You should tell the world's military leaders to should stop training support gunners.
Yes, I understand there's a disconnect between people who are trained to use automatic weapons and those who are not. There's a disconnect between a lot of things that professionals do vs. non-professionals. However, there are still a proportion of the non-professionals who know how to conduct themselves correctly given the conditions and tools they have available.
Having the capability of automatic fire gives you options you may not otherwise have, and the people going off half-cocked are going to waste ammunition and/or get themselves killed anyway.
The point wasn't that Apple is unable to do it technically, or unable to pay for it. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together understands they can.
The point was that they haven't done so, despite being, to all appearances, more than capable of handling it from a technical and financial standpoint.
It's worked pretty well in a number of insurgent wars in the last couple decades. Also, many semi-auto weapons are relatively easy to modify to make automatic fire possible. It's rarely done only because there's little benefit in the face of the legal drawbacks. If one finds themselves on the smaller side of a lopsided war though, the legality of modifying the firearm becomes a relatively trivial consideration compared to the benefits.
That will only happen when a majority of people are able to stop conflating "criminal act" with "something I find personally disagreeable." It's much the same logic people use to justify moderating down as troll or flamebait comments they simply disagree with. A large majority are perfectly willing to censor arbitrarily based on their own narrow world-view, and so they allow their leaders and systems of justice to do so as well in many cases.
This is far enough down that it may not get any attention from anyone who actually knows, but given the explanation for a lack of pardon I feel compelled to ask:
Just what does the UK government offer pardons for, aside from perhaps pardoning someone after they have completed their sentence when it is concluded they were incarcerated for crimes they did not commit?
I'm truly interested in what cases pardons are granted in the UK.
Atheists who fervently believe no god exists are just as religious as those who fervently believe in a god.
Atheists who understand "God exists" is not falsifiable are not; they are atheists because the "God" debate is ultimately irrelevant from almost any sort of practical standpoint.
It is even worse if the law enforcement officers were native French speakers, because the text was in French and used a common idiom which would have been far less likely to be misinterpreted by a native speaker than someone speaking English as their primary language. On the other hand, if the law enforcement officers were English-speaking, the translator should probably be fired for incompetence. Knowledge of common idioms is absolutely essential when it comes to translations for any important purpose (such as law enforcement).
To be fair, the term "narcotic" is similar in use to the term "assault weapon," in that it is frequently conflated with "opiate" in the way that the latter is conflated with "assault rifle."
A narcotic is anything which has psychoactive effects. It is not a useful term aside from compliance with regulations dealing with drugs so classified.
The FDA has national regulatory authority, just like any Federal institution. That scope originally required that something be directly involved in an interstate transaction; they had no authority to regulate behavior which did not have an interstate component.
This procedure is in no way directly an interstate transaction. It would be the same as if the Federal government claimed authority to regulate the construction of every structure in the USA simply because some of the materials used to build any structure at one point crossed state lines (or because the construction impacted interstate commerce by not buying anything from out-of-state).
Of course, the above is nothing but theory. Actual current practice is the exact opposite though, and under current precedent those who run the Federal government would certainly believe they had the authority to regulate every structure ever built (or ever to be built) within the USA.
The Judiciary is ultimately weak because they have no means to enforce their opinions. They rely exclusively on the Executive. If the Executive refuses, there is no direct recourse. I believe it was Andrew Jackson who was most famous for simply ignoring the Supreme Court's decisions. They had no way to enforce them without the consent of the person they sought to constrain.
Yup, producing something locally so that you fail to buy across state lines subjects you to regulation under the ICC.
If you buy across state lines, you're affecting interstate commerce.
If you don't buy across state lines, you're affecting interstate commerce.
That one decision gave Congress the "authority" to regulate every activity that has a commercial analogue, no matter how far removed it is from actual commerce. It essentially said "the ICC makes the rest of the Constitution irrelevant."
Sniping is mostly about knowing the relationships between a complex set of circumstances. You could train a monkey to use a scope to paint a target with a laser. You know you're on target because you can see the laser on the target.
Knowing you're on target to sent a dumb bullet into a target a mile away is many orders of magnitude more difficult.
"Laser-guided," however, is an adjective, which implies no such thing. Also, verbs do not necessarily imply action. They can also mean a state of being, occurrence, or the relationship between two things. Note that last part, it's important.
In this case, the bullet is guided by the reflected laser light.
It's much like GPS guidance does not control a vehicle or vessel. The vehicle or vessel guides itself based on the input, but calling it something else requires an unnecessary amount of verbiage in order to accurately explain it. X-guidance is a shortcut, and is either readily understood or easily explained to those who don't understand.
Another example, perhaps closer to the mark, is the use of lighthouses to guide ships. There's an actual person steering the ship, but that person is guided by the existence of the light. The light tells them where they need to go (or not go, as is more frequently the case with lighthouses).
This is probably the best analogy to use since hard currency is becoming much less frequently used. Your "wealth" is entirely data until you actually go and have it converted into something physical (whether currency or other goods). The fact that this particular data had no mechanism for conversion to tangible property isn't really relevant; it still had some form of measurable worth, and the controller of it was deprived of its use via threats of physical violence.
This tech operates at a much lower frequency (54 - 890 MHz), while WiFi operates at either 2.4GHz or 5GHz. Ground-based broadcasting stations can transmit the previous frequencies omnidirectionally at significantly longer ranges without line-of-site between transmission sources. Long-range WiFi transmission requires directional antennas, so wide area coverage requires a much greater investment in equipment as well as direct line-of-site between transmission points.
This doesn't act any more like Wi-Fi than Bluetooth or 3G does. There are major differences are in spectrum, protocol, range, and throughput. It probably wasn't the underlying point of your post, but the post implies that all wireless names are interchangeable, because they all act exactly the same if you ignore protocol, spectrum, throughput, and range.
Most people don't ignore those differences as trivial, assuming they know the first thing about wireless communication. If they don't, it still matters because all those different protocol devices are not interoperable without some sort of L2 translation. Advertising them by the same name implies some sort of L2 compatibility, and "Super Wi-Fi" is not L2 compatible with any 802.11 device.
Looking up terms on your own can cause an understanding of them which is not the same as what they mean within the context of a specific case. That's why jurors who have a question about the definition of a term they don't understand as used in court are required to ask the judge for the appropriate definition. I don't disagree that looking for outside context could be beneficial, but it can also be incredibly damaging.
The English language can be incredibly ambiguous, and the definition one decides on after looking it up could result in a far different perception from the definition that actually applies to the case.
Slashdot Mirror
You should tell the world's military leaders to should stop training support gunners.
Yes, I understand there's a disconnect between people who are trained to use automatic weapons and those who are not. There's a disconnect between a lot of things that professionals do vs. non-professionals. However, there are still a proportion of the non-professionals who know how to conduct themselves correctly given the conditions and tools they have available.
Having the capability of automatic fire gives you options you may not otherwise have, and the people going off half-cocked are going to waste ammunition and/or get themselves killed anyway.
The point wasn't that Apple is unable to do it technically, or unable to pay for it. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together understands they can.
The point was that they haven't done so, despite being, to all appearances, more than capable of handling it from a technical and financial standpoint.
It's worked pretty well in a number of insurgent wars in the last couple decades. Also, many semi-auto weapons are relatively easy to modify to make automatic fire possible. It's rarely done only because there's little benefit in the face of the legal drawbacks. If one finds themselves on the smaller side of a lopsided war though, the legality of modifying the firearm becomes a relatively trivial consideration compared to the benefits.
That will only happen when a majority of people are able to stop conflating "criminal act" with "something I find personally disagreeable." It's much the same logic people use to justify moderating down as troll or flamebait comments they simply disagree with. A large majority are perfectly willing to censor arbitrarily based on their own narrow world-view, and so they allow their leaders and systems of justice to do so as well in many cases.
This is far enough down that it may not get any attention from anyone who actually knows, but given the explanation for a lack of pardon I feel compelled to ask:
Just what does the UK government offer pardons for, aside from perhaps pardoning someone after they have completed their sentence when it is concluded they were incarcerated for crimes they did not commit?
I'm truly interested in what cases pardons are granted in the UK.
It certainly can be.
Atheists who fervently believe no god exists are just as religious as those who fervently believe in a god.
Atheists who understand "God exists" is not falsifiable are not; they are atheists because the "God" debate is ultimately irrelevant from almost any sort of practical standpoint.
It is even worse if the law enforcement officers were native French speakers, because the text was in French and used a common idiom which would have been far less likely to be misinterpreted by a native speaker than someone speaking English as their primary language. On the other hand, if the law enforcement officers were English-speaking, the translator should probably be fired for incompetence. Knowledge of common idioms is absolutely essential when it comes to translations for any important purpose (such as law enforcement).
No, they're already repeatedly published, so it's their papers being cited. XD
To be fair, the term "narcotic" is similar in use to the term "assault weapon," in that it is frequently conflated with "opiate" in the way that the latter is conflated with "assault rifle."
A narcotic is anything which has psychoactive effects. It is not a useful term aside from compliance with regulations dealing with drugs so classified.
The FDA has national regulatory authority, just like any Federal institution. That scope originally required that something be directly involved in an interstate transaction; they had no authority to regulate behavior which did not have an interstate component.
This procedure is in no way directly an interstate transaction. It would be the same as if the Federal government claimed authority to regulate the construction of every structure in the USA simply because some of the materials used to build any structure at one point crossed state lines (or because the construction impacted interstate commerce by not buying anything from out-of-state).
Of course, the above is nothing but theory. Actual current practice is the exact opposite though, and under current precedent those who run the Federal government would certainly believe they had the authority to regulate every structure ever built (or ever to be built) within the USA.
The Judiciary is ultimately weak because they have no means to enforce their opinions. They rely exclusively on the Executive. If the Executive refuses, there is no direct recourse. I believe it was Andrew Jackson who was most famous for simply ignoring the Supreme Court's decisions. They had no way to enforce them without the consent of the person they sought to constrain.
Yup, producing something locally so that you fail to buy across state lines subjects you to regulation under the ICC.
If you buy across state lines, you're affecting interstate commerce.
If you don't buy across state lines, you're affecting interstate commerce.
That one decision gave Congress the "authority" to regulate every activity that has a commercial analogue, no matter how far removed it is from actual commerce. It essentially said "the ICC makes the rest of the Constitution irrelevant."
Yeah, I've always thought it arrogant of the tech nerds on /. who condemn anything not tech-related as "non-nerd."
"I'm not personally interested" != "this is irrelevant to nerds everywhere"
If only this would happen to all the Senators. Maybe they'll all be struck by lightning and burst into flames a few days later. One can only dream...
Ergo, everyone who has died was a terrorist.
Sniping is mostly about knowing the relationships between a complex set of circumstances. You could train a monkey to use a scope to paint a target with a laser. You know you're on target because you can see the laser on the target.
Knowing you're on target to sent a dumb bullet into a target a mile away is many orders of magnitude more difficult.
"Laser-guided," however, is an adjective, which implies no such thing. Also, verbs do not necessarily imply action. They can also mean a state of being, occurrence, or the relationship between two things. Note that last part, it's important.
In this case, the bullet is guided by the reflected laser light.
It's much like GPS guidance does not control a vehicle or vessel. The vehicle or vessel guides itself based on the input, but calling it something else requires an unnecessary amount of verbiage in order to accurately explain it. X-guidance is a shortcut, and is either readily understood or easily explained to those who don't understand.
Another example, perhaps closer to the mark, is the use of lighthouses to guide ships. There's an actual person steering the ship, but that person is guided by the existence of the light. The light tells them where they need to go (or not go, as is more frequently the case with lighthouses).
This is probably the best analogy to use since hard currency is becoming much less frequently used. Your "wealth" is entirely data until you actually go and have it converted into something physical (whether currency or other goods). The fact that this particular data had no mechanism for conversion to tangible property isn't really relevant; it still had some form of measurable worth, and the controller of it was deprived of its use via threats of physical violence.
There are lots of not-so-sane investors (anyone investing in stocks other than large portfolio funds), and Facebook's IPO is expected next week.
This tech operates at a much lower frequency (54 - 890 MHz), while WiFi operates at either 2.4GHz or 5GHz. Ground-based broadcasting stations can transmit the previous frequencies omnidirectionally at significantly longer ranges without line-of-site between transmission sources. Long-range WiFi transmission requires directional antennas, so wide area coverage requires a much greater investment in equipment as well as direct line-of-site between transmission points.
This doesn't act any more like Wi-Fi than Bluetooth or 3G does. There are major differences are in spectrum, protocol, range, and throughput. It probably wasn't the underlying point of your post, but the post implies that all wireless names are interchangeable, because they all act exactly the same if you ignore protocol, spectrum, throughput, and range.
Most people don't ignore those differences as trivial, assuming they know the first thing about wireless communication. If they don't, it still matters because all those different protocol devices are not interoperable without some sort of L2 translation. Advertising them by the same name implies some sort of L2 compatibility, and "Super Wi-Fi" is not L2 compatible with any 802.11 device.
Alright, I will now refer to all Bluetooth, cellular, and baseband radio transmissions as "wi-fi" since they're all just "marketing terms."
Yes, the major expense involved is the initial setup of a print run. After that, the cost per volume is trivial.
You are talking about people.
Logic and reason mean nothing.
Fixed that for you.
Looking up terms on your own can cause an understanding of them which is not the same as what they mean within the context of a specific case. That's why jurors who have a question about the definition of a term they don't understand as used in court are required to ask the judge for the appropriate definition. I don't disagree that looking for outside context could be beneficial, but it can also be incredibly damaging.
The English language can be incredibly ambiguous, and the definition one decides on after looking it up could result in a far different perception from the definition that actually applies to the case.