They don't have the same DNA. It takes months of work and a shit load of cash to fully sequence somebody's full genome. DNA matching looks at 15 markers from 13 loci and counts the number of repeats. None of the markers they look at are in coding regions, meaning none of them come from their actual genes, just the so-called "junk dna". So if they're not even part of a person's genotype, they certainly will be unrelated to his/her phenotype. In fact, they won't even identify their gender, that's why CODIS actually looks at both 15 markers, plus AMEL, because without AMEL, they can't even get the gender of the sample. Anyways, it's certainly possible that some counts at a given markers are more frequent in certain populations than others, since they are genetic, after all, and would be passed along. But I don't think there are any that are unique to particular population groups.
Well, if you stream the whole thing, you get the whole thing eventually, that's not the point. The point is, if the total size of the file is 2gb for "ultra quality" 1 gb for "good quality", 500mb for "sux quality" and 250 mb for "shit quality", then sorry, if you stream the full length of the movie, you have to download the entire 3.75gb, and upload it back to other peers, too. See, if each stream was separate, then the guys with money to burn who spent the extra cash on "ultra quality" would only have each other for company in the swarm, and it would be slower for them. This way, even the cheapskates paying for only the 250mb version of the video, have to download all 3.75 gb so they can upload the good quality version to the big spenders.
That would be RBC;) BMO uses 3DES-196, TD also uses AES-256, but with a 2048 cert. Scotia Bank and CIBC use RC4-128 though. I guess the OP uses one of those two, and figured "if my bank does this, they all must!"
Ya, lets be disingenuous and pretend that in the phrase ""About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors", the word "our" means "the current generation", rather than "humanity", and further, that ancestor means "parent", rather than meaning, well, ancestor! The thing about pretending to be incredibly stupid in order to be pedantic, is it's indistinguishable from actually being incredibly stupid.
"That's the way God wanted it" isn't the only way to support the observation of genes existing in multiple species, in a way that seems to imply inheritance. How about "God made life using OO programming"? Why would he start from scratch for every species, instead of just using copy & paste? If you really think about it...hacked together in 6 days, spaghetti code where 80% seems to be junk that doesn't even do anything, and is incredibly hard to decipher...God made us in PERL! Perl supports multiple inheritance, which explains the appearance of "viruses" transplanting genes from one species to another, unrelated species!
They're not claiming copyright violation, they're claiming..."entitlement." As in, "it's in daddy's book, that means I own it, mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine!" Which isn't a strong leg to stand on, legally speaking. You can't copyright a word. You can trademark "Nexus-6" or "Nexus One" but only in a particular field/fields, and you HAVE to produce a product in those fields or lose it. As in, even if Philip K. Dick trademarked "Nexus-6" for handheld electronic devices, he would have lost it long ago, because he doesn't make one! You can't squat a trademark. Further, I'd note that the estate doesn't hold the trademark at all, let alone on any form of electronic device! That's why they never mention trademark in their press release. Because Google hasn't done anything wrong, and they KNOW it. They are calling it "IP theft", in hopes of riling up enough people that they can get a settlement.
I'm not sure it's 100% legal. Though the teams own their own trademarks, and the NFL owns its own trademark, that's not to say that you can't represent them. You can't call if NFL Football 2010 or anything. But to not be able to have the teams? Murky. The NFL seems to think you can't, but they also think you can't tape a game, and you can't blog about the game, and you can't talk about the game at the watercooler the next day, because they OWN the game, and they OWN the score. So I wouldn't trust them. Players have already sued game makers for using them in an unlicensed game, and lost. A judge has said that basically, if you can't make a game featuring real teams, then you can't paint a picture of a real team, either. Imagine, if you felt like making a watercolor painting about baseball (for whatever reason), if you had to make up a fictional team. Of course, absolutely nothing stops you from making UFL, the Unofficial Football League, with the Carolina Jaguars, Atlanta Eagles/Philadelphia Falcons, Dallas Cowpokes, etc. Then you have the power of parody on your side;) But you're right, however legal it was, you'd still get 100,000 lawyers after you and end up paying 1 trillion in damages, plus 30 trillion in legal fees.
Well, they slipped them into their checked bags, not into their carry-ons, so knives, scissors, etc, wouldn't be forbidden. Explosives, flammables, and things that are illegal outside the plane (drugs, cuban cigars if you're flying into the USA, etc) are the only things that immediately spring to mind.
It's different from embassies because diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and despite the lies in the summary, TFA notes that INTERPOL was not granted diplomatic immunity. In particular, a diplomat is immune from prosecution while in the USA. An INTERPOL staffer is immune from civil suit insofar as his/her actions were performed as an official duty. Meaning, if in his official capacity, he wrongs you, you can't sue him. If, in his official capacity, he commits a crime, he can't be arrested. But all INTERPOL staffers in the USA work IN the DoJ building. IN IT. There categorically is nothing they could do in an official capacity that is illegal, because ALL they do is forward warrants and other useful bit of information between the police and investigatory agencies of the 188 countries that are INTERPOL members. So, their immunity from civil suit really just means, that if they pass on bad info to the FBI, who arrests you and tazes you, you can't sue INTERPOL, I guess. Not that you'd really have much of a case if you could? But if that same staffer calls you stupid and smelly on national television, go right ahead and sue him all you want. Unlike a diplomat, he's only immune as part of his official duties. Anything that's not his job, is fair game. Oh yeah, one final thing? Regan gave them their so-called "diplomatic immunity". Obama just removed a couple of the exceptions Regan tacked on, the only "worrisome" one is that they're now immune to search and seizure, just like the Red Cross and the Pacific Halibut Committee. And unlike those two, they actually do have a potentially legitimate reason for wanting to use diplomatic pouches to send sensitive information to their branches in other countries.
The same thing that stops the International Red Cross from doing the same, of course. The fact that it's absurd! They do have the exact same immunities, by the way, and have for decades. What stops the Red Cross from doing this, is the immunity is only insofar as they are performing their official duties as members of a public organization. Arresting people isn't in the official duties of a Red Cross employee, and it's only in the official duties of an INTERPOL clerk if play "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego", and if you're gauging their powers off of that, INTERPOL also has a fucking time machine. Did I say clerk, not "agent"? That's right, they're not agents, their only job is to facilitate communication between national police and investigatory forces. They forward warrants and notes on investigations. If somebody robs a bank in Germany and escapes, they forward information about him to all the countries he's likely to have fled to. So, the FBI gets a mug shot and some other info in the mail. Well, the INTERPOL staffer hands it to somebody at the DoJ, and that somebody hands it to the FBI. They can't investigate, and they can't arrest. And Regan gave them immunity from arrest and civil suit. Obama just extended that to the right to use Diplomatic Pouches, just like the Red Cross has. Why does the Red Cross need immunity from search? I dunno, ask them! But I can see why INTERPOL does. When you're at the airport, and that dour security guard wants to search your briefcase and read your notes, do you know he works for? A private security firm. That's a potential security breech, right there. Do you want him having a glance at the FBI's classified files on potential Al Quida cells in France? The FBI doesn't either, so they can't possibly use INTERPOL to forward that info around, they'll have to go through diplomatic channels, which can be slow.
Diplomatic pouches, is why they'd need them. Prior to this order, they could not use these pouches in the USA, though they can elsewhere. So, the FBI finds out information on a major international crime ring, gives that to INTERPOL to give to the corresponding agencies in other countries. Without the pouch, airport security can read and/or seize it. They work for a private security company, too. Better hope they don't have a vested interest in intercepting that couriered envelope! Now they can get the same protection as diplomats get, for their envelopes. Can't be read anymore. That's all. Well, their offices can't be searched, either, but they don't have offices, they just have some desks at the DoJ.
They don't have any of those things, still...they have immunity from search and seizure, meaning they can now send things to and from the USA via diplomatic packages, something they can do in almost every other county in the world, now. The FOI immunity is retarded, because you've never been able to, and it certainly wasn't anywhere in the executive order. The reason you've never been able to, is that INTERPOL isn't part of the US government. You can't send FOI requests to the Canadian Consulate in NYC, either. Well, I'm sure you can send them one, but don't expect an answer. Additionally, this is INTERPOL itself. This means, yes, official documents sent by them can't be searched at the border, and their offices can't be searched, either. It doesn't mean a person who happens to work for INTERPOL can't be searched if they're suspected of a crime, unlike a diplomat. They can be searched, and they can be arrested. I imagine they could say "That suspicious package is property of INTERPOL, not me, you can't search it." Which is true, but if somebody else at INTERPOL says "No it isn't" they can go ahead and search it. No diplomatic plates for their car, either, they can still get a ticket. Further, they don't even actually have their own office, they use desks at the DoJ, so there's no real reason the DoJ would ever need to be trying to search their stuff, anyways! So if it doesn't matter, why make an executive order of it? Like I said, now they can use diplomatic pouches for sensitive information, so it does matter. Finally, as you've already been told, INTERPOL isn't a police agency. Only in "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" do they have actual powers to arrest people. They're just a agency responsible for forwarading information on international criminals from one nations police to others who might need to know about it. An INTERPOL "agent" can't arrest you, he can tell the FBI that there's an outstanding arrest warrant for you in France, and then the FBI goes and arrests you, while the INTERPOL "agent" stays at his desk at the DoJ.
Italian scientists have found them in some women, doing detailed ultrasound scans. But not all women. There's a strong correlation with women who think they have one, and those with this "bump" of tissue, so just asking if they think they have it isn't as absurd as it might seem. Yes, scanning thousands of women would be more effective, but very costly. But the conclusion that was posted is wrong. What they really found, is that whether or not they think they have one, isn't genetic. This is somewhat weaker than whether or not they actually have one being genetic, but as I said, the think-to-have correlation is quite strong, according to the Italian study. So the study is interesting, in that it shows that the spot, if it's there, isn't determined by genetics, or at least, not by genetics alone. Not too unusual. Finger prints aren't genetic, either, they're all a function of how things happened to develop. All of the ways to find it have you groping around on the anterior vaginal wall. This area is full of nerves, and only slightly stimulated in missionary position. If you make the "come hither" motion, or adjust your positioning like you suggested, you can stimulate the whole region pretty damn well. Now, in some women, it appears, based on the Italian study, that there is an irregular "bump" of dense tissue in that general area, and a correspondingly higher density of nerve endings (at least usually). So if they have it, I'm sure they'd love it being stimulated. It's certainly not always there, like you claim. Or if it is, it can be so small as to completely evade detection by ultrasound. But, that whole region is seldom stimulated properly anyways, so whether or not they have the bump, they'll still like the whole place being touched, of that I'm certain! And if, even without the lump, there is a spot that's more sensitive? Who knows, but it seems unlikely that it would be totally uniform. And I know from experience, it's also possible to have such a lump, but not have extra nerves on it, but the whole region is pretty sensitive anyways so it doesn't really matter. And as for your sig "Nice guys finish last": Not always, but if they don't, they lend a hand to their partner until she/he is finished, too;)
I've always felt it to seem stupid when you go overboard explaining things to the audience like that, because nobody would ever do that if they were real people in that setting. If you get on your private jet and ask your pilot to fly you to Hawaii, he doesn't explain to you about jet streams and air currents and how the earth is round so the best route is curved, not a straight line on the map. Nope, he knows that, and you don't care. If I see a special on Discovery about how the rovers get to Mars, I'd love if they discussed the orbital mechanics of getting out there. If it's in the future and I'm getting on a space plane for Mars, I don't expect the captain to bore everybody with a lecture on orbital mechanics, though.
I mean, imagine how that would work "Wash, I need you to get us to Persephone" "Sure thing, I'll just plot out the proper translational orbit to carry us over there, then our engines will start accelerating the reaction-mass ions to 0.99c, and the gravity generators will cancel out the accelerative force from our inertia, so we won't all turn to jelly." "Blah blah blah, I'll be in the mess." Really, if they have gravity generators so its cheap to film, I'm sure they can use their artificial gravitons to cancel out the Gs from acceleration. Further, you have no way of knowing that Serenity doesn't use an ion engine that shoots small amounts of stuff out at relativistic speeds, they never said either way, and their engine thingy at the back sure looks like it shoots something out sometimes. It sure does in an atmosphere!
As for number of livable worlds? It's established in one of the first episodes that they're all terraformed, likely well in advance of the colony ships carrying all/the bulk of the people and animals. An unusual number? Not really. Our solar system has 4 rocky plants at the core, though Mercury it too close to be livable. In Serenity I think there are 5 rocky planets, all in a livable range of the sun. Unlikely? How the fuck would you know, based on our current n=1 study of the full layout of solar systems? Yeah, we have 3, but that's the most anybody could ever have! Five is right out! Our solar system has 2 gas giants that are somewhat close to the sun, with over 120 moons between them. Sure, only a couple of those are of significant size, but that's not really the point. The point is, it's not inconceivable to find a star system with 5 rocky planets in the liquid water range from the sun, plus also a jupiter+ sized gas giant in the same range. If, like Jupiter, said gas giant has a massive magnetic field, its moons would be protected from the solar wind, and could probably support a nice dense atmosphere of whatever the terraformers decide to put there. And maybe that gas giant has 12 or 20 or however many you want moons, and they're all bigger than our moon, maybe even as big as mars! Remember, Titan is able to hold a thicker atmosphere than Earth, and it's not even Mars sized. Anyways, yeah, it would be some kind of expensive to film scenes on these moons showing them having 15% of Earths gravity, so everything accelerates slower when dropped. But if most of the "moons" are mars sized and bigger, maybe most of them are 80% of earths gravity or more. So why bother? If something accelerated 20% slower on screen, could you really tell? All you're really left with is some cheap comedy by having a character fall over, and blame it on the different gravity. Assuming, of course, that space cowboys who hop from moon to moon don't have their damn "space legs" already! Oh, the moons thing also kinda dents the "drive like a boat bit". If most all of their travel is done from moon to moon around the same gas giant, they likely wouldn't need to bother with transitional orbits nearly so much, and it would explain how they can get from moon to moon in a few days to a week or so, without massive acceleration. Because they're actually kinda slow, but not going very far.
If you grant it terraforming technology, and that they sent robots ahe
If it has no info, it uses the registered address of your ISP. Otherwise, it's all data-mining. They have agreements with data-miners, who themselves have agreements with thousands upon thousands of websites. Go to Best Buy's websites, enter a zip/postal code to find the closest store to you? There, bam, the geo-locators have a zip code tied to an IP address. If you're not on an ISP that cycles frequently, they have you. I don't know how accurate USA zip codes are, but Canadian postal codes, they will get you a block, more or less. And if you enter an actual, real address anywhere ever, they have your real address tied to your IP address, too. But like I say, it doesn't just depend on your stupidity in giving out your address, it also depends on your ISP. My parents were on Shaw@Home internet. Our IP address never changed, ever. Not unless the modem lost power for more than 5 minutes. Now I'm on Sympatico DSL. Its IP address changes whenever its unplugged for even a second, and it also changes about once or twice a month, sometimes more. Even if I was dumb in giving out my address, it probably wouldn't be accurate for Sympatico customers, because they shuffle around a LOT, and the geo-location websites are never fully up to date, data-mining is time consuming! Also, some ISPs subnet a lot, so even if your IP address shuffles, it probably didn't stray very far from your real address, so they still would have at least your city, if not your neighborhood. Some ISPs don't subnet at all, so your IP address comes from a pool assigned to their entire service area. That's why some people will go in, and see that some websites report them in NYC, and some in San Fransisco. Because their ISP assigns its IP addresses wherever they fall, and if they're a national ISP, that could mean anywhere.
But anyways, yeah, if you're on an ISP that doesn't cycle its IP addresses around, and you're dumb enough to give your real address to websites at any point, it really could be CSI level magic. But the thing is, the IP Address to lat-long step, would really be IP Address to Address to Lat-Long, he must have just used a geo-locator site that does that conversion for you, and either doesn't give the base address it used for that computation, or the cop just didn't notice it.
"In terms of a strict reading of the text" is a phrase that, I would imagine, implies that you actually took a cursory glance at at least a summary of the law. Obviously not, however. Are you truly unable to distinguish a disagreement of theology, however large, from something "grossly abusive" that was said with the intent to "cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents" of a particular religion? No, that doesn't "technically" mean anything at all anybody disagrees with, you bloody loon. That's not a "strict" reading, that's an utterly absurd reading. To be covered by the law, what you're saying has to not only be intentionally offensive AND abusive to a religion, it must be grossly so. You have to be saying it for the clear and sole reason of causing offense to an entire religion, or at least a substantial portion of it. This categorically does not cover legitimate discussion. If you're going to disagree with a dumb law, at least talk about the actual law, not a straw-man law you pulled from your ass.
The Lazarus project handled (a) by saying "We view the GPL as only applying to plugins if they're installed, so you can write non-GPL plugins as long as you distribute them separately". The FSF disagrees and probably wants to burn them at the stake, but without FSF code in Lazarus, all their screams are just empty threats and calls for boycotts, like that would convince those of us already crazy enough to be using object pascal. And man, all the zealots screaming for your head, I sure hope they don't represent the GNU community as a whole. Though from reading all the contempt and vitriol in the GNU FAQ, I have a sinking suspicion that they do, unfortunately. I didn't know the GNU guys hated Apache and Mozilla and BSD so damn hard! It seems just absurd to think that the FSF really thinks that, if you write a.so against an MIT licensed API, you're still bound by the GPL, just because a GPL program loads libraries written against that API. Total madness.
Mr. Hack, you better stop using Linux then. It contains non-GPL code. It contains plenty of stuff that LGPL, or X11 licensed, two things that, judging by your fevered screams of injustice, you think are absolute unmitigated evil. Nowhere did they WHINE about how restrictive it is. GNU or the FSF or whoever told them, look, even though your plugin API isn't GPL, anybody who uses it is bound by the GPL (wut) so they "abandoned" the GPL. People like you want to force everybody to use the GPL, or ELSE. Guess what, freedom isn't freedom without the right to say "no." They said no, we value freedom, so we want to allow our users to write Mozilla licensed plugins, if they like that license better. HOW EVIL OF THEM.
Do you think everything in your Linux distribution is GPL? Because the libraries are all LGPL, that way you can write things that link them, but aren't GPL themselves! And gee, I wonder what in Linux is X11 licensed? Surely not Xfree86 I hope, that would be so fundamentalist anti-GPL it would be sickening! Here is why the GUI has to be GPL: The FSF maintains that loading a plugin is the same as statically linking it. So, you write a nifty program. You release it under GPL. But you cross license the plugin API, GPL and LGPL and MIT X11, maybe throw Mozilla in there too, I don't care. You might think you're safe, but you're wrong. It doesn't matter if you never see a copy of the GPL, never use a single character of GPL code. GNU maintains you are nevertheless bound by the GPL, if you write a plugin intended to be loaded by a GPL'd program. Sure, in this case, they didn't have to go to full-on LGPL, they could have made it GPL with plugin loading exemptions. But I'd imagine they were so threatened by GPL zealots they they ran screaming as fast as they could. After reading the GNU FAQ, I feel quite threatened by the FSF and GNU guys. I've never read an FAQ that treats the reader with such contempt and hatred...they make it clear that if you DO put that plugin loading exemption in, you're no longer welcome in the Free World, and no right thinking, freedom valuing individual will ever associate with you for the rest of your life. I can only imagine how threatening GNU and the FSF are in personal correspondence, given the seething hate in their FAQs! I don't blame anybody for abandoning the GPL after trying to deal with them. All for the high crime of wanting to allow people to make X11 licensed plugins for your program.
You're confusing thinking about letters, with actively sounding out one letter at a time in your mind. You really think that when you're typing, you don't think about what letters you're pushing?
The most commonly offered reason (that hot water freezes faster than cold water) is that the rate of evaporation increases with water temperature, and so the evaporative cooling effect is stronger for hot water than it is for cold, so hot water gets cold faster. But that's a dumb reason, since while true, the rate wouldn't be fixed there, it would stay proportional to the temperature, so when the hot water had cooled to the same temperature as your cold water, its rate of evaporation would be the same, and thus from that point on, it would cool at the same rate. The less commonly offered reason is that in that extra time, more water would have evaporated away, and therefore while the cooling rate would be the same, the size of the object would be smaller, so it would cool faster. This is true, but beside the point. It takes a long time for hot water to cool to room temperature, and the time shaved by not having to cool that extra 2 mL of water will be absolutely dominated by the extra cooling time over all. Try it for yourself!
You say this like it would shock PETA, who themselves advocate this option. PETA's opinion is that if a disease would kill everybody within a week, but a single animal test could save everybody, animal testing is still not an option. PETA's founder goes one step further, saying that disease research should not be done at all, even if no animals are harmed, because disease is natures way of correcting the error that allowed humans to exist, and we have no right to fight back, and should just die already and stop raping mother nature. Of course, she has so far declined polite offers of "You first!"
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have the same DNA. It takes months of work and a shit load of cash to fully sequence somebody's full genome. DNA matching looks at 15 markers from 13 loci and counts the number of repeats. None of the markers they look at are in coding regions, meaning none of them come from their actual genes, just the so-called "junk dna". So if they're not even part of a person's genotype, they certainly will be unrelated to his/her phenotype. In fact, they won't even identify their gender, that's why CODIS actually looks at both 15 markers, plus AMEL, because without AMEL, they can't even get the gender of the sample. Anyways, it's certainly possible that some counts at a given markers are more frequent in certain populations than others, since they are genetic, after all, and would be passed along. But I don't think there are any that are unique to particular population groups.
Well, if you stream the whole thing, you get the whole thing eventually, that's not the point. The point is, if the total size of the file is 2gb for "ultra quality" 1 gb for "good quality", 500mb for "sux quality" and 250 mb for "shit quality", then sorry, if you stream the full length of the movie, you have to download the entire 3.75gb, and upload it back to other peers, too. See, if each stream was separate, then the guys with money to burn who spent the extra cash on "ultra quality" would only have each other for company in the swarm, and it would be slower for them. This way, even the cheapskates paying for only the 250mb version of the video, have to download all 3.75 gb so they can upload the good quality version to the big spenders.
That would be RBC ;) BMO uses 3DES-196, TD also uses AES-256, but with a 2048 cert. Scotia Bank and CIBC use RC4-128 though. I guess the OP uses one of those two, and figured "if my bank does this, they all must!"
Multiple inheritance.
Ya, lets be disingenuous and pretend that in the phrase ""About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors", the word "our" means "the current generation", rather than "humanity", and further, that ancestor means "parent", rather than meaning, well, ancestor! The thing about pretending to be incredibly stupid in order to be pedantic, is it's indistinguishable from actually being incredibly stupid.
"That's the way God wanted it" isn't the only way to support the observation of genes existing in multiple species, in a way that seems to imply inheritance. How about "God made life using OO programming"? Why would he start from scratch for every species, instead of just using copy & paste? If you really think about it...hacked together in 6 days, spaghetti code where 80% seems to be junk that doesn't even do anything, and is incredibly hard to decipher...God made us in PERL! Perl supports multiple inheritance, which explains the appearance of "viruses" transplanting genes from one species to another, unrelated species!
They're not claiming copyright violation, they're claiming..."entitlement." As in, "it's in daddy's book, that means I own it, mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine!" Which isn't a strong leg to stand on, legally speaking. You can't copyright a word. You can trademark "Nexus-6" or "Nexus One" but only in a particular field/fields, and you HAVE to produce a product in those fields or lose it. As in, even if Philip K. Dick trademarked "Nexus-6" for handheld electronic devices, he would have lost it long ago, because he doesn't make one! You can't squat a trademark. Further, I'd note that the estate doesn't hold the trademark at all, let alone on any form of electronic device! That's why they never mention trademark in their press release. Because Google hasn't done anything wrong, and they KNOW it. They are calling it "IP theft", in hopes of riling up enough people that they can get a settlement.
If it decimates 2000 acres of desert, you still have 1800 acres left.
I'm not sure it's 100% legal. Though the teams own their own trademarks, and the NFL owns its own trademark, that's not to say that you can't represent them. You can't call if NFL Football 2010 or anything. But to not be able to have the teams? Murky. The NFL seems to think you can't, but they also think you can't tape a game, and you can't blog about the game, and you can't talk about the game at the watercooler the next day, because they OWN the game, and they OWN the score. So I wouldn't trust them. Players have already sued game makers for using them in an unlicensed game, and lost. A judge has said that basically, if you can't make a game featuring real teams, then you can't paint a picture of a real team, either. Imagine, if you felt like making a watercolor painting about baseball (for whatever reason), if you had to make up a fictional team. Of course, absolutely nothing stops you from making UFL, the Unofficial Football League, with the Carolina Jaguars, Atlanta Eagles/Philadelphia Falcons, Dallas Cowpokes, etc. Then you have the power of parody on your side ;) But you're right, however legal it was, you'd still get 100,000 lawyers after you and end up paying 1 trillion in damages, plus 30 trillion in legal fees.
Well, they slipped them into their checked bags, not into their carry-ons, so knives, scissors, etc, wouldn't be forbidden. Explosives, flammables, and things that are illegal outside the plane (drugs, cuban cigars if you're flying into the USA, etc) are the only things that immediately spring to mind.
It's different from embassies because diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and despite the lies in the summary, TFA notes that INTERPOL was not granted diplomatic immunity. In particular, a diplomat is immune from prosecution while in the USA. An INTERPOL staffer is immune from civil suit insofar as his/her actions were performed as an official duty. Meaning, if in his official capacity, he wrongs you, you can't sue him. If, in his official capacity, he commits a crime, he can't be arrested. But all INTERPOL staffers in the USA work IN the DoJ building. IN IT. There categorically is nothing they could do in an official capacity that is illegal, because ALL they do is forward warrants and other useful bit of information between the police and investigatory agencies of the 188 countries that are INTERPOL members. So, their immunity from civil suit really just means, that if they pass on bad info to the FBI, who arrests you and tazes you, you can't sue INTERPOL, I guess. Not that you'd really have much of a case if you could? But if that same staffer calls you stupid and smelly on national television, go right ahead and sue him all you want. Unlike a diplomat, he's only immune as part of his official duties. Anything that's not his job, is fair game. Oh yeah, one final thing? Regan gave them their so-called "diplomatic immunity". Obama just removed a couple of the exceptions Regan tacked on, the only "worrisome" one is that they're now immune to search and seizure, just like the Red Cross and the Pacific Halibut Committee. And unlike those two, they actually do have a potentially legitimate reason for wanting to use diplomatic pouches to send sensitive information to their branches in other countries.
The same thing that stops the International Red Cross from doing the same, of course. The fact that it's absurd! They do have the exact same immunities, by the way, and have for decades. What stops the Red Cross from doing this, is the immunity is only insofar as they are performing their official duties as members of a public organization. Arresting people isn't in the official duties of a Red Cross employee, and it's only in the official duties of an INTERPOL clerk if play "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego", and if you're gauging their powers off of that, INTERPOL also has a fucking time machine. Did I say clerk, not "agent"? That's right, they're not agents, their only job is to facilitate communication between national police and investigatory forces. They forward warrants and notes on investigations. If somebody robs a bank in Germany and escapes, they forward information about him to all the countries he's likely to have fled to. So, the FBI gets a mug shot and some other info in the mail. Well, the INTERPOL staffer hands it to somebody at the DoJ, and that somebody hands it to the FBI. They can't investigate, and they can't arrest. And Regan gave them immunity from arrest and civil suit. Obama just extended that to the right to use Diplomatic Pouches, just like the Red Cross has. Why does the Red Cross need immunity from search? I dunno, ask them! But I can see why INTERPOL does. When you're at the airport, and that dour security guard wants to search your briefcase and read your notes, do you know he works for? A private security firm. That's a potential security breech, right there. Do you want him having a glance at the FBI's classified files on potential Al Quida cells in France? The FBI doesn't either, so they can't possibly use INTERPOL to forward that info around, they'll have to go through diplomatic channels, which can be slow.
Diplomatic pouches, is why they'd need them. Prior to this order, they could not use these pouches in the USA, though they can elsewhere. So, the FBI finds out information on a major international crime ring, gives that to INTERPOL to give to the corresponding agencies in other countries. Without the pouch, airport security can read and/or seize it. They work for a private security company, too. Better hope they don't have a vested interest in intercepting that couriered envelope! Now they can get the same protection as diplomats get, for their envelopes. Can't be read anymore. That's all. Well, their offices can't be searched, either, but they don't have offices, they just have some desks at the DoJ.
They don't have any of those things, still...they have immunity from search and seizure, meaning they can now send things to and from the USA via diplomatic packages, something they can do in almost every other county in the world, now. The FOI immunity is retarded, because you've never been able to, and it certainly wasn't anywhere in the executive order. The reason you've never been able to, is that INTERPOL isn't part of the US government. You can't send FOI requests to the Canadian Consulate in NYC, either. Well, I'm sure you can send them one, but don't expect an answer. Additionally, this is INTERPOL itself. This means, yes, official documents sent by them can't be searched at the border, and their offices can't be searched, either. It doesn't mean a person who happens to work for INTERPOL can't be searched if they're suspected of a crime, unlike a diplomat. They can be searched, and they can be arrested. I imagine they could say "That suspicious package is property of INTERPOL, not me, you can't search it." Which is true, but if somebody else at INTERPOL says "No it isn't" they can go ahead and search it. No diplomatic plates for their car, either, they can still get a ticket. Further, they don't even actually have their own office, they use desks at the DoJ, so there's no real reason the DoJ would ever need to be trying to search their stuff, anyways! So if it doesn't matter, why make an executive order of it? Like I said, now they can use diplomatic pouches for sensitive information, so it does matter. Finally, as you've already been told, INTERPOL isn't a police agency. Only in "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" do they have actual powers to arrest people. They're just a agency responsible for forwarading information on international criminals from one nations police to others who might need to know about it. An INTERPOL "agent" can't arrest you, he can tell the FBI that there's an outstanding arrest warrant for you in France, and then the FBI goes and arrests you, while the INTERPOL "agent" stays at his desk at the DoJ.
Italian scientists have found them in some women, doing detailed ultrasound scans. But not all women. There's a strong correlation with women who think they have one, and those with this "bump" of tissue, so just asking if they think they have it isn't as absurd as it might seem. Yes, scanning thousands of women would be more effective, but very costly. But the conclusion that was posted is wrong. What they really found, is that whether or not they think they have one, isn't genetic. This is somewhat weaker than whether or not they actually have one being genetic, but as I said, the think-to-have correlation is quite strong, according to the Italian study. So the study is interesting, in that it shows that the spot, if it's there, isn't determined by genetics, or at least, not by genetics alone. Not too unusual. Finger prints aren't genetic, either, they're all a function of how things happened to develop. All of the ways to find it have you groping around on the anterior vaginal wall. This area is full of nerves, and only slightly stimulated in missionary position. If you make the "come hither" motion, or adjust your positioning like you suggested, you can stimulate the whole region pretty damn well. Now, in some women, it appears, based on the Italian study, that there is an irregular "bump" of dense tissue in that general area, and a correspondingly higher density of nerve endings (at least usually). So if they have it, I'm sure they'd love it being stimulated. It's certainly not always there, like you claim. Or if it is, it can be so small as to completely evade detection by ultrasound. But, that whole region is seldom stimulated properly anyways, so whether or not they have the bump, they'll still like the whole place being touched, of that I'm certain! And if, even without the lump, there is a spot that's more sensitive? Who knows, but it seems unlikely that it would be totally uniform. And I know from experience, it's also possible to have such a lump, but not have extra nerves on it, but the whole region is pretty sensitive anyways so it doesn't really matter. And as for your sig "Nice guys finish last": Not always, but if they don't, they lend a hand to their partner until she/he is finished, too ;)
Thanks for explaining the joke, I didn't get it! ;)
I've always felt it to seem stupid when you go overboard explaining things to the audience like that, because nobody would ever do that if they were real people in that setting. If you get on your private jet and ask your pilot to fly you to Hawaii, he doesn't explain to you about jet streams and air currents and how the earth is round so the best route is curved, not a straight line on the map. Nope, he knows that, and you don't care. If I see a special on Discovery about how the rovers get to Mars, I'd love if they discussed the orbital mechanics of getting out there. If it's in the future and I'm getting on a space plane for Mars, I don't expect the captain to bore everybody with a lecture on orbital mechanics, though.
I mean, imagine how that would work "Wash, I need you to get us to Persephone" "Sure thing, I'll just plot out the proper translational orbit to carry us over there, then our engines will start accelerating the reaction-mass ions to 0.99c, and the gravity generators will cancel out the accelerative force from our inertia, so we won't all turn to jelly." "Blah blah blah, I'll be in the mess." Really, if they have gravity generators so its cheap to film, I'm sure they can use their artificial gravitons to cancel out the Gs from acceleration. Further, you have no way of knowing that Serenity doesn't use an ion engine that shoots small amounts of stuff out at relativistic speeds, they never said either way, and their engine thingy at the back sure looks like it shoots something out sometimes. It sure does in an atmosphere!
As for number of livable worlds? It's established in one of the first episodes that they're all terraformed, likely well in advance of the colony ships carrying all/the bulk of the people and animals. An unusual number? Not really. Our solar system has 4 rocky plants at the core, though Mercury it too close to be livable. In Serenity I think there are 5 rocky planets, all in a livable range of the sun. Unlikely? How the fuck would you know, based on our current n=1 study of the full layout of solar systems? Yeah, we have 3, but that's the most anybody could ever have! Five is right out! Our solar system has 2 gas giants that are somewhat close to the sun, with over 120 moons between them. Sure, only a couple of those are of significant size, but that's not really the point. The point is, it's not inconceivable to find a star system with 5 rocky planets in the liquid water range from the sun, plus also a jupiter+ sized gas giant in the same range. If, like Jupiter, said gas giant has a massive magnetic field, its moons would be protected from the solar wind, and could probably support a nice dense atmosphere of whatever the terraformers decide to put there. And maybe that gas giant has 12 or 20 or however many you want moons, and they're all bigger than our moon, maybe even as big as mars! Remember, Titan is able to hold a thicker atmosphere than Earth, and it's not even Mars sized. Anyways, yeah, it would be some kind of expensive to film scenes on these moons showing them having 15% of Earths gravity, so everything accelerates slower when dropped. But if most of the "moons" are mars sized and bigger, maybe most of them are 80% of earths gravity or more. So why bother? If something accelerated 20% slower on screen, could you really tell? All you're really left with is some cheap comedy by having a character fall over, and blame it on the different gravity. Assuming, of course, that space cowboys who hop from moon to moon don't have their damn "space legs" already! Oh, the moons thing also kinda dents the "drive like a boat bit". If most all of their travel is done from moon to moon around the same gas giant, they likely wouldn't need to bother with transitional orbits nearly so much, and it would explain how they can get from moon to moon in a few days to a week or so, without massive acceleration. Because they're actually kinda slow, but not going very far.
If you grant it terraforming technology, and that they sent robots ahe
If it has no info, it uses the registered address of your ISP. Otherwise, it's all data-mining. They have agreements with data-miners, who themselves have agreements with thousands upon thousands of websites. Go to Best Buy's websites, enter a zip/postal code to find the closest store to you? There, bam, the geo-locators have a zip code tied to an IP address. If you're not on an ISP that cycles frequently, they have you. I don't know how accurate USA zip codes are, but Canadian postal codes, they will get you a block, more or less. And if you enter an actual, real address anywhere ever, they have your real address tied to your IP address, too. But like I say, it doesn't just depend on your stupidity in giving out your address, it also depends on your ISP. My parents were on Shaw@Home internet. Our IP address never changed, ever. Not unless the modem lost power for more than 5 minutes. Now I'm on Sympatico DSL. Its IP address changes whenever its unplugged for even a second, and it also changes about once or twice a month, sometimes more. Even if I was dumb in giving out my address, it probably wouldn't be accurate for Sympatico customers, because they shuffle around a LOT, and the geo-location websites are never fully up to date, data-mining is time consuming! Also, some ISPs subnet a lot, so even if your IP address shuffles, it probably didn't stray very far from your real address, so they still would have at least your city, if not your neighborhood. Some ISPs don't subnet at all, so your IP address comes from a pool assigned to their entire service area. That's why some people will go in, and see that some websites report them in NYC, and some in San Fransisco. Because their ISP assigns its IP addresses wherever they fall, and if they're a national ISP, that could mean anywhere.
But anyways, yeah, if you're on an ISP that doesn't cycle its IP addresses around, and you're dumb enough to give your real address to websites at any point, it really could be CSI level magic. But the thing is, the IP Address to lat-long step, would really be IP Address to Address to Lat-Long, he must have just used a geo-locator site that does that conversion for you, and either doesn't give the base address it used for that computation, or the cop just didn't notice it.
"In terms of a strict reading of the text" is a phrase that, I would imagine, implies that you actually took a cursory glance at at least a summary of the law. Obviously not, however. Are you truly unable to distinguish a disagreement of theology, however large, from something "grossly abusive" that was said with the intent to "cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents" of a particular religion? No, that doesn't "technically" mean anything at all anybody disagrees with, you bloody loon. That's not a "strict" reading, that's an utterly absurd reading. To be covered by the law, what you're saying has to not only be intentionally offensive AND abusive to a religion, it must be grossly so. You have to be saying it for the clear and sole reason of causing offense to an entire religion, or at least a substantial portion of it. This categorically does not cover legitimate discussion. If you're going to disagree with a dumb law, at least talk about the actual law, not a straw-man law you pulled from your ass.
The Lazarus project handled (a) by saying "We view the GPL as only applying to plugins if they're installed, so you can write non-GPL plugins as long as you distribute them separately". The FSF disagrees and probably wants to burn them at the stake, but without FSF code in Lazarus, all their screams are just empty threats and calls for boycotts, like that would convince those of us already crazy enough to be using object pascal. And man, all the zealots screaming for your head, I sure hope they don't represent the GNU community as a whole. Though from reading all the contempt and vitriol in the GNU FAQ, I have a sinking suspicion that they do, unfortunately. I didn't know the GNU guys hated Apache and Mozilla and BSD so damn hard! It seems just absurd to think that the FSF really thinks that, if you write a .so against an MIT licensed API, you're still bound by the GPL, just because a GPL program loads libraries written against that API. Total madness.
Mr. Hack, you better stop using Linux then. It contains non-GPL code. It contains plenty of stuff that LGPL, or X11 licensed, two things that, judging by your fevered screams of injustice, you think are absolute unmitigated evil. Nowhere did they WHINE about how restrictive it is. GNU or the FSF or whoever told them, look, even though your plugin API isn't GPL, anybody who uses it is bound by the GPL (wut) so they "abandoned" the GPL. People like you want to force everybody to use the GPL, or ELSE. Guess what, freedom isn't freedom without the right to say "no." They said no, we value freedom, so we want to allow our users to write Mozilla licensed plugins, if they like that license better. HOW EVIL OF THEM.
Do you think everything in your Linux distribution is GPL? Because the libraries are all LGPL, that way you can write things that link them, but aren't GPL themselves! And gee, I wonder what in Linux is X11 licensed? Surely not Xfree86 I hope, that would be so fundamentalist anti-GPL it would be sickening! Here is why the GUI has to be GPL: The FSF maintains that loading a plugin is the same as statically linking it. So, you write a nifty program. You release it under GPL. But you cross license the plugin API, GPL and LGPL and MIT X11, maybe throw Mozilla in there too, I don't care. You might think you're safe, but you're wrong. It doesn't matter if you never see a copy of the GPL, never use a single character of GPL code. GNU maintains you are nevertheless bound by the GPL, if you write a plugin intended to be loaded by a GPL'd program. Sure, in this case, they didn't have to go to full-on LGPL, they could have made it GPL with plugin loading exemptions. But I'd imagine they were so threatened by GPL zealots they they ran screaming as fast as they could. After reading the GNU FAQ, I feel quite threatened by the FSF and GNU guys. I've never read an FAQ that treats the reader with such contempt and hatred...they make it clear that if you DO put that plugin loading exemption in, you're no longer welcome in the Free World, and no right thinking, freedom valuing individual will ever associate with you for the rest of your life. I can only imagine how threatening GNU and the FSF are in personal correspondence, given the seething hate in their FAQs! I don't blame anybody for abandoning the GPL after trying to deal with them. All for the high crime of wanting to allow people to make X11 licensed plugins for your program.
You're confusing thinking about letters, with actively sounding out one letter at a time in your mind. You really think that when you're typing, you don't think about what letters you're pushing?
The most commonly offered reason (that hot water freezes faster than cold water) is that the rate of evaporation increases with water temperature, and so the evaporative cooling effect is stronger for hot water than it is for cold, so hot water gets cold faster. But that's a dumb reason, since while true, the rate wouldn't be fixed there, it would stay proportional to the temperature, so when the hot water had cooled to the same temperature as your cold water, its rate of evaporation would be the same, and thus from that point on, it would cool at the same rate. The less commonly offered reason is that in that extra time, more water would have evaporated away, and therefore while the cooling rate would be the same, the size of the object would be smaller, so it would cool faster. This is true, but beside the point. It takes a long time for hot water to cool to room temperature, and the time shaved by not having to cool that extra 2 mL of water will be absolutely dominated by the extra cooling time over all. Try it for yourself!
You say this like it would shock PETA, who themselves advocate this option. PETA's opinion is that if a disease would kill everybody within a week, but a single animal test could save everybody, animal testing is still not an option. PETA's founder goes one step further, saying that disease research should not be done at all, even if no animals are harmed, because disease is natures way of correcting the error that allowed humans to exist, and we have no right to fight back, and should just die already and stop raping mother nature. Of course, she has so far declined polite offers of "You first!"