That's absolutely not how courts work. They take all the circumstances of the case, to make the case as easy as possible to decide. The police didn't tell her to stop filming but just arrested her. That's the facts. That's what the court decision was about. Judges do _not_ make decisions about things that didn't happen.
But they did specifically address the situation that didn't happen. If not, why directly address it? "You can't go into room A, but we won't tell you you can't go into room B" would be taken by most people to be permission to go into room B. But the courts just indicate it's stating an unexamined condition that they examined. It's not even internally consistent.
And I've read lots of decisions where the courts explicitly said "had the facts been different, we'd have found differently with regards to this or that". So to say the courts don't work that way is 100% false. If they did work as you state, they'd have affirmed or denied motions, without comment, and find for the plaintiff or defense without comment. Instead, they do comment, and to great length about different scenarios.
So I would imagine that they didn't actually have the right to ask her to stop.
Ah, so you have no clue. That's why you sounded clueless. The police can ask anything they want, even "illegal" things. You don't have to do it, and there's a difference between asking you to do something and ordering you to. Perhaps they don't have the right to give a lawful order that she stop. But they most certainly do have the "right" to "ask" her to stop.
Every car I've had had the brake stand up more than the throttle. Without significant effort, I couldn't press the gas while on the brake, even when "covering" both.
Dumb parents run over their children on a surprisingly regular basis. But of course, they'll blame everything but themselves. It helps prevent their suicide.
They were close enough together to be blamed. The problem was that people would have their foot on one, not the other, and were too incompetent to know the difference. They blamed it on the pedals because telling dumb people they are dumb really pisses them off.
I've also had cars that wouldn't lock the steering until you put the car in park because the click to the position that locked the steering was locked out until the shifter was in park. So it would be *impossible* to lock the steering in a runaway car. Even if you tried hard to turn it off and remove the key, at best you'd get it off with working steering, unless you threw it into park while on the highway.
As for odd pedals, the clutch in my VW was top hinged, and the brake and throttle bottom hinged. Made for odd feeling for control. And my '87 GM had a WOT (wide open throttle) button under the throttle. I don't know if it really did anything, but it had a button I could feel pressed when I put the pedal all the way down. Not sure what it did that wasn't accomplished by the movement in the throttle cable.
It's bad driving when the driver doesn't know how to turn the car off. It may also be bad design, but then Audi having the brake and the throttle in the same wheel well is bad design too, right?
Of course we have a construct for this, for example two is "kaksi", time (of repetition) is "kerta", so double is "kaksinkertainen". But it's a bit awkward, as it is basically just saying "two times" instead of a shorter idiom.
English borrows from other languages. "Double" is the only special, then it's tri-ple, quadru-ple, quinti-ple. It's basically greek/latin roots of numbers, with "ple" on the end, even duo-ple almost works for double. We just steal smaller words to combine.
Even for minors? How about a group of 12 year olds. They pair off, and one shines a laser at a plane and the other calls it in. Are you going to send the 12 year old to prison for 2 years?
When something is said to be larger than something else, it is larger by a quantifiable amount. The question is: what is that amount? The amount by which it is larger is the difference between the two sizes.
OK, logic, not English
So... if the amount the diameters differ (the amount it is "larger") is equivalent to 2.3 Earth diameters, then the total diameter must be 3.3.
OK, it's the math, not the English.
I didn't invent English. Other people did.
OK, it's the English, not the math/logic.
Simply put, the English is logically inconsistent. But it is internally consistent in use. Irregardless, I could care less what you think about words and phrases. If they are used enough and are universally understood, then it's "correct" even if wrong. That's what you are missing. It's unambiguous and improper, but universally understood.
Sure they do. Just when they "waste" money buying a sports team for fun, then sell it 30 years later for a few billion dollars in profit, having made a profit all along.
Nope. It's highly rare to have an option added or changed mid-year. Traditional makers hold off updates for the next model year. Tesla doesn't. That's not worthy of a front-page Slahdot story, but it is actually different from the rest of the automotive industry.
Just another example of how Tesla didn't copy the status quo when it started making cars.
The statement is inconsistent for other reasons. if something is the same size, then it isn't "larger", one times or no times. It's a linguistic divide by zero.
X is 2 times larger is X=2*Y
X is 2 times smaller is X=Y/2
X is 50% larger is X=1.5*Y
X is 1.1 times smaller is X=Y/1.1
It's unambiguous and in common use. Nobody is ever confused by it, but pedantic jackasses complain about it. Much like "American" being used to describe those from the USA. Some claim that it could apply to anyone from The Americas, not just the USA, but I've never met any native English speaker who took that definition. So, do you think "American" is or isn't ambiguous?
Correct. In unambiguously means "X is Y times Z". The only people who think otherwise 100% understand it as written and object on pedantic grounds. Oh, and someone looked it up, in this case, they said X is 2.3 times larger than Earth, meaning X=2.3*E. So you are not only theoretically wrong, but we can verify this use with actual numbers, and you are provably wrong as well.
Thanks for that. I didn't get around to reading yet, but my guess was that it would have been closer. The sun's gravity would pull loose gases, and the atmosphere could be burned or blown off. Leaving the low density gas giants for more remote orbits.
And what if it said "2.3 times smaller"? How is "2.3 times" any more unambiguous when "2.3 times smaller" is in common use (even if you don't like it, that doesn't change reality). "2.3 times larger" is unambiguously "2.3 times the original size". At least everywhere I've lived.
Of course, if you want to say "2.3 times the original" then you don't need the extra "larger" qualifier.
That doesn't work when people say things like "2.3 times smaller". So "2.3 times the size of" is ambiguous if it could be larger or smaller.
I'm not arguing it's correct. I'm arguing that I hear it, thus it's in use.
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
How odd. In English, we have double, triple, treble, quadruple, quintiple, and so on. I'm not sure how far up it goes, but I can't recall hearing much past triple.
When someone objects because it's "obvious" that means they object but don't understand why. Are you asserting there are no ions in the air? Or that they can't be collected as described? Or that the process requires more energy input than extracted? Or some other complaint?
"It sounds stupid because I don't understand" is not the most effective argument.
Slashdot Mirror
That's absolutely not how courts work. They take all the circumstances of the case, to make the case as easy as possible to decide. The police didn't tell her to stop filming but just arrested her. That's the facts. That's what the court decision was about. Judges do _not_ make decisions about things that didn't happen.
But they did specifically address the situation that didn't happen. If not, why directly address it? "You can't go into room A, but we won't tell you you can't go into room B" would be taken by most people to be permission to go into room B. But the courts just indicate it's stating an unexamined condition that they examined. It's not even internally consistent.
And I've read lots of decisions where the courts explicitly said "had the facts been different, we'd have found differently with regards to this or that". So to say the courts don't work that way is 100% false. If they did work as you state, they'd have affirmed or denied motions, without comment, and find for the plaintiff or defense without comment. Instead, they do comment, and to great length about different scenarios.
So I would imagine that they didn't actually have the right to ask her to stop.
Ah, so you have no clue. That's why you sounded clueless. The police can ask anything they want, even "illegal" things. You don't have to do it, and there's a difference between asking you to do something and ordering you to. Perhaps they don't have the right to give a lawful order that she stop. But they most certainly do have the "right" to "ask" her to stop.
And if your camera is actually inciting violent behaviour in others,
How can a camera incite anything, let alone violence in others?
Every car I've had had the brake stand up more than the throttle. Without significant effort, I couldn't press the gas while on the brake, even when "covering" both.
Dumb parents run over their children on a surprisingly regular basis. But of course, they'll blame everything but themselves. It helps prevent their suicide.
They were close enough together to be blamed. The problem was that people would have their foot on one, not the other, and were too incompetent to know the difference. They blamed it on the pedals because telling dumb people they are dumb really pisses them off.
I've also had cars that wouldn't lock the steering until you put the car in park because the click to the position that locked the steering was locked out until the shifter was in park. So it would be *impossible* to lock the steering in a runaway car. Even if you tried hard to turn it off and remove the key, at best you'd get it off with working steering, unless you threw it into park while on the highway.
As for odd pedals, the clutch in my VW was top hinged, and the brake and throttle bottom hinged. Made for odd feeling for control. And my '87 GM had a WOT (wide open throttle) button under the throttle. I don't know if it really did anything, but it had a button I could feel pressed when I put the pedal all the way down. Not sure what it did that wasn't accomplished by the movement in the throttle cable.
Most victims die six months after initial symptoms appear,
And how long from exposure to initial symptoms?
You can eat his muscle, but don't eat the brain.
It's bad driving when the driver doesn't know how to turn the car off. It may also be bad design, but then Audi having the brake and the throttle in the same wheel well is bad design too, right?
Of course we have a construct for this, for example two is "kaksi", time (of repetition) is "kerta", so double is "kaksinkertainen". But it's a bit awkward, as it is basically just saying "two times" instead of a shorter idiom.
English borrows from other languages. "Double" is the only special, then it's tri-ple, quadru-ple, quinti-ple. It's basically greek/latin roots of numbers, with "ple" on the end, even duo-ple almost works for double. We just steal smaller words to combine.
The blast of light can prevent seeing the instruments, or anything else. Just seeing out the window isn't the biggest problem.
Even for minors? How about a group of 12 year olds. They pair off, and one shines a laser at a plane and the other calls it in. Are you going to send the 12 year old to prison for 2 years?
It isn't about the math. It's about the English.
OK, English, not the math or logic.
When something is said to be larger than something else, it is larger by a quantifiable amount. The question is: what is that amount? The amount by which it is larger is the difference between the two sizes.
OK, logic, not English
So... if the amount the diameters differ (the amount it is "larger") is equivalent to 2.3 Earth diameters, then the total diameter must be 3.3.
OK, it's the math, not the English.
I didn't invent English. Other people did.
OK, it's the English, not the math/logic.
Simply put, the English is logically inconsistent. But it is internally consistent in use. Irregardless, I could care less what you think about words and phrases. If they are used enough and are universally understood, then it's "correct" even if wrong. That's what you are missing. It's unambiguous and improper, but universally understood.
Sure they do. Just when they "waste" money buying a sports team for fun, then sell it 30 years later for a few billion dollars in profit, having made a profit all along.
Nope. It's highly rare to have an option added or changed mid-year. Traditional makers hold off updates for the next model year. Tesla doesn't. That's not worthy of a front-page Slahdot story, but it is actually different from the rest of the automotive industry.
Just another example of how Tesla didn't copy the status quo when it started making cars.
The statement is inconsistent for other reasons. if something is the same size, then it isn't "larger", one times or no times. It's a linguistic divide by zero.
X is 2 times larger is X=2*Y
X is 2 times smaller is X=Y/2
X is 50% larger is X=1.5*Y
X is 1.1 times smaller is X=Y/1.1
It's unambiguous and in common use. Nobody is ever confused by it, but pedantic jackasses complain about it. Much like "American" being used to describe those from the USA. Some claim that it could apply to anyone from The Americas, not just the USA, but I've never met any native English speaker who took that definition. So, do you think "American" is or isn't ambiguous?
You are assigning a logic when none exists. "one times larger", as you say, would be a restatement as "same size", so you wouldn't say it.
Everywhere I've lived, people have used 2.3 times smaller to mean X/2.3. Yes, it's bad English, but it's in common use.
"Times larger" is not ambiguous.
Correct. In unambiguously means "X is Y times Z". The only people who think otherwise 100% understand it as written and object on pedantic grounds. Oh, and someone looked it up, in this case, they said X is 2.3 times larger than Earth, meaning X=2.3*E. So you are not only theoretically wrong, but we can verify this use with actual numbers, and you are provably wrong as well.
Thanks for that. I didn't get around to reading yet, but my guess was that it would have been closer. The sun's gravity would pull loose gases, and the atmosphere could be burned or blown off. Leaving the low density gas giants for more remote orbits.
And what if it said "2.3 times smaller"? How is "2.3 times" any more unambiguous when "2.3 times smaller" is in common use (even if you don't like it, that doesn't change reality). "2.3 times larger" is unambiguously "2.3 times the original size". At least everywhere I've lived.
Of course, if you want to say "2.3 times the original" then you don't need the extra "larger" qualifier.
That doesn't work when people say things like "2.3 times smaller". So "2.3 times the size of" is ambiguous if it could be larger or smaller.
I'm not arguing it's correct. I'm arguing that I hear it, thus it's in use.
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
How odd. In English, we have double, triple, treble, quadruple, quintiple, and so on. I'm not sure how far up it goes, but I can't recall hearing much past triple.
Do you use awhile alot?
When someone objects because it's "obvious" that means they object but don't understand why. Are you asserting there are no ions in the air? Or that they can't be collected as described? Or that the process requires more energy input than extracted? Or some other complaint?
"It sounds stupid because I don't understand" is not the most effective argument.
He's supporting and advertising a free energy source. It's idiotic.
Yeah, at least twice as idiotic as those people who think "solar power" is real.