How much did we spend to buy GM to satisfy the UAW? But we don't have enough $ to fundamentally transform the nature of energy creation for the human race?
Holy shit humans can be stupid sometimes.
I'm a libertarian who believes that government should be as small as possible and do only those things that are best done communally. Like the GPS system. Or figuring out how to harness fusion energy. We cannot do this "commercially" as the cost is too high. But compared to the other stuff that we spend federal money on (like $1T to turn Iraq into a pseudo-democracy) this is cheap and the benefit is incalculable.
I've been married 14 years and can't get this point across to my wife. I've explained it multiple times - I just don't care what we eat as long as it's not bad tasting and I'm not going to waste mental energy on something so silly. This has been one of the major issues between us - she wastes her mental energy on things that don't matter. I try to explain to her that she needs to spend that kind of thinking to make money or something.
I should probably have noted that my only real "job" was working for a public university. Most of the government is open via FOIA, and I certainly assumed that anything I did was subject to the same oversight. There's no comparison between government and private industry (which all of your pathetic straw-man arguments were). I can get emails and other documents from any branch of government via FOIA requests, so I'm not sure why universities should be exempt. Again, I'm talking about myself 20 years ago, too.
But the main problem I see with totally public access is that the public aren't ready for it. In a public arena where people jump on evolutionists for using the word 'theory', or pull all sorts of quotes out of context from leaked climate research emails, publication will just lead to a massive and distracting shitstorm that all scientists want to avoid.
Erasmus of Rotterdam told Martin Luther that allowing common people to read the Bible would open a "floodgate of iniquity".
The bottom line is that people who work at public universities should have little "privacy" regarding the work they do for said university. Likewise, those who take grant money from the government should expect a certain amount of scrutiny. At the same time, this should be an automatic enough process that it doesn't distract them from their actual work.
Not to nit-pick your post, but I've yet to see any "out of context" quotes from the leaked climate research emails - perhaps you could enlighten me. Note that "hide the decline" wasn't out of context, I'm hoping you have something better.
While it may seem like I'm splitting hairs or trolling, in reality it actually makes a difference in how a person is dealt with for breaking the law.
Agree. But in this case it most definitely is an offence against the public and the state, therefore the perpetrators are criminals and should be dealt with as such.
Owning their "mistake"? No. It's like Janet Reno "taking responsibility" for the deaths at Waco.
Let me explain this. I'll do it slowly so everybody can follow along.
If someone "broke the law" that makes them a _______? The correct answer is "criminal". By definition.
What do we do to criminals? Well, if only we had a system that would try them for their crime and determine an appropriate punishment.
Oh, wait, we do. It's called a "court" and the punishment is a "prison".
Unless someone in the government is charged with the crimes and subsequently convicted, the "apology" is meaningless. A governmental official breaking the law (even if "under orders") is far more serious than some guy smoking pot in his house. So let's treat it as such.
Note that the photo with the houses at the very top would be taken from the eastern edge of the map with those houses being along Pierce Road pretty much straight over from the bottom "-" of Google Maps' magnifier tool. From the ariel view it could be a sinkhole or a crater, with sinkhole being more common in the area. Someone mentioned below that there is a disappearing stream just a mile from there. That part of Tennessee has some magnificent caves.
Anyway, I hope the poster will ignore the haters and keep on it. I remembered this post from a couple of years ago and the vitriol then. Keep on it. Worst case is you prove it's a sinkhole. But at least you've done something, learned a lot, educated others, etc. It's interesting work, and even if it is a sinkhole it's a freaking monster of a sinkhole - still interesting in its own right. And a sinkhole that big is draining into a sizable cave.
Have you missed the last 3 years of Obama's pandering to the 1%? What do you think the bank bail-outs, Wall Street bail-outs, etc. were? And do you not understand that the Obamacare bill was written by the insurance companies that are supposedly being taken to task?
Are you not paying attention, or are you just mouth-breather-stupid?
Actually, drives usually have tiny "breather" holes to allow air through for pressure equalization if ambient air pressure changes. These also let through along any humidity that is in the air. The only thing that they are designed to hold back is tiny dust particles, which might otherwise cause a head crash. The environment within a hard drive is merely dust free but not a vacuum.
It's not high humidity air. Every HD that I've opened had a desiccant packet in it. Give how little air gets exchanged through the breather there's unlikely to be any humidity in a sealed drive. If a frozen drive looked anything like the one in the article it wouldn't even begin to read because of the ice. But that's an *open* drive.
Not only that, but most uses of firearms are not "reported" to the authorities and don't end up in these sorts of "studies". Kleck's research is the best starting point.
Yes, but the policy was in response to courts upholding that people have the right to photograph police.
This is an explicit policy which re-affirms case law, and is a reminder that police have no legal right to seize the phone or the memory card.
I bet you also have policies at work that say you're not allowed to do anything illegal.
I follow a lot of these cases, and part of the problem is the language that folks use around it. When you use the word "sieze", you're suggesting that the officer took an action as directed by statute or policy. What the officer did is either "theft" or "robbery", depending on the circumstances. It sound like the initial taking of the phone was a robbery, which is defined as taking something by force.
As I said about the original policies, they don't matter simply because everything there is already illegal. Note: not "against our policies" or some other administrative issue: ILLEGAL. That means that when an officer robs someone of their phone they have committed a crime. That makes them a criminal.
The set of directives was issued as part of a settlement. Might I suggest to the ACLU that the next time they do this they come up with a much much simpler set of directives, as follows:
1. __________ PD will arrest and charge all officers who have committed crimes, using the same evidentiary standards as would be used with the general public.
2. Failure to do so will result in _________ PD forfeiting this settlement and will instead invoke the secondary settlement of $xmillion.
That's all it needs to say.
We need to quit acting like these slime balls are telling the truth when they claim they didn't know it was "wrong" (illegal, against policy, whatever) to take someone's phone or camera, or to erase the pictures, or to illegally arrest someone. They're lying when they say that. They know it's illegal, so let's quit acting like maybe they didn't know and start prosecuting.
We need to hold our police officers to a *higher* standard, and we need to tell the unions where to go when they get all mad about it.
You can search youtube to see cases of fake drug dogs. A K9 handler in Nevada is also filing a lawsuit against the state alleging that not only do they use fake drug dogs to perform illegal searches but that there's a company in CA that sells just such a product.
Which, funnily enough, is almost exactly what he said. People love to misremember what he said, and then hold them accountable for what they wish he said.
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
I was actually watching that interview when he said that, and I nearly lost a mouthful of soda. He claimed to have created the internet. Read what you pasted above. I agree that he directed funding and supported it, but he did not create it.
And note that "initiative" in the statement above cannot be a "congressional initiative" because it's part of the idiomatic phrase "took the initiative". One cannot "take" a congressional initiative.
Zimmerman was on the ground with his head being bashed into the concrete by Martin - this according to eyewitnesses. He had a broken nose and a huge gash on the back of his head. That was the correct time to use a gun. He should have stayed in his van to begin with, but in the situation he ended up in he did the right thing.
"Concealed carry by citizens" is the free software movement of the security world, if that makes any sense. Rather than rely on "trained professionals" for my security I have the means to protect myself and my family.
Had I been at that theatre it might well have turned out very different. I can't say. I am usually armed in public and I know how to use my guns. That doesn't guarantee success in a case like this but it sure makes the odds better.
One of the PR problems with CCW is that the successful foiling of an attack like this is a local headline, whereas the successful attack is an international headline.
That kind of stuff happens when you have free markets.
When you have "free markets" Goldman Sachs doesn't get bailed out. You can't have it both ways - blame the free market when cronyism is the real culprit.
Slashdot Mirror
How much did we spend to buy GM to satisfy the UAW? But we don't have enough $ to fundamentally transform the nature of energy creation for the human race?
Holy shit humans can be stupid sometimes.
I'm a libertarian who believes that government should be as small as possible and do only those things that are best done communally. Like the GPS system. Or figuring out how to harness fusion energy. We cannot do this "commercially" as the cost is too high. But compared to the other stuff that we spend federal money on (like $1T to turn Iraq into a pseudo-democracy) this is cheap and the benefit is incalculable.
We know what we need to do, let's do it.
I've been married 14 years and can't get this point across to my wife. I've explained it multiple times - I just don't care what we eat as long as it's not bad tasting and I'm not going to waste mental energy on something so silly. This has been one of the major issues between us - she wastes her mental energy on things that don't matter. I try to explain to her that she needs to spend that kind of thinking to make money or something.
I should probably have noted that my only real "job" was working for a public university. Most of the government is open via FOIA, and I certainly assumed that anything I did was subject to the same oversight. There's no comparison between government and private industry (which all of your pathetic straw-man arguments were). I can get emails and other documents from any branch of government via FOIA requests, so I'm not sure why universities should be exempt. Again, I'm talking about myself 20 years ago, too.
Erasmus of Rotterdam told Martin Luther that allowing common people to read the Bible would open a "floodgate of iniquity".
The bottom line is that people who work at public universities should have little "privacy" regarding the work they do for said university. Likewise, those who take grant money from the government should expect a certain amount of scrutiny. At the same time, this should be an automatic enough process that it doesn't distract them from their actual work.
Not to nit-pick your post, but I've yet to see any "out of context" quotes from the leaked climate research emails - perhaps you could enlighten me. Note that "hide the decline" wasn't out of context, I'm hoping you have something better.
Totally agree. He'll be lucky if Jobs isn't haunting his ass next week...
While it may seem like I'm splitting hairs or trolling, in reality it actually makes a difference in how a person is dealt with for breaking the law.
Agree. But in this case it most definitely is an offence against the public and the state, therefore the perpetrators are criminals and should be dealt with as such.
Owning their "mistake"? No. It's like Janet Reno "taking responsibility" for the deaths at Waco.
Let me explain this. I'll do it slowly so everybody can follow along.
If someone "broke the law" that makes them a _______? The correct answer is "criminal". By definition.
What do we do to criminals? Well, if only we had a system that would try them for their crime and determine an appropriate punishment.
Oh, wait, we do. It's called a "court" and the punishment is a "prison".
Unless someone in the government is charged with the crimes and subsequently convicted, the "apology" is meaningless. A governmental official breaking the law (even if "under orders") is far more serious than some guy smoking pot in his house. So let's treat it as such.
http://goo.gl/maps/jgJyJ
Note that the photo with the houses at the very top would be taken from the eastern edge of the map with those houses being along Pierce Road pretty much straight over from the bottom "-" of Google Maps' magnifier tool. From the ariel view it could be a sinkhole or a crater, with sinkhole being more common in the area. Someone mentioned below that there is a disappearing stream just a mile from there. That part of Tennessee has some magnificent caves.
Anyway, I hope the poster will ignore the haters and keep on it. I remembered this post from a couple of years ago and the vitriol then. Keep on it. Worst case is you prove it's a sinkhole. But at least you've done something, learned a lot, educated others, etc. It's interesting work, and even if it is a sinkhole it's a freaking monster of a sinkhole - still interesting in its own right. And a sinkhole that big is draining into a sizable cave.
And it's thinking like this that keeps California in such debt. Honestly, people, does the statue have to be any taller than 57 ft?
One foot for each state in the union?
So, for a sufficiently large value of "X", X liars can trump science?
I hope this standard never propagates into criminal law.
Too late. Way too late.
Have you missed the last 3 years of Obama's pandering to the 1%? What do you think the bank bail-outs, Wall Street bail-outs, etc. were? And do you not understand that the Obamacare bill was written by the insurance companies that are supposedly being taken to task?
Are you not paying attention, or are you just mouth-breather-stupid?
In case the judge is reading this, let me do your job for you. The order needs to be:
DHS will respond by _________ or I will hold ________ in contempt and order them jailed until you respond.
Without consequences, your order is something to laugh at, frankly. And that's what they're doing. They've been laughing at you for the last year.
it's not high humidity air
Actually, drives usually have tiny "breather" holes to allow air through for pressure equalization if ambient air pressure changes. These also let through along any humidity that is in the air. The only thing that they are designed to hold back is tiny dust particles, which might otherwise cause a head crash. The environment within a hard drive is merely dust free but not a vacuum.
It's not high humidity air. Every HD that I've opened had a desiccant packet in it. Give how little air gets exchanged through the breather there's unlikely to be any humidity in a sealed drive. If a frozen drive looked anything like the one in the article it wouldn't even begin to read because of the ice. But that's an *open* drive.
Not only that, but most uses of firearms are not "reported" to the authorities and don't end up in these sorts of "studies". Kleck's research is the best starting point.
Yes, but the policy was in response to courts upholding that people have the right to photograph police.
This is an explicit policy which re-affirms case law, and is a reminder that police have no legal right to seize the phone or the memory card.
I bet you also have policies at work that say you're not allowed to do anything illegal.
I follow a lot of these cases, and part of the problem is the language that folks use around it. When you use the word "sieze", you're suggesting that the officer took an action as directed by statute or policy. What the officer did is either "theft" or "robbery", depending on the circumstances. It sound like the initial taking of the phone was a robbery, which is defined as taking something by force.
As I said about the original policies, they don't matter simply because everything there is already illegal. Note: not "against our policies" or some other administrative issue: ILLEGAL. That means that when an officer robs someone of their phone they have committed a crime. That makes them a criminal.
The set of directives was issued as part of a settlement. Might I suggest to the ACLU that the next time they do this they come up with a much much simpler set of directives, as follows:
1. __________ PD will arrest and charge all officers who have committed crimes, using the same evidentiary standards as would be used with the general public.
2. Failure to do so will result in _________ PD forfeiting this settlement and will instead invoke the secondary settlement of $xmillion.
That's all it needs to say.
We need to quit acting like these slime balls are telling the truth when they claim they didn't know it was "wrong" (illegal, against policy, whatever) to take someone's phone or camera, or to erase the pictures, or to illegally arrest someone. They're lying when they say that. They know it's illegal, so let's quit acting like maybe they didn't know and start prosecuting.
We need to hold our police officers to a *higher* standard, and we need to tell the unions where to go when they get all mad about it.
high-school graduate from India == post-doctorate in most US cities
See my reply above. The subtle cues is one thing, but there are cops that use not so subtle cues, too. Search youtube.
You can search youtube to see cases of fake drug dogs. A K9 handler in Nevada is also filing a lawsuit against the state alleging that not only do they use fake drug dogs to perform illegal searches but that there's a company in CA that sells just such a product.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nevada-police-accused-of-using-dogs-to-violate-citizens-rights-2012-7
See their complaint here:
http://www2.8newsnow.com/docs/k9_troopers.pdf
Read that to see what kind of slime are hired by police departments. It will blow your mind.
Which, funnily enough, is almost exactly what he said. People love to misremember what he said, and then hold them accountable for what they wish he said.
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
I was actually watching that interview when he said that, and I nearly lost a mouthful of soda. He claimed to have created the internet. Read what you pasted above. I agree that he directed funding and supported it, but he did not create it.
And note that "initiative" in the statement above cannot be a "congressional initiative" because it's part of the idiomatic phrase "took the initiative". One cannot "take" a congressional initiative.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+the+initiative
Zimmerman was on the ground with his head being bashed into the concrete by Martin - this according to eyewitnesses. He had a broken nose and a huge gash on the back of his head. That was the correct time to use a gun. He should have stayed in his van to begin with, but in the situation he ended up in he did the right thing.
"Concealed carry by citizens" is the free software movement of the security world, if that makes any sense. Rather than rely on "trained professionals" for my security I have the means to protect myself and my family.
Had I been at that theatre it might well have turned out very different. I can't say. I am usually armed in public and I know how to use my guns. That doesn't guarantee success in a case like this but it sure makes the odds better.
One of the PR problems with CCW is that the successful foiling of an attack like this is a local headline, whereas the successful attack is an international headline.
In my day if we didn't like the movie we just slashed the seat. I miss the drive-in.
Um, you know if you're slashing the seat at the drive-in the theatre owner is pretty unlikely to care? Unless you're in *his* car.
There's no comparison. Remember that "stud" is a complement and "bitch" is an insult.
My favorite MAC address: c0:ff:ee:15:90:0d.
That kind of stuff happens when you have free markets.
When you have "free markets" Goldman Sachs doesn't get bailed out. You can't have it both ways - blame the free market when cronyism is the real culprit.