The wind is always blowing somewhere. We need a world grid. We already have Europe/Asia/Africa power grids. A grid that connects the world, probably along the lines of a Risk board, would let us move power from day to night, and from wind to still. There's more than enough power, we just have a storage or distribution problem to solve, and given the state of storage and the state of transportation, I think we'd be better off with world-wide distribution.
I have 2560x1600 on my desktop. Though it took me 30" to get that. If they can get 1080p (2k) in a 5.5", the 19" should be at 8k (or close to it), not less than the 5.5".
So ordering Netflix is "unauthorized", and using your connection you paid for to access services is an "effort" to deny access? Netflix doesn't attempt to deny anything, and exerts no effort to do so, and the data from it is "authorized", in that it's as intended as any other data. Unless the data is 100% Netflix, then you could just as easily assert the HTTP is the cyberthreat. Arbitrarily picking a "competitor" to be the threat is absurd, and hopefully the first judge this makes it in front of will recognize such.
Cars are not subsidized especially. I don't know what you're talking about.
I agree. You don't know anything about the subsidization of cars or mass transit. Though that didn't ever stop you from posting stupid stuff before, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up now.
And regardless... I'd love to see you try and run anything without roads.
What, like the trails I've ridden bikes on? they seem to work fine. And I've driven on private roads as well. You still don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
As to liking farmers and being a conservative... I really find it amusing that people tip their hands so easily. Here you're basically admitting to being a thoughtless political hack that distills all discussions down to some preprocessed political talking point incapable of actually thinking for yourself or processing things individually.
I admitted that I recognize hypocricy in others. I note you didn't complain about the facts, just an ad hominem because you are, once again 100% wrong, without a clue as to the topic of conversation.
That's really too bad... I wish you were human
Liar. You don't want to "discuss", you just insult everyone else because whenver someone else speaks, it shows you to be stupid.
Cars are massively subsidized. From the fuel to the roads. Fuel taxes pay roughly 0% of interstate roads built cost.
Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes.
And cars are subsidized. You need to even out the subsidizations, and nobody is pushing for making road vehicles pay their actual share.
ZERO subsidization. Then you could charge a market price for those tickets.
Start with killing subsidies for cars. Oh, that's right, you are like the farmers. They vote conservative because they are against welfare, while collecting government money.
Right. You should always have your prescriptions in a bottle.
I explained to my father once that his "weekly pill containers" with 15 separate containers (connected) for pills is illegal. "If it's illegal, how can they advertise them?" I don't know, but putting prescriptions in them breaks the law. The funny thing is, they advertise them for travel and such, where they are most likely to be discovered.
you have a lawyer that's also into that sort of thing and would love to sue the department
I made a grown man cry. He mentioned he discussed the issue with his lawyer. I asked him whether he'd like the lawsuit directed to his company address, or his lawyers. "By the way, what's your lawyer's name?"
I'm sure cops know that nearly everyone who mentions "my lawyer said I should..." really got his advice from an idiot on YouTube. So I don't think it'll convey what you think it will convey.
Threats of violence (jail rape) designed to force a confession is torture. Plea bargains fit most definitions of torture. You don't need actual harm, just threats.
Even worse, the law is protected by copyright, so the law isn't knowable. It's the law that the electrical work must be up to NECA standards, but you have to buy the copyrighted laws from a private company to be able to know the law.
Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent.
No, it never required "intent" in the manner people use the word. You don't need to have the "intent" to commit the crime. Remenber, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" exists, so you don't even have to know whatever it is is illegal.
You must have intended to have done the action that resulted in a crime. Even if you didn't intend malice, and had no idea it would result in a crime or any harm at all, it's still legally "intent". Even if a reasonable person would have presumed no harm would come, the "eggshell skull" doctrine indicates that a person who performs an action is responsible for the consequences, even if they are greater than intended, or greater than anyone could have guessed.
"Intent" is the intent to perform the action that ended with a crime, not the intent to cause a crime or harm of any kind.
If you leave the door open and talk through the screen door they can force themselves in and claim they saw something through the door. If it's not real, they can claim they couldn't see well through the screen. Get them out, away from windows and doors.
I got a warning from a cop because he didn't want to let anyone else know the details of the stop.
I managed to scare him.
I was going 80 in a 70 (the speed of traffic). I saw a cop parked on a parallel road, hiding in the bushes. I figured he was going to stop me. So, as I passed him, but before he had pulled out, he was paying more attention to his driving than mine. So, I got all my information out and when I pulled over, I turned on the dome light with slow and deliberate motions.
When he came to my window, he asked for license and insurance. I had them in my right hand, not deliberately palmed, but effectively palmed. I had them in his hand within 2 seconds of him asking. I think he realized that if I were a "bad guy" he'd have been dead. Shortest stop ever, and the only one I had where the cop seemed nervous. He verified I was not wanted for anything, and my papers were in order, and gave me a warning and sent me on my way.
I was never as efficient when pulled over after that. A nervous cop is a dangerous cop.
Only if you catch them, and manage to prove it beyond all doubt to a judge that has a long professional relationship with the cops you are accusing of crimes.
Ethics is a how-to guide for cheating. Cheating is ok if you don't get caught.
Not all cops are dishonest. But enough of them are that you should more or less not trust that any given one is.
At least in the areas I've know lots of cops, they are all dishonest. The dirty ones are just evil, but the "good" ones know who the dirty ones are, and don't turn them in, making them dishonest by omission.
And any system under which someone is kept in prison without any criminal charges for 14 years is a Judge Dredd system, indicative of an abusive government.
Yup, carefully worded. He was charged, but contempt in a civil trial is usually not a criminal offense. He was charged, tried, and convicted. But with contempt, it is a Judge Dredd system, where the judge is all three branches.
It was a civil fraud. He confessed to having had money. He then refused to provide it, or evidence he didn't have it anymore.
That's exactly how it is supposed to work. Though I think in his case, the contempt charge was partially punitive, as if it happened as he did describe, he did an electronic equivalent of piling up his cash and burning it to make sure "she" didn't get it. Which is illegal some places, but not there.
Slashdot Mirror
. What do YOU do consider "critical"?
You have serious reading issues.
It doesn't run the air conditioning, but everything else works just fine.
So "everything other than A/C" is "critical".
Putting a windmill where you have land, just because you have land is stupid.
Putting a windmill where there's reliable wind is smart.
The wind is always blowing somewhere. We need a world grid. We already have Europe/Asia/Africa power grids. A grid that connects the world, probably along the lines of a Risk board, would let us move power from day to night, and from wind to still. There's more than enough power, we just have a storage or distribution problem to solve, and given the state of storage and the state of transportation, I think we'd be better off with world-wide distribution.
All our eggs in the fossil fuel basket didn't cause any problems. Why diversify, that just wastes resources from duplications.
I have 2560x1600 on my desktop. Though it took me 30" to get that. If they can get 1080p (2k) in a 5.5", the 19" should be at 8k (or close to it), not less than the 5.5".
So ordering Netflix is "unauthorized", and using your connection you paid for to access services is an "effort" to deny access? Netflix doesn't attempt to deny anything, and exerts no effort to do so, and the data from it is "authorized", in that it's as intended as any other data. Unless the data is 100% Netflix, then you could just as easily assert the HTTP is the cyberthreat. Arbitrarily picking a "competitor" to be the threat is absurd, and hopefully the first judge this makes it in front of will recognize such.
Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
So I can fix my own house, but I can't pay anyone to fix it for me without paying 50% of the repair cost to the original builder. Sounds fair.
So, your numbers are all made up. It looks that way. If you have to lie to prove your point, perhaps it's your point that's wrong, not reality.
It's like this: $7.85/hr x 160 hr/month work = $1256 gross/mo. At 20% social security and medicare and income tax, 80% x 1256 = $1004.8.
At that income, you should be paying $150 a month or less. You were off by about 2x on tax. The rest of your rant didn't seem any more accurate.
yo kay... the trucks that deliver everything that sustains you wouldn't be showing up... you got rid of the roads.
Saying that roads are subsidized is calling for a massive destruction of all roads, starting yesterday? I didn't think anyone could be so stupid.
Cars are not subsidized especially. I don't know what you're talking about.
I agree. You don't know anything about the subsidization of cars or mass transit. Though that didn't ever stop you from posting stupid stuff before, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up now.
And regardless... I'd love to see you try and run anything without roads.
What, like the trails I've ridden bikes on? they seem to work fine. And I've driven on private roads as well. You still don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
As to liking farmers and being a conservative... I really find it amusing that people tip their hands so easily. Here you're basically admitting to being a thoughtless political hack that distills all discussions down to some preprocessed political talking point incapable of actually thinking for yourself or processing things individually.
I admitted that I recognize hypocricy in others. I note you didn't complain about the facts, just an ad hominem because you are, once again 100% wrong, without a clue as to the topic of conversation.
That's really too bad... I wish you were human
Liar. You don't want to "discuss", you just insult everyone else because whenver someone else speaks, it shows you to be stupid.
Cars are massively subsidized. From the fuel to the roads. Fuel taxes pay roughly 0% of interstate roads built cost.
And the roads are not paid from gas taxes, but use income tax for most of the construction cost.
Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes.
And cars are subsidized. You need to even out the subsidizations, and nobody is pushing for making road vehicles pay their actual share.
ZERO subsidization. Then you could charge a market price for those tickets.
Start with killing subsidies for cars. Oh, that's right, you are like the farmers. They vote conservative because they are against welfare, while collecting government money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
By the Wiki page, it's about a million, not 7.5. But then, I haven't looked at how the numbers are counted.
Right. You should always have your prescriptions in a bottle.
I explained to my father once that his "weekly pill containers" with 15 separate containers (connected) for pills is illegal. "If it's illegal, how can they advertise them?" I don't know, but putting prescriptions in them breaks the law. The funny thing is, they advertise them for travel and such, where they are most likely to be discovered.
you have a lawyer that's also into that sort of thing and would love to sue the department
I made a grown man cry. He mentioned he discussed the issue with his lawyer. I asked him whether he'd like the lawsuit directed to his company address, or his lawyers. "By the way, what's your lawyer's name?"
I'm sure cops know that nearly everyone who mentions "my lawyer said I should..." really got his advice from an idiot on YouTube. So I don't think it'll convey what you think it will convey.
Threats of violence (jail rape) designed to force a confession is torture. Plea bargains fit most definitions of torture. You don't need actual harm, just threats.
Even worse, the law is protected by copyright, so the law isn't knowable. It's the law that the electrical work must be up to NECA standards, but you have to buy the copyrighted laws from a private company to be able to know the law.
Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent.
No, it never required "intent" in the manner people use the word. You don't need to have the "intent" to commit the crime. Remenber, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" exists, so you don't even have to know whatever it is is illegal.
You must have intended to have done the action that resulted in a crime. Even if you didn't intend malice, and had no idea it would result in a crime or any harm at all, it's still legally "intent". Even if a reasonable person would have presumed no harm would come, the "eggshell skull" doctrine indicates that a person who performs an action is responsible for the consequences, even if they are greater than intended, or greater than anyone could have guessed.
"Intent" is the intent to perform the action that ended with a crime, not the intent to cause a crime or harm of any kind.
If you leave the door open and talk through the screen door they can force themselves in and claim they saw something through the door. If it's not real, they can claim they couldn't see well through the screen. Get them out, away from windows and doors.
I got a warning from a cop because he didn't want to let anyone else know the details of the stop.
I managed to scare him.
I was going 80 in a 70 (the speed of traffic). I saw a cop parked on a parallel road, hiding in the bushes. I figured he was going to stop me. So, as I passed him, but before he had pulled out, he was paying more attention to his driving than mine. So, I got all my information out and when I pulled over, I turned on the dome light with slow and deliberate motions.
When he came to my window, he asked for license and insurance. I had them in my right hand, not deliberately palmed, but effectively palmed. I had them in his hand within 2 seconds of him asking. I think he realized that if I were a "bad guy" he'd have been dead. Shortest stop ever, and the only one I had where the cop seemed nervous. He verified I was not wanted for anything, and my papers were in order, and gave me a warning and sent me on my way.
I was never as efficient when pulled over after that. A nervous cop is a dangerous cop.
Only if you catch them, and manage to prove it beyond all doubt to a judge that has a long professional relationship with the cops you are accusing of crimes.
Ethics is a how-to guide for cheating. Cheating is ok if you don't get caught.
Not all cops are dishonest. But enough of them are that you should more or less not trust that any given one is.
At least in the areas I've know lots of cops, they are all dishonest. The dirty ones are just evil, but the "good" ones know who the dirty ones are, and don't turn them in, making them dishonest by omission.
And any system under which someone is kept in prison without any criminal charges for 14 years is a Judge Dredd system, indicative of an abusive government.
Yup, carefully worded. He was charged, but contempt in a civil trial is usually not a criminal offense. He was charged, tried, and convicted. But with contempt, it is a Judge Dredd system, where the judge is all three branches.
It was a civil fraud. He confessed to having had money. He then refused to provide it, or evidence he didn't have it anymore.
That's exactly how it is supposed to work. Though I think in his case, the contempt charge was partially punitive, as if it happened as he did describe, he did an electronic equivalent of piling up his cash and burning it to make sure "she" didn't get it. Which is illegal some places, but not there.