It is quite possible no charges against the cop where placed because there was no evidence that the cop had anything to do with anything (except living next door to these people).
In the second article, you'll see that Craigslist notified her that the posting was placed with an account belonging to her cop neighbor. That's fairly damning evidence.
Don't neglect to note that this all happened in Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas- not Arlington, VA.
Blame the editor for that one - the original headline specified Texas. It also made it more clear that the listing was for free, not a sale - a sale would, according to TFA, be illegal.
Mr. Einstein would like to have a word with you about dodging out of the way of the oncoming laser...
Dodging? No. But try an experiment for me: Turn on the stovetop to full blast. Now touch it and jerk your hand away. Maybe you got burned lightly, right? Now press your hand there and hold it for a minute. Yowch.
Lasers, see, they carry energy, but only transmit a certain amount over time. The idea of moving around would not be to avoid the laser, but to avoid accumulating heat.
A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.
Any laser that can melt mirrors very quickly would self-destruct even faster unless its own mirrors were constantly changed. Well, I s'pose you'd only have to change the surface rather than the entire mirror. Either operation would be tricky to do precisely in field conditions. Also remember, the atmosphere itself is gonna tend to scatter that beam, so if you want to melt mirrors from a distance, your own are gonna have to get considerably hotter.
A decent reflective surface seems like it would be good enough to protect a building from this, although if the planes can also drop, say, rocks, that takes care of that. On a person, running around with a mirror would not do wonders for concealment. Personally, if I thought I was gonna be on the wrong end of a hurtin' laser, I'd light a smoky fire, kick up lots of dust, and/or wear thick layers of heat-resistant material like Kevlar while moving around a lot.
Yes it does. epi dhlhsei de kai adikihi eirxein: "abstain from doing harm".
Yes; I acknowledged my error about an hour ahead of your post. I was using a different translation.
Some still do. Most medical schools administer some form of oath, and many use the Hippocratic version.
In 1993, at least in Canada and the US, one medical school administered the original Oath. Sixty-eight used oaths based at least loosely on the original, but with various provisions. For example, only 14% of the oaths given in '93 included prohibition against euthanasia. Check out "The Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A Review of 20th Century Practice and a Content Analysis of Oaths Administered in Medical Schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993." by Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D., in The Journal of Clinical Ethics 8. Today, no school in North America administers the original Oath; the Declaration of Geneva is the most common substitute.
For like 25 centuries doctors have been swearing the Hippocratic oath, which explicitly states "do no harm."
First off, the Hippocratic Oath does not say "do no harm". It does say that doctors should not do assisted suicides, perform abortions, or perform surgery. Luckily, doctors don't take it any more and haven't in my lifetime. I'm not sure why people think they do. Some take substitute oaths, like the Declaration of Geneva;* others take no oath.
immediately jumping into legalizing euthanasia would be inappropriate and dangerous
"Immediately"? That's a topic that's been up for debate throughout all of recorded history. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath mentions it. Generally, it's been shot down by religious leaders in western cultures because suicide is a sin. It'd be awful nice if we could get past the argument that an invisible fairy will get mad at you and address it as two questions: Does a person own his or her own life, and if so, under what criteria is suicide appropriate? For example, I could see not allowing someone suicide due to schizophrenia because it interferes with rational decision-making. I could also see it a no-no for the parent of a minor child, under the assumption that his or her duty to the child supercedes any rights to opt outta life. But just screaming that it's wrong isn't gonna last in today's secular political climate.
* Which also does not say "do no harm", but does say "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life". On the flip side, the doctor also promises to never violate human rights - some would argue that the right to die at a place and time of one's own choosing is a human right.
Far too many people would probably have attempted to skate out of doing their duty in a time of war by claiming unsuitability for service. The fact that you took your oath means something.
Huh. I guess I just wasn't aware of the review. Thanks t'you in turn for serving; in fairness, the only "war" during my time was retconned from a police-type action: Bosnia. I lost a buddy from AIT over there, but didn't personally see an enemy from my cushy stateside post at Fitzsimons.
"They also serve who only stand and wait", I know, but my hat's off t'those who stand in front of bullets* instead.
*Yeah, or torpedoes, or shells, or what-have-you. Me, I stood in front of an oscilloscope, which isn't quite the same.
Here's the hitch: Service personnel are screened rather thoroughly for any potentially disqualifying medically significant incidents prior to being enlisted/commissioned. Almost any prior head trauma for which medical attention was sought would be a disqualifying factor, unless medical review showed (with a very high degree of certainty) no lasting impairment.
Not true. I joined the Army a few years after a head wound requiring hospitalization and there was no special review of it. I even qualified for a security clearance.
they may only be detecting those individuals who smoke vs those who dont.
About a quarter of Israelis smoke overall. About 11% of those - with a strong correlation toward heavy smokers - will eventually get cancer. About ten percent of those will continue to smoke. If that were the case, given 40 diagnosed patients and 56 healthy ones, their results would be statistically identical between groups. The results were not. Therefore, I'm guessing that your guess is simply some unreasoning dislike for tobacco users rather than a reasoned critique of the methodology. In fact, assuming the data aren't fudged, it's statistically much more likely that you, a nonsmoker (I assume), will get lung cancer than that their technique only identifies smokers.
That article is pure speculation. And it definitely doesn't exist in the wild at the moment.
I'd be more impressed if we weren't fighting over net neutrality right now. The internet is not sufficiently inherently peer to peer.
If you'll allow an analogy, the Library at Alexandria, if it existed at all, was no less impressive for having been burned.
In which we take dirty water from a river, clean it, shit in it, half-clean it, and put it back in the river for the next city to clean and drink and shit in and put back in the river?
Uh, no. Or at least, not entirely. Sanitation as in washing our hands before performing surgery, using septic tanks and sewers instead of dumping waste on the streets, animal control, food safety regulations, and so forth. The development of sanitation is one of the greatest achievements of medicine, surpassing antibiotics or anesthesia in terms of increased life expectancy.
What? We don't even need this. Just stop preserving so many throwbacks and the genetics will improve on their own. Allowing throwbacks to breed is a massive failure of our society.
Yeah, animals like Stephen Hawking shouldn't've been allowed to breed.
I think the crowning achievement of humanity to date has been the fact that we're not extinct.
That analogy would be applicable if Dell was buying Word at retail.
In manufacturing, buying "off-the-shelf" parts doesn't mean purchasing them at retail. It means buying parts that are not fabricated specifically for your product. It would be foolish to buy production parts at retail prices except when building a prototype.
Spaceflight continues to be the crowning achievement of humanity
I agreed with everything you said up to this point. What about the elimination of smallpox? The Internet? Sanitation? Prenatal genetic testing? I won't argue that space flight has been a terrific triumph of engineering, but I'd hesitate to say it's the most important and impressive thing humans've ever done. Say it again when we have a permanent settlement on another planet and maybe I'll change my mind, but for now I'd rank it not quite at the top. Certainly very, very high on the list, tho'.
I've met a number of Indian 'tech' people, programmers and tech support included, and I've come to the conclusion that India doesn't actually suck at tech. In fact, they are quite good at it. The bad rep comes from the fact that they are pushing so much of their populace into tech-related fields that they've been forced to draft in people who aren't actually good at it.
I've met a number of 'tech' people, programmers and tech support included, and I've come to the conclusion that people don't actually suck at tech. In fact, some are quite good at it. The bad rep comes from the fact that society is pushing so much of the populace into tech-related fields that they've been forced to draft in people who aren't actually good at it.
(And we can start calling assertion contrary to evidence when people say Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, since it sounds like Dell is just a subsidiary of Microsoft.)
While Dell's claim is a bit ridiculous, I don't think that assertion follows. If I buy off-the-shelf Ace brand widgets to manufacture my Whatzidoodles, that doesn't make me a subsidiary of Ace.
Most grammarians would hold that your first comma belongs inside the quote.
I first encountered that style of punctuation a fair few years back in the jargon file, which calls it "logical quotation". It made immediate sense to me. I've since tried to encourage it by using it wherever possible, especially professionally.
As another poster noted, it's become the norm in England. I seem to recall that Oxford was the first major university to use it. It's becoming more and more common in America, especially in technical writing. I think it will eventually become the standard on this side of the pond.
It would make some sense to match case with the quote, but... well, it looks funny and nobody else does it. If it comes to that, it would make some sense to abolish the rule about starting sentences with a cap entirely, since that would allow one to distinguish when a sentence ambiguously starts with a proper noun. But, y'know, baby steps and all like that.
The words "health insurance" suffices; universal health insurance is what Canadian and European residents get from their government.
No, it makes sense. Many companies offer health insurance to salaried professionals, but not to hourly employees. Others have different plans available for workers at different levels. In the context of a business, "universal" excludes those cases.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. I seem to remember a so called "constitution free zone" of 100 miles out from the border. Maybe the modification was for lack of capitalization and punctuation?
Prolly 'cause it was wrong. The border has no thickness. The International Boundary Commission surveys and maintains the American-Canadian border, keeping it clear (on land) for 3 meters on a side. They refer to the cleared portion as the vista, separate from the border. The Customs and Border folks don't address the thickness at any point.
You're thinking of a claim by the ACLU some time ago that DHS considered 100 miles from the border to be a constitution-free zone. However, this was just rhetoric in reaction to DHS' behavior near the border; it had nothing to do with any law or legitimate policy. Whether there's a wink-and-nod policy is another matter, but there's no legal reason why you'd have weaker rights near the border (except when actually crossing it).
If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.
Er. If the ACLU wins, they get a bunch of documents. The only warrant involved will be if the judge orders Customs to turn over their records.
The vast majority of people played WarCraft 3 online?. WTF do you know, Pardo?. Have you been sniffing EVERY LAN in the world, perhaps?.
Well, one assumes he knows how many copies were sold, how many Battle.net accounts were set up with those copies, and how much time they spent playing online. It should be pretty trivial for a Blizzard veep to find out whether or not most folks played it on Battle.net. What they can't know is how many also played offline.
Slashdot Mirror
It is quite possible no charges against the cop where placed because there was no evidence that the cop had anything to do with anything (except living next door to these people).
In the second article, you'll see that Craigslist notified her that the posting was placed with an account belonging to her cop neighbor. That's fairly damning evidence.
Don't neglect to note that this all happened in Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas- not Arlington, VA.
Blame the editor for that one - the original headline specified Texas. It also made it more clear that the listing was for free, not a sale - a sale would, according to TFA, be illegal.
Heh, thanks. I expected t'get knocked down, but I thought it'd be better than the typical "whoops, mismod" post.
I second-guess the posts and mod them down then change it later,
I know CmdrTaco and I can cite a Wiki article.
From Idle to Your Rights Online in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with trolls who post bile,
I understand metamodding, although it's been a while,
About submitting stuff I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
Then I'll go and mod the comments after drinking lots o' booze.
I'm very good at flagging useful posts as overrated,
Then I laugh at follow ups by posters who'd've better waited,
In short, in matters insightful, informative, and funny,
I misclick "troll" and then I feel like a dummy.
Mr. Einstein would like to have a word with you about dodging out of the way of the oncoming laser...
Dodging? No. But try an experiment for me: Turn on the stovetop to full blast. Now touch it and jerk your hand away. Maybe you got burned lightly, right? Now press your hand there and hold it for a minute. Yowch.
Lasers, see, they carry energy, but only transmit a certain amount over time. The idea of moving around would not be to avoid the laser, but to avoid accumulating heat.
A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.
Any laser that can melt mirrors very quickly would self-destruct even faster unless its own mirrors were constantly changed. Well, I s'pose you'd only have to change the surface rather than the entire mirror. Either operation would be tricky to do precisely in field conditions. Also remember, the atmosphere itself is gonna tend to scatter that beam, so if you want to melt mirrors from a distance, your own are gonna have to get considerably hotter.
A decent reflective surface seems like it would be good enough to protect a building from this, although if the planes can also drop, say, rocks, that takes care of that. On a person, running around with a mirror would not do wonders for concealment. Personally, if I thought I was gonna be on the wrong end of a hurtin' laser, I'd light a smoky fire, kick up lots of dust, and/or wear thick layers of heat-resistant material like Kevlar while moving around a lot.
Let me ask: what are the milestones that will matter 10, 30 years from now?
Amazingly, you missed the invention of DNS and the World Wide Web, arguably the two most popularizing developments.
Yes it does. epi dhlhsei de kai adikihi eirxein: "abstain from doing harm".
Yes; I acknowledged my error about an hour ahead of your post. I was using a different translation.
Some still do. Most medical schools administer some form of oath, and many use the Hippocratic version.
In 1993, at least in Canada and the US, one medical school administered the original Oath. Sixty-eight used oaths based at least loosely on the original, but with various provisions. For example, only 14% of the oaths given in '93 included prohibition against euthanasia. Check out "The Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A Review of 20th Century Practice and a Content Analysis of Oaths Administered in Medical Schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993." by Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D., in The Journal of Clinical Ethics 8. Today, no school in North America administers the original Oath; the Declaration of Geneva is the most common substitute.
The hippocratic oath includes "to abstain from doing harm"
Whoopsie - you're right, depending on translation:
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I was looking at:
I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
Sorry about that. Still, it's academic, since doctors don't take it.
For like 25 centuries doctors have been swearing the Hippocratic oath, which explicitly states "do no harm."
First off, the Hippocratic Oath does not say "do no harm". It does say that doctors should not do assisted suicides, perform abortions, or perform surgery. Luckily, doctors don't take it any more and haven't in my lifetime. I'm not sure why people think they do. Some take substitute oaths, like the Declaration of Geneva;* others take no oath.
immediately jumping into legalizing euthanasia would be inappropriate and dangerous
"Immediately"? That's a topic that's been up for debate throughout all of recorded history. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath mentions it. Generally, it's been shot down by religious leaders in western cultures because suicide is a sin. It'd be awful nice if we could get past the argument that an invisible fairy will get mad at you and address it as two questions: Does a person own his or her own life, and if so, under what criteria is suicide appropriate? For example, I could see not allowing someone suicide due to schizophrenia because it interferes with rational decision-making. I could also see it a no-no for the parent of a minor child, under the assumption that his or her duty to the child supercedes any rights to opt outta life. But just screaming that it's wrong isn't gonna last in today's secular political climate.
* Which also does not say "do no harm", but does say "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life". On the flip side, the doctor also promises to never violate human rights - some would argue that the right to die at a place and time of one's own choosing is a human right.
Far too many people would probably have attempted to skate out of doing their duty in a time of war by claiming unsuitability for service. The fact that you took your oath means something.
Huh. I guess I just wasn't aware of the review. Thanks t'you in turn for serving; in fairness, the only "war" during my time was retconned from a police-type action: Bosnia. I lost a buddy from AIT over there, but didn't personally see an enemy from my cushy stateside post at Fitzsimons.
"They also serve who only stand and wait", I know, but my hat's off t'those who stand in front of bullets* instead.
*Yeah, or torpedoes, or shells, or what-have-you. Me, I stood in front of an oscilloscope, which isn't quite the same.
Here's the hitch: Service personnel are screened rather thoroughly for any potentially disqualifying medically significant incidents prior to being enlisted/commissioned. Almost any prior head trauma for which medical attention was sought would be a disqualifying factor, unless medical review showed (with a very high degree of certainty) no lasting impairment.
Not true. I joined the Army a few years after a head wound requiring hospitalization and there was no special review of it. I even qualified for a security clearance.
Still plenty of blame to go around...
I'm pretty sure that's your fault.
they may only be detecting those individuals who smoke vs those who dont.
About a quarter of Israelis smoke overall. About 11% of those - with a strong correlation toward heavy smokers - will eventually get cancer. About ten percent of those will continue to smoke. If that were the case, given 40 diagnosed patients and 56 healthy ones, their results would be statistically identical between groups. The results were not. Therefore, I'm guessing that your guess is simply some unreasoning dislike for tobacco users rather than a reasoned critique of the methodology. In fact, assuming the data aren't fudged, it's statistically much more likely that you, a nonsmoker (I assume), will get lung cancer than that their technique only identifies smokers.
What about it?
That article is pure speculation. And it definitely doesn't exist in the wild at the moment.
I'd be more impressed if we weren't fighting over net neutrality right now. The internet is not sufficiently inherently peer to peer.
If you'll allow an analogy, the Library at Alexandria, if it existed at all, was no less impressive for having been burned.
In which we take dirty water from a river, clean it, shit in it, half-clean it, and put it back in the river for the next city to clean and drink and shit in and put back in the river?
Uh, no. Or at least, not entirely. Sanitation as in washing our hands before performing surgery, using septic tanks and sewers instead of dumping waste on the streets, animal control, food safety regulations, and so forth. The development of sanitation is one of the greatest achievements of medicine, surpassing antibiotics or anesthesia in terms of increased life expectancy.
What? We don't even need this. Just stop preserving so many throwbacks and the genetics will improve on their own. Allowing throwbacks to breed is a massive failure of our society.
Yeah, animals like Stephen Hawking shouldn't've been allowed to breed.
I think the crowning achievement of humanity to date has been the fact that we're not extinct.
That's... a good point.
That analogy would be applicable if Dell was buying Word at retail.
In manufacturing, buying "off-the-shelf" parts doesn't mean purchasing them at retail. It means buying parts that are not fabricated specifically for your product. It would be foolish to buy production parts at retail prices except when building a prototype.
Spaceflight continues to be the crowning achievement of humanity
I agreed with everything you said up to this point. What about the elimination of smallpox? The Internet? Sanitation? Prenatal genetic testing? I won't argue that space flight has been a terrific triumph of engineering, but I'd hesitate to say it's the most important and impressive thing humans've ever done. Say it again when we have a permanent settlement on another planet and maybe I'll change my mind, but for now I'd rank it not quite at the top. Certainly very, very high on the list, tho'.
I've met a number of Indian 'tech' people, programmers and tech support included, and I've come to the conclusion that India doesn't actually suck at tech. In fact, they are quite good at it. The bad rep comes from the fact that they are pushing so much of their populace into tech-related fields that they've been forced to draft in people who aren't actually good at it.
I've met a number of 'tech' people, programmers and tech support included, and I've come to the conclusion that people don't actually suck at tech. In fact, some are quite good at it. The bad rep comes from the fact that society is pushing so much of the populace into tech-related fields that they've been forced to draft in people who aren't actually good at it.
(And we can start calling assertion contrary to evidence when people say Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, since it sounds like Dell is just a subsidiary of Microsoft.)
While Dell's claim is a bit ridiculous, I don't think that assertion follows. If I buy off-the-shelf Ace brand widgets to manufacture my Whatzidoodles, that doesn't make me a subsidiary of Ace.
Most grammarians would hold that your first comma belongs inside the quote.
I first encountered that style of punctuation a fair few years back in the jargon file, which calls it "logical quotation". It made immediate sense to me. I've since tried to encourage it by using it wherever possible, especially professionally.
As another poster noted, it's become the norm in England. I seem to recall that Oxford was the first major university to use it. It's becoming more and more common in America, especially in technical writing. I think it will eventually become the standard on this side of the pond.
It would make some sense to match case with the quote, but... well, it looks funny and nobody else does it. If it comes to that, it would make some sense to abolish the rule about starting sentences with a cap entirely, since that would allow one to distinguish when a sentence ambiguously starts with a proper noun. But, y'know, baby steps and all like that.
The error is in number agreement. The phrase peers that doesn't should read peers that don't
"Communication that doesn't", however, is perfectly fine. "With peers" is a prepositional-type phrase.
The words "health insurance" suffices; universal health insurance is what Canadian and European residents get from their government.
No, it makes sense. Many companies offer health insurance to salaried professionals, but not to hourly employees. Others have different plans available for workers at different levels. In the context of a business, "universal" excludes those cases.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. I seem to remember a so called "constitution free zone" of 100 miles out from the border. Maybe the modification was for lack of capitalization and punctuation?
Prolly 'cause it was wrong. The border has no thickness. The International Boundary Commission surveys and maintains the American-Canadian border, keeping it clear (on land) for 3 meters on a side. They refer to the cleared portion as the vista, separate from the border. The Customs and Border folks don't address the thickness at any point.
You're thinking of a claim by the ACLU some time ago that DHS considered 100 miles from the border to be a constitution-free zone. However, this was just rhetoric in reaction to DHS' behavior near the border; it had nothing to do with any law or legitimate policy. Whether there's a wink-and-nod policy is another matter, but there's no legal reason why you'd have weaker rights near the border (except when actually crossing it).
If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.
Er. If the ACLU wins, they get a bunch of documents. The only warrant involved will be if the judge orders Customs to turn over their records.
The vast majority of people played WarCraft 3 online?. WTF do you know, Pardo?. Have you been sniffing EVERY LAN in the world, perhaps?.
Well, one assumes he knows how many copies were sold, how many Battle.net accounts were set up with those copies, and how much time they spent playing online. It should be pretty trivial for a Blizzard veep to find out whether or not most folks played it on Battle.net. What they can't know is how many also played offline.