Your problem is that you refuse to see that someone can be a misogynist and also be shouting about real problems.
Worse, you seem to think that collusion between game journalists and game manufacturers is someone:
1) Being denied
2) Important
Let me set the record for you. Reviewers LIE about games. They get paid to do it. Not with sex, but with actual hard cash.
No sane person really cares about it. Game journalists are not important. I am GLAD they are corrupt We need insignificant jobs for corrupt people to take. If we kick the corrupt people out of game review, they might get into something important, like health inspection, real estate inspection, politics, etc.
What's going on is simple. Someone found out that the cake is a lie, so they broke into a cake store and started stealing cake and throwing it at people. Then they get all puzzled about why the cops are arresting them instead of the man that promised them cake.
1) Compare to the Big Bang TV show. The show itself is not to my liking, but they at least write intelligent people as intelligent. Entertainment and intelligence are NOT basically oil and water - unless you have stupid people trying to write intelligent people.
2) I was not complaining about the lines in scorpion. No, that was actually reasonably done. I am instead talking about the ACTIONS. No smart person in their right mind would ever try to connect a physical hard line from a moving airplane to a car. They would find a way to boost the reception allowing the car to receive the broadcast information.
3) Real genius is interesting to EVERYONE. It's not about the coding, it's about the actions taken. Smart people are NOT 'just smart about one thing', they are smart about a lot of things. If you are only smart about one thing, you generally are an autistic savant. You want a great example of a smart person written as smart? Watch the Raccoon in the Guardians of the Galaxy. He doesn't talk one wit about what he is doing, but just watching him play practical jokes makes you understand how smart he is - in addition to him constructing machines on the fly.
Totally true. They confabulate genius with autistic savant, they misrepresent what genius (or autistic savants) can do, and generally have no idea how "normal" people react.
The basic problem is that the writers are not smart, let alone geniuses, so they simply do not know enough to write a show about geniuses.
First, it should not matter that the search was electronic or actual. Consider a search of a physical object in another country.
That is, US courts don't have jurisdiction in Russia, so a US warrant to go to Russia and search a home there is worthless.
Any search in Russia would either be a) illegal, or b) need a Russian Warrant.
So if they don't get a Russian warrant, the Russian government could rightfully choose to charge them with a crime committed on Russian soil.
That said, the question then becomes, can the US government present evidence found in another country that was in violation of that other countries laws, as evidence in a US court room.
On the other hand, the US is not supposed to send US officials to illegally kidnap a human being and bring them back to the US without an extradition process approved by the foreign country. They do however allow bounty hunters to do that, and then arrest and charge the person the bounty hunter returns to the US. The bounty hunter often commits a crime in the foreign country, but the US does not arrest them, instead they simply take the criminal back.
If I were the judge, I would say that YES, the Government can in fact do this, but that the members of the government must identify themselves in the US court (chain of custody), and that they might face charges in the foreign country.
Clearly such actions could have significant affects on international relations, and it might be in the US's best interest to decline to do this.
As in absolutely NOTHING in the car, with a low weight person driving it, in optimal conditions.
Hell, they would do it downhill if they could getaway with it.
As for 'more for small cars', if you remove 30 lbs from a 6,000 lb vehicle, that is 0.5%, but if you do the same for a 3,000 lb vehicle, it is 1.0%. So yeah, optimization works better for a smaller car.
In generally, leases give huge benefits to the leaser at the cost of guy doing the leasing.
Leases usually overcharge the 'renter'. The renter is pushing off risk from themselves to the leasing company and they pay HIGHLY for that.
Let's face it, those situations where people turn in and buy or buy it back then sell it at a profit mean the company screwed up somehow - or intentionally overpriced things.
Basically, leases are designed by the companies to make THEM money. They throw in added complexity which always makes it harder for a person to make decisions.
You are ignoring leases, which in particular are common for Tesla.
Like all leases, you don't 'sell' the car back or 'trade' the car in. Instead, your lease ends and the car returns to the owner. Despite their propaganda, if you leased a car, that means you never actually owned the car.
This is not a Tesla's assault on 1st sale doctrine. Instead, it is a common practice, which I like to call the ZERO sale doctrine. The cars - in both Tesla's program and more traditional programs never were sold at all.
That's why cops are supposed to do mug shots/line ups sequentially instead of simultaneously (i.e. "Is this the guy? No. How about this guy? No." Rather than "Pick the guy from these people.")
It's also why so many people confess to crimes they did not do.
Their is no such thing as indisputable proof. Just our best guess.
I understand what you are saying. That said, I don't know what backward place you live in, but most people in the world have access to:
Condoms, The Pill, and other birth control methods.
Abortion.
As such, Children are and should be a decision made by a woman, and not an automatic assumption. So sex is actually a fairly low carbon activity, even if having a child is a very high carbon activity
Yes, plenty of women aren't happy to 'be lazy'. (Your term, I prefer "the refuser" rather than the applicant.) But it's their CHOICE, something men do not have. That makes it a cultural advantage.
If you TRULY want to solve the problem of abusive men, then the solution is simple:
Create a website where the men can NOT make first contact.
You don't have to require the women to actually write an email - heaven forbid you do that. Just set it up so that the women have to 'wink' (or whatever you want to call it), at the men before the guy can write back.
This would have several advantages - including saving the men from wasting their time.
Kids routinely willing do questionable acts for cash.
If kids could not be prosecuted, some poor, down on the luck, homeless kid will end up taking their own photograph and selling it. Kids commit crimes all the time - sometimes really stupid crimes.
Not saying the laws should not be updated - they should. But it's a lot more complicated than some people think.
But studies show that most people that commit suicide do not 'really want to commit suicide'.
That is, if you stop, or even delay them, they change their mind. The country based stuff is not comparable, there are too many cultural differences.
Lowering the suicide rate alone is worth it. But even if you I just prevent the 10k that are murder, that is good enough, for gun control purposes.
All of this is beside the point. My point is that rifles are NOT the big gun problem, and that we don't need to control rifles.
Amazing how a guy saying, "hey, don't worry about rifles", get repeatedly argued with by people insisting that gun control is unnecessary. I present an argument that is on your side, and instead of supporting me, you argue against a side point I made as comparison.
No. Almost everything you said is wrong. Most of it has been repeatedly proven wrong.
1) Pistols bought for self-protection are far more likely to end up being used for a crime than for self protection.
2) Studies have shown that people that want to commit suicide change their mind and decide to live if they are stopped from doing it, or simply DELAY them. As in forcing them to try something harder than a pistol.
3) If it is harder for a criminal to get a pistol and reasonably laws are enforced, they do use knives, machete and baseball bats. Those 'deadly' weapons are far more likely to wound than to kill - that is why we invented pistols. Which means the victim survives the crime, rather than dies.
3) Parents are responsible, but not all parents are up for the job, and the government has the legal right and duty to protect and educate children, even if their parents are idiotic morons. You for example can't tell the difference between a man trying to protect your right to own a rifle (see the title of my post), and someone trying to outlaw guns.
I did not say innocent citizens only have bare hands, that is your straw man. I wanted rifles to be legal - that is the entire point of my post. But for some crazy reason, a lunatic attacked my "pro rifle" comment for being anti-gun.
Sane people know that allowing rifles but outlawing hand guns is the best way to both deter crime without interfering with anyone's legal rights.
It lets people hunt. With silencers, large clips, and guns that have a real firepower.
It let's people secure their freedom from a totalitarian state
It lets people defend themselves from criminals with MORE firepower than the criminals have.
But at the same time it makes crime significantly harder, puts up barriers against suicide, and makes it harder for parents to negligently let their kids die.
You however are in favor of making crime and suicide easy to do, while making sure that kids can play with incredibly dangerous tools, all for exactly what reason? Just because you are afraid of letting the opposing political side win a little bit - even if your personal side does not lose.
Slashdot Mirror
But their is no way they "can't figure it out"
Worse, you seem to think that collusion between game journalists and game manufacturers is someone: 1) Being denied 2) Important
Let me set the record for you. Reviewers LIE about games. They get paid to do it. Not with sex, but with actual hard cash.
No sane person really cares about it. Game journalists are not important. I am GLAD they are corrupt We need insignificant jobs for corrupt people to take. If we kick the corrupt people out of game review, they might get into something important, like health inspection, real estate inspection, politics, etc.
What's going on is simple. Someone found out that the cake is a lie, so they broke into a cake store and started stealing cake and throwing it at people. Then they get all puzzled about why the cops are arresting them instead of the man that promised them cake.
2) I was not complaining about the lines in scorpion. No, that was actually reasonably done. I am instead talking about the ACTIONS. No smart person in their right mind would ever try to connect a physical hard line from a moving airplane to a car. They would find a way to boost the reception allowing the car to receive the broadcast information.
3) Real genius is interesting to EVERYONE. It's not about the coding, it's about the actions taken. Smart people are NOT 'just smart about one thing', they are smart about a lot of things. If you are only smart about one thing, you generally are an autistic savant. You want a great example of a smart person written as smart? Watch the Raccoon in the Guardians of the Galaxy. He doesn't talk one wit about what he is doing, but just watching him play practical jokes makes you understand how smart he is - in addition to him constructing machines on the fly.
The basic problem is that the writers are not smart, let alone geniuses, so they simply do not know enough to write a show about geniuses.
Look at human languages. They die when the last person speaking them dies. What makes anyone think computer languages are different?
Make it cheaper than Fracked Natural Gas and you have something.
Until them, we should call it something along the lines of "hopefully dead ebola virus that we think might make you immune to live ebola".
If we call it that, then no one will complain about not getting it.
That is, US courts don't have jurisdiction in Russia, so a US warrant to go to Russia and search a home there is worthless.
Any search in Russia would either be a) illegal, or b) need a Russian Warrant.
So if they don't get a Russian warrant, the Russian government could rightfully choose to charge them with a crime committed on Russian soil.
That said, the question then becomes, can the US government present evidence found in another country that was in violation of that other countries laws, as evidence in a US court room.
On the other hand, the US is not supposed to send US officials to illegally kidnap a human being and bring them back to the US without an extradition process approved by the foreign country. They do however allow bounty hunters to do that, and then arrest and charge the person the bounty hunter returns to the US. The bounty hunter often commits a crime in the foreign country, but the US does not arrest them, instead they simply take the criminal back.
If I were the judge, I would say that YES, the Government can in fact do this, but that the members of the government must identify themselves in the US court (chain of custody), and that they might face charges in the foreign country.
Clearly such actions could have significant affects on international relations, and it might be in the US's best interest to decline to do this.
Hell, they would do it downhill if they could getaway with it.
As for 'more for small cars', if you remove 30 lbs from a 6,000 lb vehicle, that is 0.5%, but if you do the same for a 3,000 lb vehicle, it is 1.0%. So yeah, optimization works better for a smaller car.
Leases usually overcharge the 'renter'. The renter is pushing off risk from themselves to the leasing company and they pay HIGHLY for that.
Let's face it, those situations where people turn in and buy or buy it back then sell it at a profit mean the company screwed up somehow - or intentionally overpriced things.
Basically, leases are designed by the companies to make THEM money. They throw in added complexity which always makes it harder for a person to make decisions.
Like all leases, you don't 'sell' the car back or 'trade' the car in. Instead, your lease ends and the car returns to the owner. Despite their propaganda, if you leased a car, that means you never actually owned the car.
This is not a Tesla's assault on 1st sale doctrine. Instead, it is a common practice, which I like to call the ZERO sale doctrine. The cars - in both Tesla's program and more traditional programs never were sold at all.
I know corporations like to pretend that lease = own, but they are not the same.
Now it's up to them to prove what they said was completely accurate.
If they gave anything not demonstrably true, he wins a lawsuit.
If you are selling cat toys, it's not that hard to select people that own/are interested in cats.
Same thing with baby food.
But those companies don't need to advertise on the internet that much, because there are much better ways and places to advertise them.
If however, you are selling a dating service, that is much harder to advertise for. Same for boner pills, etc.
Frankly, there simply are not enough people doing web searches for boner pills or dating websites for facebook to give the advertisers what they want.
People that are terrified of Ebola, terrorists, vaccines, etc. will quite willingly smoke, drive distracted, and cross subway tracks.
Sequential has fewer positives - true or false. Simultaneous has more positives - true and false.
If you care more about getting the guy, you want simultaneous.
If you care more about not getting the innocent man, you want sequential.
You can watch a man in an ape suit dance and never see him. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla...
That's why cops are supposed to do mug shots/line ups sequentially instead of simultaneously (i.e. "Is this the guy? No. How about this guy? No." Rather than "Pick the guy from these people.")
It's also why so many people confess to crimes they did not do.
Their is no such thing as indisputable proof. Just our best guess.
Condoms, The Pill, and other birth control methods.
Abortion.
As such, Children are and should be a decision made by a woman, and not an automatic assumption. So sex is actually a fairly low carbon activity, even if having a child is a very high carbon activity
Also, I bet computer gaming uses a lot less carbon than most pre-computer leisure activities.
Yes, plenty of women aren't happy to 'be lazy'. (Your term, I prefer "the refuser" rather than the applicant.) But it's their CHOICE, something men do not have. That makes it a cultural advantage.
Also, women could handle it, they just don't want to have to put up with all the crap that men put up with.
If you TRULY want to solve the problem of abusive men, then the solution is simple:
Create a website where the men can NOT make first contact.
You don't have to require the women to actually write an email - heaven forbid you do that. Just set it up so that the women have to 'wink' (or whatever you want to call it), at the men before the guy can write back.
This would have several advantages - including saving the men from wasting their time.
If kids could not be prosecuted, some poor, down on the luck, homeless kid will end up taking their own photograph and selling it. Kids commit crimes all the time - sometimes really stupid crimes.
Not saying the laws should not be updated - they should. But it's a lot more complicated than some people think.
That is, if you stop, or even delay them, they change their mind. The country based stuff is not comparable, there are too many cultural differences.
Lowering the suicide rate alone is worth it. But even if you I just prevent the 10k that are murder, that is good enough, for gun control purposes.
All of this is beside the point. My point is that rifles are NOT the big gun problem, and that we don't need to control rifles.
Amazing how a guy saying, "hey, don't worry about rifles", get repeatedly argued with by people insisting that gun control is unnecessary. I present an argument that is on your side, and instead of supporting me, you argue against a side point I made as comparison.
1) Pistols bought for self-protection are far more likely to end up being used for a crime than for self protection.
2) Studies have shown that people that want to commit suicide change their mind and decide to live if they are stopped from doing it, or simply DELAY them. As in forcing them to try something harder than a pistol.
3) If it is harder for a criminal to get a pistol and reasonably laws are enforced, they do use knives, machete and baseball bats. Those 'deadly' weapons are far more likely to wound than to kill - that is why we invented pistols. Which means the victim survives the crime, rather than dies.
3) Parents are responsible, but not all parents are up for the job, and the government has the legal right and duty to protect and educate children, even if their parents are idiotic morons. You for example can't tell the difference between a man trying to protect your right to own a rifle (see the title of my post), and someone trying to outlaw guns.
I did not say innocent citizens only have bare hands, that is your straw man. I wanted rifles to be legal - that is the entire point of my post. But for some crazy reason, a lunatic attacked my "pro rifle" comment for being anti-gun.
Sane people know that allowing rifles but outlawing hand guns is the best way to both deter crime without interfering with anyone's legal rights.
It lets people hunt. With silencers, large clips, and guns that have a real firepower.
It let's people secure their freedom from a totalitarian state
It lets people defend themselves from criminals with MORE firepower than the criminals have.
But at the same time it makes crime significantly harder, puts up barriers against suicide, and makes it harder for parents to negligently let their kids die.
You however are in favor of making crime and suicide easy to do, while making sure that kids can play with incredibly dangerous tools, all for exactly what reason? Just because you are afraid of letting the opposing political side win a little bit - even if your personal side does not lose.