a 'plea bargain' where the US legal system accepts your blatant lie in exchange for improving their case closed statistics. Ie a corrupt practice.
My money is on the FBI flat-out lying. It's what cops do. But of course I'm speculating and haven't seen the evidence. If it gets to court, a jury will make the call, and if they find the FBI's actual evidence convincing, that's what matters. OTOH if the FBI drops the case then we'll know this was all BS.
Indeed, lying is the main method that cops use to secure a confession. Especially in the context of an interrogation never believe anything that a cop or fed says, assume its a lie trying to trick you into revealing something.
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.
What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.
Have you seen what autonomous cars can do? I've seen video of a driverless car parallel parking in a space just barely able to accept the car; by speeding up to the parking space and doing a handbrake turn so that the car slides sideways into the parking space. It can do this perfectly every time without scratching the paint.
Theres no reason to believe that autonomous trucks won't be far far safer than human driven trucks.
You might not approve of moral relativism but there are no moral absolutes either, no matter what your imaginary friend in the sky might tell you.
I don't actually go for moral relativism but it is a fact that history is written by the victors and that almost everything you read in the mainstream media is propaganda of one form or another. When your enemies wage war, they are terrorists, when you wage war its meting out justice.
Its very hard to have the introspection to realise where you really stand.
Death by lethal injection is HARDLY efficient. Look at how much trouble the USA has to go through to keep doing it this way, in fact most places in the USA are giving up on the method and having to find new ones.
Sending someone to walk into a room full of nitrogen gas, thats efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad analogy...
How about this then?
Democracy is like walking down the street and on one sidewalk is a gang, on the other sidewalk is another gang.
If you walk on either sidewalk you are going to get mugged and/or raped.
If you walk in the middle of the road you are going to get hit by a car.
Wherein the person being persecuted files a malicious prosecution case. Malicious prosecution being illegal is an entirely different issue than the question of whether a person being investigated has a right to interfere with the investigation simply because they believe themselves to be innocent. And furthermore, in what way was investigating a person who appears to be laundering money "malicious prosecution"? The police are supposed to investigate reports of money laundering.
You no more have the right to interfere with an ongoing investigation than you have the right to punch the officer doing it. If you think the investigation is persecution, bring it to court. If you don't want to talk, plead the fifth. What you don't have the right to do is lie to the police who are doing their job investigating suspicious financial transactions.
the police in the USA fabricate suspicion as needed.
They'll stop your car, see some empty cans of energy drink, if you let them search the car and they find cash they can fabricate the suspicion "drug money!" and confiscate it on the spot. You then have a huge legal battle to get the money back.
I think under these conditions the police are no better than bandits and lying to them, hiding things from them, become the natural thing to do.
The illusion of effectiveness was the only real deterrent the TSA had to keeping terrorists from bringing explosives onto planes. Now that the illusion is gone, what's stopping them?
I would have thought that the terrorists would have been doing dry runs with disposable assets like (Richard Reid, shoe bomber) and would know exactly how vulnerable the system is. Reids shoes did have real explosives in them but they were (apparently deliberately) configured so as to be inert. There was no threat to the airplane (you don't set off plastic explosives by igniting it with a match).
This was likely part of a larger scheme to map out the vulnerabilities in the air transit system. You can bet that the terrorists have known for a long time just how ineffective the TSA is.
The larger question is why haven't planes been falling out of the sky all this time? My guess is they are saving it for something really big, something special and memorable.
Thats funny you think it makes the slightest bit of difference what the law says.
The main purpose of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something, including the government!
At least now the pretense will be gone.
Until Obama, or the puppeteers who make his mouth move and words come out, find some stooge to encourage to make some terrorist act that actually happens.
The FBI are always entrapping idiots into planning acts of terrorism. It shouldn't be too hard to see to it that one of these hare-brained schemes comes to fruition, thousands of Americans die and the American public demand to be spied on again.
I would assume thats what Obama and his masters are currently planning.
They are controlled by radio which can be detected.
That will only find you the pilot, which is not a bad thing, but it's not the direct threat at this point..
The pilot would be someone who is being blackmailed to do this. He doesn't know who is blackmailing him, just gets the instructions and the drone.
They are controlled by radio which can be detected.
Why would I need to control it? I'd program it with a path and actions and it would execute them in radio silence.
It could be set up with on-line remote control to fly it in manually then upload a program and disconnect the radio. Ie fly it up to the edge of the detection network, survey the location, plan a flight path to get to the objective as safely and reliably as possible, upload the program then disconnect the radio and the drone performs its recon or attack run. This is not science fiction.
You can't rely on detecting radio signals either.
Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization - why are we tolerating it?
Banning Mosques is cultural self-defense.
Actually, intellectual property restrictions might be leading us more into a dark age...
I can completely understand the rest of Europes desire to see the UK leave the EU. As a British citizen who finds life in the UK dull, drab, overcrowded and the only respite from the dullness and drabness is the violence and crime caused by the deep social problems confronting the UK, I'm really really glad that its so easy for me to live and work anywhere else in the EU. I can't understand why so many people want to come to the UK, they must be very misguided and misinformed.
Sadly, people like me are almost the only people who actually benefit from the UK being a member of the EU. Oh, me and most of the business leaders in the UK.
What about the innocent people being filmed by the police, and by innocent I mean those who have not yet been proven guilty? Or does Seattle also have some magical hacker system that can provide due process and justice within the same 24 hour period?
The main purpose of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something.
If we made it illegal to be stupid, where would we find politicians?
If we made it illegal to be stupid, who would be left to vote for them?
One of the main things required for a functioning US style democracy is a crappy education system.
What enemy is on Greeces border?? Turkey is a Greek ally, they are pledged to defend each other
Russia does not border with Greece, but Kaliningrad is right near to Germany, just a quick hop over the Baltic
Turkey and Greece are both members of NATO but, while being NATO member states have still almost gone to war! The border is still full of land mines.
Greece has 353 Leopard 2 MBTs. Russia has 930 T-90s, 4500 T-80s in reserve, 8000 T-72 MBTs in reserve.
Russia also has 443 Su-27 derived aircraft.
Greece actually has an enemy right on its border that it might plausibly go to war with in the not too distant future... Germany not so much.
In atmosphere, nukes produce blast because of high energy x-rays igniting atmosphere. This won't happen in space.
So how would letting off a nuke near or on an asteroid produce reaction and change the course of the asteroid?
Basically, the x-rays will ignite the surface of the asteroid instead. If the material in the asteroid is sub-optimal for this purpose, there have been designs of turning a nuclear bomb into a kinetic weapon that should work in this regard. Basically the bomb sits in an x-ray reflective shell, and when the bomb explodes, the x-rays bounce around the shell before the exploded bits of the bomb destroy it and exit an aperture. At the end of the aperture is a large, dense block of x-ray absorbing material. This material is vaporized by the x-rays and is all traveling in a similar direction as the x-rays were all going in that general direction. This plasma moving at relativistic speeds then slams into the target like a nuclear shot gun blast. IIRC, this design was built for using nuclear bombs against space ships and it was estimated that it could direct 95% of the energy of the bomb at the intended target.
Thanks, thats a nice explanation!
Politicians hate freedom. Full story at 11.
When it comes to Internet freedom, you are either for it or against it, there is no middle ground.
You are either on the side of Freedom or you are on the side of the terrorists.
I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ
'Cleaver proof', is that like Occams Razor?
What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?
We should start giving goldfish smartphones.
people do insane things. all the time. if your argument depends upon how someone you don't know is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks
Ah-hah, that means the FBI must admit he has a perfect defense. If he did it, he was insane at the time.
The glove doesn't fit. You must acquit. Why would Chewbacca live on Endor?
Chewbacca lives on Endor because he is a closet paedophile; Ewoks can pass as prepubescent Wookies!
Wouldn't it be a simple matter to check the flight data recorder to see if the engine in question actually did what the FIB (intentionally written that way) said it did?
You might miss out on the opportunity to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit in order to take a short cut through an otherwise long and expensive legal process. I believe this is called a 'plea bargain' where the US legal system accepts your blatant lie in exchange for improving their case closed statistics. Ie a corrupt practice.
My money is on the FBI flat-out lying. It's what cops do. But of course I'm speculating and haven't seen the evidence. If it gets to court, a jury will make the call, and if they find the FBI's actual evidence convincing, that's what matters. OTOH if the FBI drops the case then we'll know this was all BS.
Indeed, lying is the main method that cops use to secure a confession. Especially in the context of an interrogation never believe anything that a cop or fed says, assume its a lie trying to trick you into revealing something.
In atmosphere, nukes produce blast because of high energy x-rays igniting atmosphere. This won't happen in space.
So how would letting off a nuke near or on an asteroid produce reaction and change the course of the asteroid?
So at least its not going to be any worse.
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.
What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.
Have you seen what autonomous cars can do? I've seen video of a driverless car parallel parking in a space just barely able to accept the car; by speeding up to the parking space and doing a handbrake turn so that the car slides sideways into the parking space. It can do this perfectly every time without scratching the paint.
Theres no reason to believe that autonomous trucks won't be far far safer than human driven trucks.
You might not approve of moral relativism but there are no moral absolutes either, no matter what your imaginary friend in the sky might tell you.
I don't actually go for moral relativism but it is a fact that history is written by the victors and that almost everything you read in the mainstream media is propaganda of one form or another. When your enemies wage war, they are terrorists, when you wage war its meting out justice.
Its very hard to have the introspection to realise where you really stand.
Death by lethal injection is HARDLY efficient. Look at how much trouble the USA has to go through to keep doing it this way, in fact most places in the USA are giving up on the method and having to find new ones.
Sending someone to walk into a room full of nitrogen gas, thats efficient.