He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
Use it to throw up satellites with a designated lifespan into very low earth orbit and maybe you can have the damn things fall back to earth rather than cluttering up our gravity well...
I wonder what portion of early spacefaring civilizations actually strand themselves on the planet by putting a mess of space junk in their planetary orbits. We're well on our way. There's even shit up there. No, literally--from the early days of the space program. Rumor in the space community is they found some of it by (messy) accident on a later mission.
Is the purpose of journalism to control the population, or to inform the population?
If it's to control the population, then these discussions are reasonable. If we share the message, how will the population react... will they be sympathetic, will they be fearful, will they be angry?
But, if the purpose of journalism is to inform the population, then, showing us things that might make us sympathetic are just as important as things that might make us angry.
I see no larger merit in journalism if it doesn't exist to provide us agency.
Journalism exists for more than one purpose, just like journalists do.
One of them is to get paid, which is why you get a lot of the fearmongering we get and why you have for centuries--newspapers want to sell copies/clicks/relevance.
Another is to control, which is why propaganda is a major part of every good military campaign today. Napoleon was a great general not because he won every battle but because he bought all the newspapers.
One is to create discussion in a community of people interested in the same things, albeit with slightly diverse views. This is why the Wall Street Journal tends Republican and the New York Times tends Democrat.
One is to inform. This is generally on the bottom of the list but is the most important function in some ways. Snowden is an example of this. Some reports into local projects and the like are examples of this. This is frequently subordinated to the services of the above priorities. And there are lots of things they don't really inform about. Sharing the video would *probably* fall on the inform side of the equation, because the truth is people don't want to watch it because they're uncomfortable with it, and hiding people from it is done to make *people* more comfortable, not to make it a less effective propaganda tool. It's a dumb propaganda tool in terms of a military campaign--the only people it helps with are the ones who it might convince to pay ransom. And the ransoms are not high enough that they will be a meaningful number for an operation of this scale; they are just something one subordinate can sell to his superior as "look what a good job I'm doing!"
Let's just put a price on that asshole's head and be done with it.
For the most part, a policeman has almost absolute authority over you out on the street. If they say you were not wearing a seat belt because you took it off after you were pulled over so that you could reach your proof of insurance, well, then you get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt while driving. I have been called in for Jury duty. That means that I will now be subject to the arbitrary whims of whom ever is in charge. Sorry, there was an accident on the expressway and I was stuck for 40 minutes on the expressway so I am 30 minutes late. What a judge may choose to do if that holds up his court for 10 minutes is arbitrary and will not really have my best interest in mind.
In other words, I agree, lower exposure is better. I would choose to avoid blockades and searches. No exposure, no arbitrary decisions.
The police order has to be lawful. Failure to obey a lawful police order is a crime, but if the order is not lawful, you don't have to obey. Keep in mind, however, the cops are doing a job where they are dealing with a lot of unreasonable people, so it is generally best to be and act polite, for some value of polite that does not include consenting to a search.
If some idiot wants to buy 20C whatever that's their business. It's only a problem if the what is in the bottle is actually something different or false claims are made about efficacy.
Homeopathic "remedies" are the very definition of false claims regarding efficacy.
Not necessarily; they are claims that are supported only by anecodtal evidence and therefore are much more likely to be false than the data coming out of medical studies.
But there are plenty of times where a homeopathic remedy cannot be patented, so there is no financial incentive to fund a real study.
If I'm a shareholder of a US corporation, I expect to have corporate earnings on their way to *me* (my pocket, from dividends). Sure it takes a while for earnings to trickle down to dividends or higher share price, but that link is there.
If earnings are systematically never coming into the US, how the heck am I (the shareholder) supposed to benefit from those foreign earnings? We're not talking about a company headquartered abroad (or owned primarily by foreigners). We're talking about *my* shares earning profits that I won't have access to unless the damn company pays taxes.
No, the arguments of "if you don't like that, don't buy the stock" doesn't work. The whole point of shares is a say, a vote, not the option of not to play.
Yes--there are much better ways of structuring the tax system, but there's a huge amount of institutional momentum behind the current system.
For example, if you used pass-through tax for corporations like you do for LLCs and partnerships. The corporations would then have to distribute money in dividends to cover their tax liability, the government would collect income taxes from the owners (the shareholders).
You can read a Superman comic or a physics book. You can watch the A-Team or the Science Guy. You can play Call of Duty or write a recursive descent parser. Technology isn't the problem, but it's also not the great equalizer. It's what you do with it that advances you or holds you back. Technology is an accelerator, an amplifier, in every direction.
But suppose you don't have the technology, no computer or television or console gaming, and all you have are books. You will almost certainly learn to read well, and that will put you ahead of a LOT of people today. The best thing you can do for your kids is take their summers and make sure that for large portions of them they don't have access to media other than books.
So kind of like OP said: Your goal is to make the field marketable to the kid.
That's not what OP said. They want the kids to obtain marketable skills. And "marketable skills" are boring, while learning the fundamentals and instilling a lifelong passion for computing into young children is easier and more effective.
Not really, they're just exciting along different axes. The trick is to find the optimal vector sum between marketable and fun.
Police who commit misconduct of any kind is are the extreme minority.
Police who commit serious misconduct are in the extreme minority (5% of cops in NYC are responsible for 80%+ of the resisting arrest citations, for example). Police who commit things that should be misconduct may be in the minority, but not by much. (Getting tickets fixed--I've even heard of this for drunk driving.)
Just the download counter for the app could be read as a social barometer of public trust.
It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.
It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.
The cop locator does two things for the ap. It lets people speed, I suppose. But the only situation where I've seen it used is really for fun, in a spot-the-cop kind of way.
That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.
(It is not productive employment--it pays something like 30-60K/yr with a high likelihood of getting caught each year, IIRC).
Right. International business will be kept out of China because it's required to conform to local laws regarding internet access.
In other news, international business will be kept out of EU because of customer protection legislation and out of US because of danger posed by gun culture and gun laws.
Said no one with a clue, ever. On any of those points. Internationally ran businesses judge their presence in the target country based on profits and risks. Thing mentioned above are categorised as "risks", and as long as profits are greater than risks, which they will be in China for foreseeable future, risks will be mitigated through things like usage of local services that aren't blocked in China, providing the necessary support to users in EU and so on.
It depends on exactly what they are blocking. If they're blocking corporate VPNs, it will just make companies even less willing to trust the security of systems in China. Hint: they're not willing to trust that security now. Any major foreign corporation that keeps source code in China now is nuts.
At the current estimated power draw, thats only (1 nanoampere) * 175 years = 0.00153401723 ampere hours. It's a long time: impressive durability, but not really amazing capacity. Laptop batteries are often ~1000 times that. I don't know the voltage here, so I can't do energy comparisons, just total amp hours.
Deep space exploration could benefit from that kind of durability. It's lasted longer than most governments...
It should pick whoever prefers the cooler temperature, because the other person can button up and then both are comfortable.
In practice it will pick the woman's, even though that makes the guy less comfortable most of the time, because of the way interpersonal dynamics play out between most couples.
Here in America, we don't even audit our damn voting machines.
Because of, you know, whatever you vote, your slavery is totally determined by your EFFing "United States Electoral College".
Unless you're in one of the few states that either has proportional representation or is a swing state. I have seriously considered moving to a swing state for that reason.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Any job where a significant percentage of people will have a compromised immune system. If you work in estate planning, for example. An illness can be life-threatening for the elderly and if you put them in that position when it was easily preventable you should be liable at least for their funeral expenses.
The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation (things are extrapolated and created to be as they should exist when we look at them) or or if something like quantum superposition applies on a macro-level (the observed matter's state is changed based on our observation of it).
The camera didn't change the universe, it changed the *known* universe--made us a little less ignorant. For millenia mankind expanded its knowledge of places by travelling to them. That has now become prohibitive for almost every place in the known universe.
The easiest stuff is done. We still need to explore the oceans and the solar system, where travel is quite inefficient but not utterly prohibitive.
We also need to develop defense against world-killers. Biological, nuclear, and simple kinetic energy.
And the big hump after that should be interstellar exploration. Multigenerational, multicentury.
We'll need to figure out relatively stable world government and economy before that happens, so give us another four to twelve centuries, I'd say.
The team they have working on this is excellent, the idea is promising, the reviews are great, and the advertising is good. Looks like a solid win. If they have good patents on it, they should be able to control a large and growing market 5-10 years out.
There's a reason there's a two-tier university system in the UK. I suspect the US is pretty similar.
It's more of a continuum in the US. A student's history suing his school is only going to help him if he was suing them when they were doing something very wrong, the admissions committee at the school he applied to believes that, and the school he's applying to is rich enough that they can risk a small lawsuit or two.
So if you sue your high school because they wouldn't let you play on a men's sports team because you were gay, for example, Harvard and Yale and a few dozen of the top schools would definitely count that as a major plus, whereas many small private schools struggling to make ends might well count it as a risk they were unwilling to take.
It will allow a judge to issue the warrant even if the FBI or police are not sure what judicial district it's happening in.
Sounds like it will also allow a judge to issue a warrant when all I am "guilty" of is telecommuting.
Yes, it *sounds* like that, if you don't remember the constitution and due process parts. This is about which judge is able to issue a search warrant, *not* about whether the police have met the requirements for a search warrant based on probable cause (or falling within a few exceptions, like border searches).
I wouldn't be surprised if people put up honeypots on Tor just to mess with 'em, and log all of the output over serial or something so that even if they get in, they can't purge the logs of their attempts.
Search warrants are still subject to constitutional requirements of reason and due process; this is a procedural rule independent of that.
It will allow a judge to issue the warrant even if the FBI or police are not sure what judicial district it's happening in. It's important to let a magistrate judge approve a warrant on that basis, because the current rule 41(b) does not provide for it except in terrorism cases. So if you have someone selling hard drugs online, for example, but the government can't tell whether they are located inside the United States or not, this provides a way for them to get a warrant to search.
Slashdot Mirror
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Use it to throw up satellites with a designated lifespan into very low earth orbit and maybe you can have the damn things fall back to earth rather than cluttering up our gravity well...
I wonder what portion of early spacefaring civilizations actually strand themselves on the planet by putting a mess of space junk in their planetary orbits. We're well on our way. There's even shit up there. No, literally--from the early days of the space program. Rumor in the space community is they found some of it by (messy) accident on a later mission.
For the general problem, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
I drove the car to my friendly ane highly reputable dealer
You have just shown you are not a representative sample.
Is the purpose of journalism to control the population, or to inform the population?
If it's to control the population, then these discussions are reasonable. If we share the message, how will the population react... will they be sympathetic, will they be fearful, will they be angry?
But, if the purpose of journalism is to inform the population, then, showing us things that might make us sympathetic are just as important as things that might make us angry.
I see no larger merit in journalism if it doesn't exist to provide us agency.
Journalism exists for more than one purpose, just like journalists do.
One of them is to get paid, which is why you get a lot of the fearmongering we get and why you have for centuries--newspapers want to sell copies/clicks/relevance.
Another is to control, which is why propaganda is a major part of every good military campaign today. Napoleon was a great general not because he won every battle but because he bought all the newspapers.
One is to create discussion in a community of people interested in the same things, albeit with slightly diverse views. This is why the Wall Street Journal tends Republican and the New York Times tends Democrat.
One is to inform. This is generally on the bottom of the list but is the most important function in some ways. Snowden is an example of this. Some reports into local projects and the like are examples of this. This is frequently subordinated to the services of the above priorities. And there are lots of things they don't really inform about. Sharing the video would *probably* fall on the inform side of the equation, because the truth is people don't want to watch it because they're uncomfortable with it, and hiding people from it is done to make *people* more comfortable, not to make it a less effective propaganda tool. It's a dumb propaganda tool in terms of a military campaign--the only people it helps with are the ones who it might convince to pay ransom. And the ransoms are not high enough that they will be a meaningful number for an operation of this scale; they are just something one subordinate can sell to his superior as "look what a good job I'm doing!"
Let's just put a price on that asshole's head and be done with it.
For the most part, a policeman has almost absolute authority over you out on the street. If they say you were not wearing a seat belt because you took it off after you were pulled over so that you could reach your proof of insurance, well, then you get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt while driving. I have been called in for Jury duty. That means that I will now be subject to the arbitrary whims of whom ever is in charge. Sorry, there was an accident on the expressway and I was stuck for 40 minutes on the expressway so I am 30 minutes late. What a judge may choose to do if that holds up his court for 10 minutes is arbitrary and will not really have my best interest in mind.
In other words, I agree, lower exposure is better. I would choose to avoid blockades and searches. No exposure, no arbitrary decisions.
The police order has to be lawful. Failure to obey a lawful police order is a crime, but if the order is not lawful, you don't have to obey. Keep in mind, however, the cops are doing a job where they are dealing with a lot of unreasonable people, so it is generally best to be and act polite, for some value of polite that does not include consenting to a search.
Er, aisle.
It sounds suspiciously Welsh.
If some idiot wants to buy 20C whatever that's their business. It's only a problem if the what is in the bottle is actually something different or false claims are made about efficacy.
Homeopathic "remedies" are the very definition of false claims regarding efficacy.
Not necessarily; they are claims that are supported only by anecodtal evidence and therefore are much more likely to be false than the data coming out of medical studies.
But there are plenty of times where a homeopathic remedy cannot be patented, so there is no financial incentive to fund a real study.
If I'm a shareholder of a US corporation, I expect to have corporate earnings on their way to *me* (my pocket, from dividends). Sure it takes a while for earnings to trickle down to dividends or higher share price, but that link is there.
If earnings are systematically never coming into the US, how the heck am I (the shareholder) supposed to benefit from those foreign earnings? We're not talking about a company headquartered abroad (or owned primarily by foreigners). We're talking about *my* shares earning profits that I won't have access to unless the damn company pays taxes.
No, the arguments of "if you don't like that, don't buy the stock" doesn't work. The whole point of shares is a say, a vote, not the option of not to play.
Yes--there are much better ways of structuring the tax system, but there's a huge amount of institutional momentum behind the current system.
For example, if you used pass-through tax for corporations like you do for LLCs and partnerships. The corporations would then have to distribute money in dividends to cover their tax liability, the government would collect income taxes from the owners (the shareholders).
You can read a Superman comic or a physics book. You can watch the A-Team or the Science Guy. You can play Call of Duty or write a recursive descent parser. Technology isn't the problem, but it's also not the great equalizer. It's what you do with it that advances you or holds you back. Technology is an accelerator, an amplifier, in every direction.
But suppose you don't have the technology, no computer or television or console gaming, and all you have are books. You will almost certainly learn to read well, and that will put you ahead of a LOT of people today. The best thing you can do for your kids is take their summers and make sure that for large portions of them they don't have access to media other than books.
So kind of like OP said: Your goal is to make the field marketable to the kid.
That's not what OP said. They want the kids to obtain marketable skills. And "marketable skills" are boring, while learning the fundamentals and instilling a lifelong passion for computing into young children is easier and more effective.
Not really, they're just exciting along different axes. The trick is to find the optimal vector sum between marketable and fun.
Police who commit misconduct of any kind is are the extreme minority.
Police who commit serious misconduct are in the extreme minority (5% of cops in NYC are responsible for 80%+ of the resisting arrest citations, for example). Police who commit things that should be misconduct may be in the minority, but not by much. (Getting tickets fixed--I've even heard of this for drunk driving.)
Just the download counter for the app could be read as a social barometer of public trust.
It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.
It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.
The cop locator does two things for the ap. It lets people speed, I suppose. But the only situation where I've seen it used is really for fun, in a spot-the-cop kind of way.
That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.
(It is not productive employment--it pays something like 30-60K/yr with a high likelihood of getting caught each year, IIRC).
Right. International business will be kept out of China because it's required to conform to local laws regarding internet access.
In other news, international business will be kept out of EU because of customer protection legislation and out of US because of danger posed by gun culture and gun laws.
Said no one with a clue, ever. On any of those points. Internationally ran businesses judge their presence in the target country based on profits and risks. Thing mentioned above are categorised as "risks", and as long as profits are greater than risks, which they will be in China for foreseeable future, risks will be mitigated through things like usage of local services that aren't blocked in China, providing the necessary support to users in EU and so on.
It depends on exactly what they are blocking. If they're blocking corporate VPNs, it will just make companies even less willing to trust the security of systems in China. Hint: they're not willing to trust that security now. Any major foreign corporation that keeps source code in China now is nuts.
At the current estimated power draw, thats only (1 nanoampere) * 175 years = 0.00153401723 ampere hours. It's a long time: impressive durability, but not really amazing capacity. Laptop batteries are often ~1000 times that. I don't know the voltage here, so I can't do energy comparisons, just total amp hours.
Deep space exploration could benefit from that kind of durability. It's lasted longer than most governments...
It should pick whoever prefers the cooler temperature, because the other person can button up and then both are comfortable.
In practice it will pick the woman's, even though that makes the guy less comfortable most of the time, because of the way interpersonal dynamics play out between most couples.
Here in America, we don't even audit our damn voting machines.
Because of, you know, whatever you vote, your slavery is totally determined by your EFFing "United States Electoral College".
Unless you're in one of the few states that either has proportional representation or is a swing state. I have seriously considered moving to a swing state for that reason.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Any job where a significant percentage of people will have a compromised immune system. If you work in estate planning, for example. An illness can be life-threatening for the elderly and if you put them in that position when it was easily preventable you should be liable at least for their funeral expenses.
> The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation
Pendantic much?
News for Nerds. Nerds like editing stuff.
I read it. It's pretty, exploratory, well worth a read.
The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation (things are extrapolated and created to be as they should exist when we look at them) or or if something like quantum superposition applies on a macro-level (the observed matter's state is changed based on our observation of it).
The camera didn't change the universe, it changed the *known* universe--made us a little less ignorant. For millenia mankind expanded its knowledge of places by travelling to them. That has now become prohibitive for almost every place in the known universe.
The easiest stuff is done. We still need to explore the oceans and the solar system, where travel is quite inefficient but not utterly prohibitive.
We also need to develop defense against world-killers. Biological, nuclear, and simple kinetic energy.
And the big hump after that should be interstellar exploration. Multigenerational, multicentury.
We'll need to figure out relatively stable world government and economy before that happens, so give us another four to twelve centuries, I'd say.
The team they have working on this is excellent, the idea is promising, the reviews are great, and the advertising is good. Looks like a solid win. If they have good patents on it, they should be able to control a large and growing market 5-10 years out.
Only the good ones.
There's a reason there's a two-tier university system in the UK. I suspect the US is pretty similar.
It's more of a continuum in the US. A student's history suing his school is only going to help him if he was suing them when they were doing something very wrong, the admissions committee at the school he applied to believes that, and the school he's applying to is rich enough that they can risk a small lawsuit or two.
So if you sue your high school because they wouldn't let you play on a men's sports team because you were gay, for example, Harvard and Yale and a few dozen of the top schools would definitely count that as a major plus, whereas many small private schools struggling to make ends might well count it as a risk they were unwilling to take.
It will allow a judge to issue the warrant even if the FBI or police are not sure what judicial district it's happening in.
Sounds like it will also allow a judge to issue a warrant when all I am "guilty" of is telecommuting.
Yes, it *sounds* like that, if you don't remember the constitution and due process parts. This is about which judge is able to issue a search warrant, *not* about whether the police have met the requirements for a search warrant based on probable cause (or falling within a few exceptions, like border searches).
One of the images they've recovered literally says "HEY".
No, really.
I wouldn't be surprised if people put up honeypots on Tor just to mess with 'em, and log all of the output over serial or something so that even if they get in, they can't purge the logs of their attempts.
Search warrants are still subject to constitutional requirements of reason and due process; this is a procedural rule independent of that.
It will allow a judge to issue the warrant even if the FBI or police are not sure what judicial district it's happening in. It's important to let a magistrate judge approve a warrant on that basis, because the current rule 41(b) does not provide for it except in terrorism cases. So if you have someone selling hard drugs online, for example, but the government can't tell whether they are located inside the United States or not, this provides a way for them to get a warrant to search.
See the proposed rule (from last November) on page 111 of http://www.uscourts.gov/uscour...
The old one is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul...