The officer was within the letter of the law in arresting that man for theft of service. Now for the most part officers will exercise discretion in such matters because it is a pain in the ass to process all the paperwork involved for such a minor infraction. Especially when you can be sure the DA will not bother with in court. But add to this the fact that the guy was being a total douchebag to the cop and the property owner, and suddenly the satisfaction of putting this guy in his place makes the paperwork worthwhile.
So yes, he was arrested for theft of service, but if he hadn't been a dick he probably would've just gotten a warning.
It's great to see these two comments stacked on top of each other:
Agreed. Basically, if all of this new gas was emitted during the past 50 years, it would take more than 300 centuries (!) for it to achieve the same warming effect as CO2 now (in Toronto at least).
Directly above:
Yes, Mr Genius, let's wait until the concentrations are equivalent before worrying about it
Nobody ever said it was the biggest problem in the world. But it can and probably will be at some point, so we should start investigating now before it's a real problem.
In 300 centuries we'll either be off of this rock or we'll be able to deploy nano-bots that take care of this problem for us. Or we'll all be dead from something else I guess.
It's all about intent. If you knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer then you are screwedsville. If you couldn't reasonably have known that then you can use that as a defense, but would probably still be slapped with negligent homicide for not properly identifying who the fuck you were shooting at. That is however the difference between 8-10 and capital murder.
Shoplifting is kind of a special class of theft though and treated a bit differently. Even at that though a lot of brick and mortar stores factor "shrinkage" into their prices and just kind of assume that some amount of shoplifting is going to happen and just catch and prosecute whom they may.
I think he should stop being a hypocrite eating salads and other plant-based nutrients then. He could become like this super vegan or something for like a month or so before he dies of starvation =P
That's a pretty heady abuse of statistics there, are you in politics? Because comparing the statistical mean or median across two groups to the individual difference between two randomly selected individuals is just bad statistics. Yeah, it kinda makes it look like your point is supported, but it's a house of cards. Anyone who knows anything about stats will quickly dismiss you.
You simply cannot ignore that men are generally stronger than women, especially in the upper body. For an average man can you find a woman who is stronger than him? Yes. Can you then find a man stronger than her? Absolutely. For a quick spot check at the far end of the bell curve let's look at the Olympics. Now, line up world/Olympic records for men and women and see who would've won *every single medal ever* in contests of strength or endurance (I'm disregarding shooting skills for the moment: that I would expect to be a more even keel).
Trying to say that men and women are equal in terms of physical strength, no matter how you try to twist it, is just ignorant.
Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring.
Lots of humans can't have offspring. Are they then a different species?
That...no...now you're just being disingenuous. Species as a term has definite scientific meaning. One of the common ways of explaining it to lay people is that (generally) different species can't interbreed. But then...wolves and dogs, horses and zebras, lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, etc. But when you get to the point logically that for all x and all y it is true that x cannot interbreed with y then you can safely say that x and y are two different species. If they can interbreed then you have to do some more hair splitting. In the case of sterile humans, they were quite obviously born of parents who weren't sterile so your argument falls apart.
Their brains are obviously quite different.
The point is?
That we are apex predators.
They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
I'd argue that some humans are more vicious and aggressive.
And we don't let them run around all willy-nilly either.
Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
I'm sure they also didn't recognize blacks as being equal to whites, or that gays should be able to marry. Times change, so does thinking on what's right and wrong.
It seems to me that scientists have judged animals as guilty of being unconscious until proven conscious. This seems backward to me as we know that there is no magical 'stuff' that humans have that animals don't. Also, through evolution consciousness has been built up over the eons through layers in the brain. To say that somehow consciousness was just suddenly switched on 100,000 years ago just seems absurd.
The magical 'stuff' that we have that animals don't include (but are not limited to): civilization, spaceflight, writing, the internet, and abstract reasoning.
As to your other charges, yeah, some of their ideas really didn't survive the test of time, but you know, we don't throw out the theory of gravity just because Newton was a nutter who kept trying to turn lead into gold. Being batshit crazy in one area doesn't discredit everything else you do.
When it comes right down to it, if we weren't so secure in our modern society we wouldn't even be able to talk about if animals had rights. Because we'd be roasting one on a spit and hoping that we didn't freeze to death/starve/get an infection/get eaten ourselves before we could get another one to roast. Your concern for animal "rights" is a very modern indulgence. And it is not an indulgence that we are evolutionarily wired to consider as a species.
Fluid analogies are surprisingly apt for electrical systems (for intuitive understanding). You can think of kWh like gallons of water in a storage tank, and Watts as how fast you're draining the tank (in gallons per hour lets say). In this analogy storage tank is the battery and you can extend it to include voltage (water pressure) and amperage (volume of water) which multiply together to get wattage (how fast you're draining the tank). So if you have 100,000 gallons of water in the tank (or 100 kWh in the battery) and you use it at a rate of 1 gallon per hour then you can use the tank for 100,000 hours before it dries up. Alternately you use it at 1000 gallons per hour, but you'll only be able to use it at that rate for 100 hours.
Again, the analogy isn't perfect, but this at least gives you an intuitive way to grasp what's going on. If you actually want to build something you'll need a much more solid foundation.
That's why the military will put the first such station into orbit. Cost-effective is not nearly as important to them as combat-effective. And being able to get torrents of uninterruptible power to your forces behind enemy lines without depending on ground infrastructure? Victory in the bank baby. Of course after World War IV or whatever ends, they'll sublet the use of the station out to civilian contractors, refinements will be made, and eventually 90% of the world's power will come from such arrays.
The other 10% will come from coal fired power plants that are kept running by congress critters as pork-barrel projects for their chosen districts to assure reelection.
I actually got a legit cold-call from my cable company offering a pretty sweet package bundle thing for 12-months. Red flags went up just because, you know, cold call, but they were actually smart enough to have it set up such that I didn't have to provide any personal information to the cold caller (anything she needed was right in front of her) and the service appointment was set up within 15 minutes or so.
That said many cold calls are scams, and you should certainly be on your guard.
There are several websites that detail not only dealer invoice pricing, but also addon invoice pricing. Knowing what the dealer paid gives you a major advantage in the negotiation, and you can compute exactly how much they're trying to screw you and how much you're willing to put up with. Some places, especially in the major cities where there's competition, will actually be pretty reasonable about this.
I live in a small town a couple of hours away from a major city. A couple of years ago my wife and I went to the local dealership to try and get a reasonable priced lease on a new Camry. Not only did the local dealership insist on us paying full sticker price, they also wanted to add on top about another $1000 for dealer added "upgrades". They were absolutely adamant about not budging on the price, to the point of insulting me to my face claiming that I just didn't understand financing. After a few hours of back and forth we left disgusted.
Flash forward two weeks later. We go on over to the major city, make an appointment with a salesman at one of their Toyota dealerships and book a hotel room for a weekend of R&R in case this goes south. We show up at that dealership and are greeted by a friendly guy who has a couple of cars ready for us to pick from for a test drive. The sticker price goes out the window as he starts off with a deal about $2500 under the factory sticker, no weird dealer add-ons, and all the same or better features as we were looking at in the small town. Quick test drive and some paperwork later and we were in and out in less than an hour with a far more pleasing experience and at least $50/month lower payment than the local dealership was trying to foist on us.
The lesson to be learned here is that not all dealerships are created equal. Yes, some of them are packed with slimeballs out to screw you over, but others do in fact have decent folks staffing them and a non-sociopathic manager who understands that giving people a good experience at a reasonable price will get so much more business in the long haul that it's the far better path to take. You really do have to shop around. Oh, and it helps to know the dealer invoice price. If you know what they paid for the car then you're in a far better position to negotiate.
TL;DR If you're willing to shop around you'll find that not all dealers are dickholes.
Contradiction works too. I just always found induction to be more intuitive personally. Honestly any proof technique that can be applied to a given problem (and it is often the case that more than one technique is easily used to prove a give problem) still results in a mathematically valid proof. I reworded it into a proof by induction because that makes sense to me and I was just filling in some minor blanks. A proof by contradiction would work too, but it just isn't my style.
I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.
Inertial Navigation Systems. Not as accurate as GPS, but good enough to at least not land in enemy territory. And hypothetically by the time you got within a few miles of the base, the GPS would be back online.
The induction step and base case are obvious. The proof as laid out is correct for an arbitrary N. The induction step is to show that it is also true for N+1. Then your base case is to show that it is true for a specific N and N+1 like N=3 and N=4 (trivial to verify). At that point it is proven for all N where N is in the set of Natural Numbers and N >=3.
Honestly I thought it was a very well formed comment for Slashdot. You shouldn't flame something just because you don't understand it. And if you are looking for strong rigor, this is Slashdot, not a mathematical journal. Anybody with 2+ years of undergrad college math should have been able to complete the proof without even hitting up a Google search.
I did indeed have a brain freeze. I meant to say real numbers between 1 and 2, not rational numbers. Shoot, Sqrt(2) and Sqrt(3) alone have infinite digits to them.
And they say there are more rational numbers between 1 and 2 than there are natural numbers.
They're both infinite, but the set of natural numbers is a countable infinite set (indeed, it is the set by which all other countably infinite sets are determined). The set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 is an uncountable infinite set - which is to say that any one-to-one mapping between the set of natural numbers and the rational numbers between 1 and 2 will leave out some possibilities and some of the rational numbers will not be mapped. As such, the set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 is a "bigger" infinite set.
I always figured the best group for internet bashing would be the Amish - because they would never get to read it. Unfortunately they're generally nice, hard working people so beyond the fact that they don't use modern technology, it's hard to find things to poke fun of about them.
It's not so much cloaking and bending radiation around in such a way that it doesn't interact with the object. To my understanding, gravity is not carried by a waveform that would be subject to this technique.
Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???
Where it's the sentence of the court being carried out.
[Pedant mode off]
[Pedant mode on] These beheadings often are the sentence of the court being carried out. The terrorists bring their courts and lawyers with them and justify their actions in Islamic law.
[Extended Pedant Mode On] Such punishment is not considered a crime when the actor is doing so as a duly authorized agent of a state whose sovereignty is generally recognized by the other sovereign states of the world community and the subject has been prosecuted and convicted through due process. Where such "court" is authorized by the whims of non-government organizations such as religious communities, terrorist organizations, or organized criminal enterprises, and the actor is authorized by same, such punishment is and should be considered a crime. [Extended Pedant Mode Off]
Now the things that got a person there may seem trivial or stupid, and the method of execution is about as brutal as you can get (short of outright torture) but such is the way of sovereignty.
Don't forget the random auto-"corrections" that it makes to what you type. Sometimes I think my phone is trying to get me killed...
[Text to Wife] Honey I'll be picking up some (chicken) chicks to eat tonight. See you at (home) hate you (gorgeous) gordo lady! P.S. (Veronica) Erotica at work was crazy today, tell you all about it later.
Using pseudoephedrine to make meth is illegal. Should it be illegal to sell pseudoephedrine? (Correct answer: no. Shortcut governmental answer to try to prevent meth labs: of course.).
If they actually had a replacement for it that worked as good as a nasal decongestant I would be all over banninating it. Unfortunately it is simply one of the best decongestants out there and none of the alternatives work for crap for me.
Slashdot Mirror
The officer was within the letter of the law in arresting that man for theft of service. Now for the most part officers will exercise discretion in such matters because it is a pain in the ass to process all the paperwork involved for such a minor infraction. Especially when you can be sure the DA will not bother with in court. But add to this the fact that the guy was being a total douchebag to the cop and the property owner, and suddenly the satisfaction of putting this guy in his place makes the paperwork worthwhile.
So yes, he was arrested for theft of service, but if he hadn't been a dick he probably would've just gotten a warning.
It's great to see these two comments stacked on top of each other:
Agreed. Basically, if all of this new gas was emitted during the past 50 years, it would take more than 300 centuries (!) for it to achieve the same warming effect as CO2 now (in Toronto at least).
Directly above:
Yes, Mr Genius, let's wait until the concentrations are equivalent before worrying about it
Nobody ever said it was the biggest problem in the world. But it can and probably will be at some point, so we should start investigating now before it's a real problem.
In 300 centuries we'll either be off of this rock or we'll be able to deploy nano-bots that take care of this problem for us. Or we'll all be dead from something else I guess.
It's all about intent. If you knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer then you are screwedsville. If you couldn't reasonably have known that then you can use that as a defense, but would probably still be slapped with negligent homicide for not properly identifying who the fuck you were shooting at. That is however the difference between 8-10 and capital murder.
Shoplifting is kind of a special class of theft though and treated a bit differently. Even at that though a lot of brick and mortar stores factor "shrinkage" into their prices and just kind of assume that some amount of shoplifting is going to happen and just catch and prosecute whom they may.
I think he should stop being a hypocrite eating salads and other plant-based nutrients then. He could become like this super vegan or something for like a month or so before he dies of starvation =P
That's a pretty heady abuse of statistics there, are you in politics? Because comparing the statistical mean or median across two groups to the individual difference between two randomly selected individuals is just bad statistics. Yeah, it kinda makes it look like your point is supported, but it's a house of cards. Anyone who knows anything about stats will quickly dismiss you.
You simply cannot ignore that men are generally stronger than women, especially in the upper body. For an average man can you find a woman who is stronger than him? Yes. Can you then find a man stronger than her? Absolutely. For a quick spot check at the far end of the bell curve let's look at the Olympics. Now, line up world/Olympic records for men and women and see who would've won *every single medal ever* in contests of strength or endurance (I'm disregarding shooting skills for the moment: that I would expect to be a more even keel).
Trying to say that men and women are equal in terms of physical strength, no matter how you try to twist it, is just ignorant.
Babies aren't really self-aware until somewhere around 1-2 years of age, but infants are still protected as people.
Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring.
Lots of humans can't have offspring. Are they then a different species?
That...no...now you're just being disingenuous. Species as a term has definite scientific meaning. One of the common ways of explaining it to lay people is that (generally) different species can't interbreed. But then...wolves and dogs, horses and zebras, lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, etc. But when you get to the point logically that for all x and all y it is true that x cannot interbreed with y then you can safely say that x and y are two different species. If they can interbreed then you have to do some more hair splitting. In the case of sterile humans, they were quite obviously born of parents who weren't sterile so your argument falls apart.
Their brains are obviously quite different.
The point is?
That we are apex predators.
They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
I'd argue that some humans are more vicious and aggressive.
And we don't let them run around all willy-nilly either.
Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
I'm sure they also didn't recognize blacks as being equal to whites, or that gays should be able to marry. Times change, so does thinking on what's right and wrong.
It seems to me that scientists have judged animals as guilty of being unconscious until proven conscious. This seems backward to me as we know that there is no magical 'stuff' that humans have that animals don't. Also, through evolution consciousness has been built up over the eons through layers in the brain. To say that somehow consciousness was just suddenly switched on 100,000 years ago just seems absurd.
The magical 'stuff' that we have that animals don't include (but are not limited to): civilization, spaceflight, writing, the internet, and abstract reasoning.
As to your other charges, yeah, some of their ideas really didn't survive the test of time, but you know, we don't throw out the theory of gravity just because Newton was a nutter who kept trying to turn lead into gold. Being batshit crazy in one area doesn't discredit everything else you do.
When it comes right down to it, if we weren't so secure in our modern society we wouldn't even be able to talk about if animals had rights. Because we'd be roasting one on a spit and hoping that we didn't freeze to death/starve/get an infection/get eaten ourselves before we could get another one to roast. Your concern for animal "rights" is a very modern indulgence. And it is not an indulgence that we are evolutionarily wired to consider as a species.
And who is going to be doing the prosecuting/burning of the NSA?
Anyone that makes moves to do so will be burned by the NSA first with any and all the dirt they have on them.
Or that they can manufacture independent of whether you did it or not.
Fluid analogies are surprisingly apt for electrical systems (for intuitive understanding). You can think of kWh like gallons of water in a storage tank, and Watts as how fast you're draining the tank (in gallons per hour lets say). In this analogy storage tank is the battery and you can extend it to include voltage (water pressure) and amperage (volume of water) which multiply together to get wattage (how fast you're draining the tank). So if you have 100,000 gallons of water in the tank (or 100 kWh in the battery) and you use it at a rate of 1 gallon per hour then you can use the tank for 100,000 hours before it dries up. Alternately you use it at 1000 gallons per hour, but you'll only be able to use it at that rate for 100 hours.
Again, the analogy isn't perfect, but this at least gives you an intuitive way to grasp what's going on. If you actually want to build something you'll need a much more solid foundation.
That's why the military will put the first such station into orbit. Cost-effective is not nearly as important to them as combat-effective. And being able to get torrents of uninterruptible power to your forces behind enemy lines without depending on ground infrastructure? Victory in the bank baby. Of course after World War IV or whatever ends, they'll sublet the use of the station out to civilian contractors, refinements will be made, and eventually 90% of the world's power will come from such arrays.
The other 10% will come from coal fired power plants that are kept running by congress critters as pork-barrel projects for their chosen districts to assure reelection.
I actually got a legit cold-call from my cable company offering a pretty sweet package bundle thing for 12-months. Red flags went up just because, you know, cold call, but they were actually smart enough to have it set up such that I didn't have to provide any personal information to the cold caller (anything she needed was right in front of her) and the service appointment was set up within 15 minutes or so.
That said many cold calls are scams, and you should certainly be on your guard.
There are several websites that detail not only dealer invoice pricing, but also addon invoice pricing. Knowing what the dealer paid gives you a major advantage in the negotiation, and you can compute exactly how much they're trying to screw you and how much you're willing to put up with. Some places, especially in the major cities where there's competition, will actually be pretty reasonable about this.
I live in a small town a couple of hours away from a major city. A couple of years ago my wife and I went to the local dealership to try and get a reasonable priced lease on a new Camry. Not only did the local dealership insist on us paying full sticker price, they also wanted to add on top about another $1000 for dealer added "upgrades". They were absolutely adamant about not budging on the price, to the point of insulting me to my face claiming that I just didn't understand financing. After a few hours of back and forth we left disgusted.
Flash forward two weeks later. We go on over to the major city, make an appointment with a salesman at one of their Toyota dealerships and book a hotel room for a weekend of R&R in case this goes south. We show up at that dealership and are greeted by a friendly guy who has a couple of cars ready for us to pick from for a test drive. The sticker price goes out the window as he starts off with a deal about $2500 under the factory sticker, no weird dealer add-ons, and all the same or better features as we were looking at in the small town. Quick test drive and some paperwork later and we were in and out in less than an hour with a far more pleasing experience and at least $50/month lower payment than the local dealership was trying to foist on us.
The lesson to be learned here is that not all dealerships are created equal. Yes, some of them are packed with slimeballs out to screw you over, but others do in fact have decent folks staffing them and a non-sociopathic manager who understands that giving people a good experience at a reasonable price will get so much more business in the long haul that it's the far better path to take. You really do have to shop around. Oh, and it helps to know the dealer invoice price. If you know what they paid for the car then you're in a far better position to negotiate.
TL;DR If you're willing to shop around you'll find that not all dealers are dickholes.
Contradiction works too. I just always found induction to be more intuitive personally. Honestly any proof technique that can be applied to a given problem (and it is often the case that more than one technique is easily used to prove a give problem) still results in a mathematically valid proof. I reworded it into a proof by induction because that makes sense to me and I was just filling in some minor blanks. A proof by contradiction would work too, but it just isn't my style.
I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.
Inertial Navigation Systems. Not as accurate as GPS, but good enough to at least not land in enemy territory. And hypothetically by the time you got within a few miles of the base, the GPS would be back online.
The induction step and base case are obvious. The proof as laid out is correct for an arbitrary N. The induction step is to show that it is also true for N+1. Then your base case is to show that it is true for a specific N and N+1 like N=3 and N=4 (trivial to verify). At that point it is proven for all N where N is in the set of Natural Numbers and N >=3.
Honestly I thought it was a very well formed comment for Slashdot. You shouldn't flame something just because you don't understand it. And if you are looking for strong rigor, this is Slashdot, not a mathematical journal. Anybody with 2+ years of undergrad college math should have been able to complete the proof without even hitting up a Google search.
I did indeed have a brain freeze. I meant to say real numbers between 1 and 2, not rational numbers. Shoot, Sqrt(2) and Sqrt(3) alone have infinite digits to them.
And they say there are more rational numbers between 1 and 2 than there are natural numbers.
They're both infinite, but the set of natural numbers is a countable infinite set (indeed, it is the set by which all other countably infinite sets are determined). The set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 is an uncountable infinite set - which is to say that any one-to-one mapping between the set of natural numbers and the rational numbers between 1 and 2 will leave out some possibilities and some of the rational numbers will not be mapped. As such, the set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 is a "bigger" infinite set.
I always figured the best group for internet bashing would be the Amish - because they would never get to read it. Unfortunately they're generally nice, hard working people so beyond the fact that they don't use modern technology, it's hard to find things to poke fun of about them.
The funny thing is that all of that paperwork ended up costing $1000+ worth of man hours to process for the purchase of a $10 monitor cable.
It's not so much cloaking and bending radiation around in such a way that it doesn't interact with the object. To my understanding, gravity is not carried by a waveform that would be subject to this technique.
[Pedant mode on] These beheadings often are the sentence of the court being carried out. The terrorists bring their courts and lawyers with them and justify their actions in Islamic law.
[Extended Pedant Mode On] Such punishment is not considered a crime when the actor is doing so as a duly authorized agent of a state whose sovereignty is generally recognized by the other sovereign states of the world community and the subject has been prosecuted and convicted through due process. Where such "court" is authorized by the whims of non-government organizations such as religious communities, terrorist organizations, or organized criminal enterprises, and the actor is authorized by same, such punishment is and should be considered a crime. [Extended Pedant Mode Off]
Now the things that got a person there may seem trivial or stupid, and the method of execution is about as brutal as you can get (short of outright torture) but such is the way of sovereignty.
Don't forget the random auto-"corrections" that it makes to what you type. Sometimes I think my phone is trying to get me killed...
[Text to Wife] Honey I'll be picking up some (chicken) chicks to eat tonight. See you at (home) hate you (gorgeous) gordo lady! P.S. (Veronica) Erotica at work was crazy today, tell you all about it later.
Using pseudoephedrine to make meth is illegal. Should it be illegal to sell pseudoephedrine? (Correct answer: no. Shortcut governmental answer to try to prevent meth labs: of course.).
If they actually had a replacement for it that worked as good as a nasal decongestant I would be all over banninating it. Unfortunately it is simply one of the best decongestants out there and none of the alternatives work for crap for me.