Considering how bookshops have been obliterated by Amazon in the US
Borders and Barnes and Noble were obliterated by Amazon. But any book stores that survived Borders/B&N were not affected by Amazon at all. Amazon was late to the "cheap and easy" party, they just did it better than the big chains did, and hurt them most. Any small store that had a near by big store, was better off after Amazon, and the big store closed down again.
Protectionism is protectionism, whether protecting "small" from "big" or "local" from "foreign" or "wasteful/bad" from "effective". I know a number of small shops. They haven't been killed by Amazon. The smaller book stores have gotten into service and knowledge. Selection and price is for Amazon. Casual discussion of authors while exploring, and running into other people in the shops is left for the locals.
You make it sound like once someone starts driving, there is no way to protect innocents. I don't know if you're incredibly unimaginative or a deliberate asshole. Many departments don't give chase for certain offenses. For instance, private property theft of already-insured property is not worth violence over.
So, jackass. Tell me what you want the police to do when they see a stolen car drive past? Check its insurance status, or try to pull the guy over?
Protecting private property shouldn't involve the deaths of anyone other than the criminal. Especially if it's already insured.
Again, your statements are in line with executing the criminal when they start endangering others, not "chasing" them.
If the police try to pull someone over, there's a non-zero chance they'll run, and keep running long after the police stop giving chase. So the *only* way to protect the innocents is to kill the driver if he fails to stop. So, do you want to protect the innocents? Then why do you allow the runners to run until they kill, even if they are not being chased?
So your argument is that police should shoot to kill if someone fails to yield. That's the best solution to these. The case here was someone who was not being pursued was still afraid of being caught, so they endangered others, until they crashed. "safer" is to shoot the car/driver until it stops. Is that really what you are advocating? Because it's either that, or abolishing all traffic stops.
Everyone I've seen use one uses it to remotely answer the phone, while they try to find where they last laid the phone. It's probably a better match for the tablet-sized phones people don't keep on them.
Actually, one of the essential features of our legal system is just that ability to flip-flop. I recall one murder case where the defense announced that it'd be using three arguments on behalf of the accused:
[didn't do it, self defense, insane]
I had heard that the insane defense is a plea. You must declare it before the trial started, and if you declare "not guilty" you may not change that to "not guilty, by reason of insanity". But maybe that's jurisdictional.
Either way, Aereo isn't changing a legal argument. It was found in court to be "rebroadcasting" like a cable company, so they are simply agreeing with the finding. They didn't change their definition, the broadcasters did by suing them.
The best plan for taking down the USA is to bomb the lines in 5 major airports at the same time. Denver is one of the largest lines I've ever been in. Kill dozens, injure hundreds.
After that, they'll move the scan further away from the old lines. About a week later, bomb them there, 5 more different large airports. Probably at the check-in counters.
Then, 3 more days after the last, go back to the original 5 airports, and car-bomb the line of cars stopping to drop-off/pick-up.
Air traffic would stop. For weeks at least, maybe months. The economy would collapse.
What close ties and treaties do they have with the USA? None. Oh, there's your failure. Taiwan was founded by anti-comunistic capitalists. The US backed them, but unlike the White Army, the US didn't serve them up to be killed after false promised of help, but intervened in a civil war to create a new country.
The equivalent is if the English had backed the South, and the US Civil War ended with Louisiana being the Confederacy, under the protectorate of the English. Louisiana isn't going to win an "invasion" of the USA, but it's not worth a second Revolutionary War to finish them off, so you wall them off, and mostly ignore them, while keeping the "claim" on the territory. Though the LA governemnt is formed mostly of former US Senators and Representatives from around the country, so they "claim" to be the head of the government, but can't (and don't) do anything about it.
The Ukraine is like Somalia or Yugoslavia. We don't know. We don't care. We didn't start it, and we will try to not get involved, and when we do, we'll accuse the president of treason for defending non-Americans.
They don't even claim to be a country. Taiwan and Beijing both claim to the the "true" capital of China. Beijing has a bigger army. Both claim each other as territory. It's a cease-fire in a civil war, not a separate country.
Are you suggesting we should also take out all the safety gear in planes since there's only a.000001% chance you'll need it?
Does having a life vest under my seat add to my travel time? What's the additional cost, per trip, for having it there?
I'm only asking for sanity. You are preaching the opposite.
Oh yeah, lets also take out the airbags in our car because there's only a 0.00001% chance you'll ever need them.
Statistically speaking, they are a waste of money. Though the most in-depth studies were on the first generation bags. They were a complete failure. They "saved" less than 5% of the time, and killed about 5% of the time. The money wasted on them would have saved more lives if it were spent on rural medivac helicopters. Airbags kill. Statistics and actuaries say so. Why do you want things that are a waste of resources and don't save lives?
My first job was for a guy named Marshall Marshall. So it's not only the Chinese that re-use names. That, and it's likely that the two Chen's aren't the same word, but phonetically similar.
If I proved that cats claws grow proportionally to zinc in their system (assuming otherwise healthy), up to zinc overdoses, it may be valid, presumably interesting, but I doubt that it would be picked up by a "major" paper. But if I proved that human IQ was proportional to the temperature of the blankets one slept under, that would be published many places and gain me much fame. Even if the results were faked and peers paid off.
The solution would seem to be the university publishing all the unpublished articles, peer reviewed by others in the same system. They'd be published, and if they can't pass a peer review, that should come out.
It's the government's job to prove your guilt, not your job to prove your innocence.
He wasn't accused of a crime, so the government didn't need to prove guilt. He was ordered in a divorce proceeding to provide the money he was shown to have, or prove he no longer has it. He refused to do either, so was held in contempt. He was "proven" to have committed the crime of not obeying the court. That was the only "crime" committed.
Willfully obtuse. Anyone who's passed 2nd grade civics knows it's the government's job to prove your guilt (hiding the money), not your job to prove your innocence(money was spent).
You are the one that's willfully obtuse. The government proved he had possession. He then deliberately hid it from the government, so the government can't "prove" anything past that point. That is sufficient to hold him in contempt for not providing the money known to exist, or proof it no longer exists.
He claimed he was defrauded. Then refused to file a fraud complaint against the person (or persons) who defrauded him. The inconsistent behavior and proof he had the money, but no indication of where it went after he deliberately hid it.
9/11 was "predicted". It just wasn't stopped. Also, the rules at the time allowed everything in that was allowed. There was no security breach. The rules were bad. This rule is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how bookshops have been obliterated by Amazon in the US
Borders and Barnes and Noble were obliterated by Amazon. But any book stores that survived Borders/B&N were not affected by Amazon at all. Amazon was late to the "cheap and easy" party, they just did it better than the big chains did, and hurt them most. Any small store that had a near by big store, was better off after Amazon, and the big store closed down again.
"free" means optional and not explicitly/separately paid for by the end user.
Shipping is free. Or now one cent.
Protectionism is protectionism, whether protecting "small" from "big" or "local" from "foreign" or "wasteful/bad" from "effective". I know a number of small shops. They haven't been killed by Amazon. The smaller book stores have gotten into service and knowledge. Selection and price is for Amazon. Casual discussion of authors while exploring, and running into other people in the shops is left for the locals.
But then, I haven't been book shopping in France.
You make it sound like once someone starts driving, there is no way to protect innocents. I don't know if you're incredibly unimaginative or a deliberate asshole. Many departments don't give chase for certain offenses. For instance, private property theft of already-insured property is not worth violence over.
So, jackass. Tell me what you want the police to do when they see a stolen car drive past? Check its insurance status, or try to pull the guy over?
Protecting private property shouldn't involve the deaths of anyone other than the criminal. Especially if it's already insured.
Again, your statements are in line with executing the criminal when they start endangering others, not "chasing" them.
If the police try to pull someone over, there's a non-zero chance they'll run, and keep running long after the police stop giving chase. So the *only* way to protect the innocents is to kill the driver if he fails to stop. So, do you want to protect the innocents? Then why do you allow the runners to run until they kill, even if they are not being chased?
So your argument is that police should shoot to kill if someone fails to yield. That's the best solution to these. The case here was someone who was not being pursued was still afraid of being caught, so they endangered others, until they crashed. "safer" is to shoot the car/driver until it stops. Is that really what you are advocating? Because it's either that, or abolishing all traffic stops.
Everyone I've seen use one uses it to remotely answer the phone, while they try to find where they last laid the phone. It's probably a better match for the tablet-sized phones people don't keep on them.
Giardia comes from animals, and is more dangerous than the things you "fear" that come in drinking water.
Yeah, but the .50 BMG has style.
How did they verify home address? by billing address, or statement by the subscriber?
You just turn off the tracking and put the .50 through his head.
https://www.aereo.com/
Well, their site doesn't say anything like that anymore, as it's mostly down because of the ruling.
Actually, one of the essential features of our legal system is just that ability to flip-flop. I recall one murder case where the defense announced that it'd be using three arguments on behalf of the accused:
[didn't do it, self defense, insane]
I had heard that the insane defense is a plea. You must declare it before the trial started, and if you declare "not guilty" you may not change that to "not guilty, by reason of insanity". But maybe that's jurisdictional.
Either way, Aereo isn't changing a legal argument. It was found in court to be "rebroadcasting" like a cable company, so they are simply agreeing with the finding. They didn't change their definition, the broadcasters did by suing them.
The best plan for taking down the USA is to bomb the lines in 5 major airports at the same time. Denver is one of the largest lines I've ever been in. Kill dozens, injure hundreds.
After that, they'll move the scan further away from the old lines. About a week later, bomb them there, 5 more different large airports. Probably at the check-in counters.
Then, 3 more days after the last, go back to the original 5 airports, and car-bomb the line of cars stopping to drop-off/pick-up.
Air traffic would stop. For weeks at least, maybe months. The economy would collapse.
What close ties and treaties do they have with the USA? None. Oh, there's your failure. Taiwan was founded by anti-comunistic capitalists. The US backed them, but unlike the White Army, the US didn't serve them up to be killed after false promised of help, but intervened in a civil war to create a new country.
The equivalent is if the English had backed the South, and the US Civil War ended with Louisiana being the Confederacy, under the protectorate of the English. Louisiana isn't going to win an "invasion" of the USA, but it's not worth a second Revolutionary War to finish them off, so you wall them off, and mostly ignore them, while keeping the "claim" on the territory. Though the LA governemnt is formed mostly of former US Senators and Representatives from around the country, so they "claim" to be the head of the government, but can't (and don't) do anything about it.
The Ukraine is like Somalia or Yugoslavia. We don't know. We don't care. We didn't start it, and we will try to not get involved, and when we do, we'll accuse the president of treason for defending non-Americans.
They don't even claim to be a country. Taiwan and Beijing both claim to the the "true" capital of China. Beijing has a bigger army. Both claim each other as territory. It's a cease-fire in a civil war, not a separate country.
Are you suggesting we should also take out all the safety gear in planes since there's only a .000001% chance you'll need it?
Does having a life vest under my seat add to my travel time? What's the additional cost, per trip, for having it there?
I'm only asking for sanity. You are preaching the opposite.
Oh yeah, lets also take out the airbags in our car because there's only a 0.00001% chance you'll ever need them.
Statistically speaking, they are a waste of money. Though the most in-depth studies were on the first generation bags. They were a complete failure. They "saved" less than 5% of the time, and killed about 5% of the time. The money wasted on them would have saved more lives if it were spent on rural medivac helicopters. Airbags kill. Statistics and actuaries say so. Why do you want things that are a waste of resources and don't save lives?
My first job was for a guy named Marshall Marshall. So it's not only the Chinese that re-use names. That, and it's likely that the two Chen's aren't the same word, but phonetically similar.
China won't even let MS push out the Taiwanese IME unless you have a specially-flagged build of Windows (which I've never been able to find).
What's the difference between the Taiwanese IME and the Chinese one (assuming you can select Traditional)?
And Taiwan is "protected" by the US, so they'll likely do better than Tibet did.
If I proved that cats claws grow proportionally to zinc in their system (assuming otherwise healthy), up to zinc overdoses, it may be valid, presumably interesting, but I doubt that it would be picked up by a "major" paper. But if I proved that human IQ was proportional to the temperature of the blankets one slept under, that would be published many places and gain me much fame. Even if the results were faked and peers paid off.
The solution would seem to be the university publishing all the unpublished articles, peer reviewed by others in the same system. They'd be published, and if they can't pass a peer review, that should come out.
It's the government's job to prove your guilt, not your job to prove your innocence.
He wasn't accused of a crime, so the government didn't need to prove guilt. He was ordered in a divorce proceeding to provide the money he was shown to have, or prove he no longer has it. He refused to do either, so was held in contempt. He was "proven" to have committed the crime of not obeying the court. That was the only "crime" committed.
Willfully obtuse. Anyone who's passed 2nd grade civics knows it's the government's job to prove your guilt (hiding the money), not your job to prove your innocence(money was spent).
You are the one that's willfully obtuse. The government proved he had possession. He then deliberately hid it from the government, so the government can't "prove" anything past that point. That is sufficient to hold him in contempt for not providing the money known to exist, or proof it no longer exists.
He claimed he was defrauded. Then refused to file a fraud complaint against the person (or persons) who defrauded him. The inconsistent behavior and proof he had the money, but no indication of where it went after he deliberately hid it.
Is 2% more time on you travel worth more than your life?
Yes. When "my life" is a 0.00000001% chance of a terrorist attack.
9/11 was "predicted". It just wasn't stopped. Also, the rules at the time allowed everything in that was allowed. There was no security breach. The rules were bad. This rule is bad.
Yes, they were demanding that he prove a negative, which is of course impossible to do.
So receipts are imaginary? He "spent" the money, and couldn't prove the positive that he spent the money.
If the government couldn't prove that he still had the money, the government had no business holding him.
You are asking the government to prove the negative. That he didn't spend the money.