Of course you won't. A lost kid would be what, one pixel? That's hardly enough resolution to be useful. You'll not that this thing isn't a search for Steve, either. But his plane is (or was once) big enough to be resolved.
Say they're flying at 10,000 ft (~3 km) and the satellite is in LEO (~300 km). Then by similar triangles, the plane should appear to be 300/297 of the size (1% bigger).
I would be all for a special lane for unmanned vehicles. I mean, if they're not even in the people lanes, you can't really complain about them being a hazard. I would prefer that the unmanned lane be for unmanned passenger vehicles, then I could take a nap while on long trips or have a car with safer backwards-facing seats.
But even unmanned trucks would be a benefit, as they could be run closer together, clearing up more lane space. They could also be more fuel efficient: with no driver, the speed could be cut by 25%, and still travel twice the distance in a day as a human just from the continuous driving possibilities.
You can't look for people if you don't even know they're missing. If they were flying below the radar (not hard to do in the mountains), filed no flight plans, and left behind no one who cared about them enough to notice they're missing, then how exactly were the rescue agencies supposed to find them?
Further, if they were doing all those things, what're the odds the undocumented wreckage contains remains of undocumented would-be workers or non-medicinal pharmaceuticals?
It is not $39.99 + $11.01 in taxes. If you look carefully at your bill, you'll find that there are a few fees that look like they go to the government, and may even have words like "federal" in there somewhere, but if you actually talk to your provider you'll find that they are, in fact,(sometimes federally mandated) costs of doing business.
In other words, they are presenting as fees things that should have been folded into the advertised price.
As an analogy, you wouldn't expect McDonald's to advertise "99 cent hamburgers!" and then charge an extra 18 cents when you buy one as a "State Health Department Cleanliness Fee," would you?
You've got almost the whole Camel book in perldoc. I haven't read enough history to guess who borrows from whom, but I've found quite a few entries that were identical to several pages of the Camel book.
Which explains why at least a few stores (Staples, Best Buy) come to mind, have been printing extra "rebate receipts" with basically everything you need for the rebate.
Actually, it fails to explain that, but they're nice nonetheless.
I was going to suggest sending subversive commands through the onion router, but then it occurred to me: How many TOR computers are infected, and how many would you need to compromise that network?
Your solution violates the second law of legislative dynamics: Legal entropy increases for all bills. It's an unwritten prime directive of the lawyers' guild, which unlike all other guilds, stubbornly refuses to strike.
Try again when you've got something that's needlessly complicated, trounces a few unrelated rights, and funds an unnecessary bridge somewhere.
Re:Like the famous "Gore won Florida"?
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the people who weren't counted because their absentee ballots arrived wet and a little late. Silly US soldiers counting on the US mail...
Oh and the people in the panhandle who didn't even go to the polls because they were told by the news that the polls were closed and gore won.
Or the cherry-picking of counties for repeated recounting despite an actually quite clear code regarding the matter.
And let's fail also to consider the possibility that perhaps the apparently overwhelming support of felons and the surprisingly politically active necrotic population for the democratic party isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.
Look the 2000 election is over. Gore himself even agrees to this. It's time to move on. Whatever your current reasons for disliking Bush, you should concentrate on those instead.
While technically true, perhaps the best kind of true, if the companies cannot deliver their advertised rates, which are quite often !!10 mbps, unlimited*!!! (with all those extra exclamation points, even) then they either advertised falsely or planned poorly.
*Some restrictions apply, but you'll never know about them unless you have a high def TV, and happen to be watching a high def channel when the company's advertisement airs, assuming they bothered to film it in high definition itself.
It's such a minor injustice, searching a bag of purchased items for stuff that's not there. It certainly is an insult, which the company shouldn't bother with and this particular employee was way out of line, but it remains true the the fellow went into the store voluntarily, knowing their policy in this matter, and that substantially shifts responsibility towards him.
I mean, there are so many more important civil rights issues to be worried about, this barely makes the radar of importance. There isn't even anything he could buy in circuit city that he could be embarrassed about. Except maybe their ricer sound systems, but usually the people buying that crap don't have any shame, anyway.
Compare this to, say, Martin Luther King's marches and boycotts or the events surrounding Little Rock Central High School they've been talking about today and I think you see just how petty it really is.
I'm not suggesting that, when a search is requested, he should simply acquiesce every time, but there were numerous points where he could've complied and later complained, or avoided the action altogether. The entire escalation was the result of choices HE made. He shouldn't have gone into Circuit City knowing their policy and expected things to go smoothly when he resisted it. I would definitely think differently if he hadn't known in advance that Circuit City likes to conduct exit searches.
I think he probably got stuck thinking very narrowly about what to do at the exit, and failed to consider all of his options, up to and including his arrest. It is unfortunate due to the effect it had on his family as well as the store and police. I hope things work out for him, but he was kind of a jerk about the whole thing despite being technically mostly in-the-right.
who decided that TextLikeThis is more readable than text_like_this?
I suspect that they actually decided that TextLikeThis was easier to type, and sufficiently readable that the typing ease benefit was worth the switch. Of course that's because no one thought of making shift-<space> map to _.
Well that hints at the problem, but it's not the real problem. The assumptions there are the killer: that given the choice between a green car and a non-green car, too many will choose the non-green if it's cheaper.
Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that people believe that other people should drive green cars, and in a few states have imposed their will.
This guy walked into a circuit city That he well knows is going to want to search his bag, since they try to everywhere else. But he went in anyway and said nothing until, upon exiting, he refused the search he knew was coming and made a scene in the parking lot. Apparently, it's never occurred to him to contact circuit city and complain about their bag-searching policy separately.
Thoreau advocated civil disobedience, but I think he'd be appalled to see it exercised in a case like this. There was a much better option available the entire time, which would've avoided the bag-search and the arrest: Buy the game at Gamespot or EB, whatever's not too far, and get the surge protector some other time. There is no need to be a slave to the circuit city happening to be in the same shopping plaza as the grocer.
There are legitimate complaints mentioned here, but the question is what to do about it. There are still plenty of avenues open to that we need not resort to these tactics. In the TSA case, a lawsuit is long overdue. When the airlines were running it, they could set conditions such as restricted items, and confirmation of the non-presence of restricted items as terms of sale, but now that it's a federal agency, they have constitutional restrictions on such things. Even there, there is still a way around the problem that doesn't require you to get yourself arrested: don't fly commercial at all. You can still fly charter flights or whatever else that doesn't load at the terminal, your trip will probably be more comfortable and arrive closer to your actual destination, even. It might cost a little more, but the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have even been a problem if everyone flew small, direct flights.
But alas, he decided to go down the road to victimhood by getting himself arrested by a confused cop. Yay, he's a victim now, too. Just what the world needed another one of.
Because you can throw away a few of 'em for various reasons, and you can register them electronically, which takes some burden off of the telescope mount.
Yeah but you're weighing a minor cost against a minor infraction. Is the cost worth the benefit? As a person who has relatives, I'd say not antagonizing them is important to me. Certainly much more important than "not getting my bag barely looked at by a bored box-store lackey."
I suppose it's different if you've got mean relatives or you're a psychopath. And psychopaths do have rights after all.
I have, and they didn't. But how they choose to handle non-emergency calls is their business. Your duty in the matter is to self-flag as non-emergency if possible. If you know for a fact that's how they do things in your town, then I suppose you can take advantage of it.
You're an ass, and you've clearly been looking for an opportunity to press this very issue.
In fact, pressing the issue isn't what makes you an ass. Calling 911 is. Unless you believed you were in danger of physical harm from a department store manager, you should not have used that number. It's there for emergencies, which your escapade clearly was not. If someone died of a heart attack while you were tying up an operator, you'd feel pretty stupid right now. Or maybe not, but you should.
Every police department has a non-emergency number for just this kind of thing, and frankly I'm surprised the officer did not explain it to you. If you don't know the non-emergency (i.e. regular) number for wherever you are, an operator can connect you. The numbers are also conveniently located in the government pages of your phone book, which I understand you would not have handy at the time.
It's all well and good to make a stand over some minor civil rights infraction, but it's bad form to tie up dedicated emergency resources to do it.
So.. they're not reading the receipts, then. If they were, they'd notice the date, and wouldn't need the yellow stripe. And what about rejected returns?
The can certainly make "agree to present receipt upon exiting the store" a precondition of sale, but as far as I know, they don't actually post anything about that anywhere, let alone getting your express permission.
Yeah I made this mistake in 2000, by voting against Gore. I'm glad Gore isn't president, but I knew at the time that Bush wasn't really a conservative. I just though, Well, at least he's a Republican, so how bad can he really be? Since then we've had one of the biggest expansions of federal government in history (prescription drug program) and a commander in chief with absolutely no interest in securing our border.
It has occurred to me that it's quite possible a lot of people are "not wasting their vote" by wasting it on someone they only don't despise slightly less than someone else. Based on my anecdotal evidence of personal experience, I'd guess that fully four fifths of the voting population are doing this, and the rest either inexplicable party loyalists or random-voting chad impregnators.
I dunno, I don't think it's wasting your vote to vote for the person that you would actually like to see in there. Especially now that democrats and republicans are so similar that they might as well be one big, "Democratic Republican" party.
If everyone always voted for their actual top choice (rather than who they think is "electable") it'd change the game entirely. Oh, also, If you're still undecided a month before the election, you fail thinking. Don't vote at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you won't. A lost kid would be what, one pixel? That's hardly enough resolution to be useful. You'll not that this thing isn't a search for Steve, either. But his plane is (or was once) big enough to be resolved.
Say they're flying at 10,000 ft (~3 km) and the satellite is in LEO (~300 km). Then by similar triangles, the plane should appear to be 300/297 of the size (1% bigger).
I would be all for a special lane for unmanned vehicles. I mean, if they're not even in the people lanes, you can't really complain about them being a hazard. I would prefer that the unmanned lane be for unmanned passenger vehicles, then I could take a nap while on long trips or have a car with safer backwards-facing seats.
But even unmanned trucks would be a benefit, as they could be run closer together, clearing up more lane space. They could also be more fuel efficient: with no driver, the speed could be cut by 25%, and still travel twice the distance in a day as a human just from the continuous driving possibilities.
You can't look for people if you don't even know they're missing. If they were flying below the radar (not hard to do in the mountains), filed no flight plans, and left behind no one who cared about them enough to notice they're missing, then how exactly were the rescue agencies supposed to find them?
Further, if they were doing all those things, what're the odds the undocumented wreckage contains remains of undocumented would-be workers or non-medicinal pharmaceuticals?
It is not $39.99 + $11.01 in taxes. If you look carefully at your bill, you'll find that there are a few fees that look like they go to the government, and may even have words like "federal" in there somewhere, but if you actually talk to your provider you'll find that they are, in fact,(sometimes federally mandated) costs of doing business.
In other words, they are presenting as fees things that should have been folded into the advertised price.
As an analogy, you wouldn't expect McDonald's to advertise "99 cent hamburgers!" and then charge an extra 18 cents when you buy one as a "State Health Department Cleanliness Fee," would you?
It's perfectly safe, as long as you aren't President Lincoln.
You've got almost the whole Camel book in perldoc. I haven't read enough history to guess who borrows from whom, but I've found quite a few entries that were identical to several pages of the Camel book.
Which explains why at least a few stores (Staples, Best Buy) come to mind, have been printing extra "rebate receipts" with basically everything you need for the rebate.
Actually, it fails to explain that, but they're nice nonetheless.
I was going to suggest sending subversive commands through the onion router, but then it occurred to me: How many TOR computers are infected, and how many would you need to compromise that network?
Your solution violates the second law of legislative dynamics: Legal entropy increases for all bills. It's an unwritten prime directive of the lawyers' guild, which unlike all other guilds, stubbornly refuses to strike.
Try again when you've got something that's needlessly complicated, trounces a few unrelated rights, and funds an unnecessary bridge somewhere.
Not to mention the people who weren't counted because their absentee ballots arrived wet and a little late. Silly US soldiers counting on the US mail...
Oh and the people in the panhandle who didn't even go to the polls because they were told by the news that the polls were closed and gore won.
Or the cherry-picking of counties for repeated recounting despite an actually quite clear code regarding the matter.
And let's fail also to consider the possibility that perhaps the apparently overwhelming support of felons and the surprisingly politically active necrotic population for the democratic party isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.
Look the 2000 election is over. Gore himself even agrees to this. It's time to move on. Whatever your current reasons for disliking Bush, you should concentrate on those instead.
While technically true, perhaps the best kind of true, if the companies cannot deliver their advertised rates, which are quite often !!10 mbps, unlimited*!!! (with all those extra exclamation points, even) then they either advertised falsely or planned poorly.
*Some restrictions apply, but you'll never know about them unless you have a high def TV, and happen to be watching a high def channel when the company's advertisement airs, assuming they bothered to film it in high definition itself.
Oh man, I hate that game. I've only played it once, and lost two friends because of it.
It's such a minor injustice, searching a bag of purchased items for stuff that's not there. It certainly is an insult, which the company shouldn't bother with and this particular employee was way out of line, but it remains true the the fellow went into the store voluntarily, knowing their policy in this matter, and that substantially shifts responsibility towards him.
I mean, there are so many more important civil rights issues to be worried about, this barely makes the radar of importance. There isn't even anything he could buy in circuit city that he could be embarrassed about. Except maybe their ricer sound systems, but usually the people buying that crap don't have any shame, anyway.
Compare this to, say, Martin Luther King's marches and boycotts or the events surrounding Little Rock Central High School they've been talking about today and I think you see just how petty it really is.
I'm not suggesting that, when a search is requested, he should simply acquiesce every time, but there were numerous points where he could've complied and later complained, or avoided the action altogether. The entire escalation was the result of choices HE made. He shouldn't have gone into Circuit City knowing their policy and expected things to go smoothly when he resisted it. I would definitely think differently if he hadn't known in advance that Circuit City likes to conduct exit searches.
I think he probably got stuck thinking very narrowly about what to do at the exit, and failed to consider all of his options, up to and including his arrest. It is unfortunate due to the effect it had on his family as well as the store and police. I hope things work out for him, but he was kind of a jerk about the whole thing despite being technically mostly in-the-right.
I suspect that they actually decided that TextLikeThis was easier to type, and sufficiently readable that the typing ease benefit was worth the switch. Of course that's because no one thought of making shift-<space> map to _.
Well that hints at the problem, but it's not the real problem. The assumptions there are the killer: that given the choice between a green car and a non-green car, too many will choose the non-green if it's cheaper.
Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that people believe that other people should drive green cars, and in a few states have imposed their will.
Yeah but who's the pansy here?
This guy walked into a circuit city That he well knows is going to want to search his bag, since they try to everywhere else. But he went in anyway and said nothing until, upon exiting, he refused the search he knew was coming and made a scene in the parking lot. Apparently, it's never occurred to him to contact circuit city and complain about their bag-searching policy separately.
Thoreau advocated civil disobedience, but I think he'd be appalled to see it exercised in a case like this. There was a much better option available the entire time, which would've avoided the bag-search and the arrest: Buy the game at Gamespot or EB, whatever's not too far, and get the surge protector some other time. There is no need to be a slave to the circuit city happening to be in the same shopping plaza as the grocer.
There are legitimate complaints mentioned here, but the question is what to do about it. There are still plenty of avenues open to that we need not resort to these tactics. In the TSA case, a lawsuit is long overdue. When the airlines were running it, they could set conditions such as restricted items, and confirmation of the non-presence of restricted items as terms of sale, but now that it's a federal agency, they have constitutional restrictions on such things. Even there, there is still a way around the problem that doesn't require you to get yourself arrested: don't fly commercial at all. You can still fly charter flights or whatever else that doesn't load at the terminal, your trip will probably be more comfortable and arrive closer to your actual destination, even. It might cost a little more, but the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have even been a problem if everyone flew small, direct flights.
But alas, he decided to go down the road to victimhood by getting himself arrested by a confused cop. Yay, he's a victim now, too. Just what the world needed another one of.
Because you can throw away a few of 'em for various reasons, and you can register them electronically, which takes some burden off of the telescope mount.
Yeah but you're weighing a minor cost against a minor infraction. Is the cost worth the benefit? As a person who has relatives, I'd say not antagonizing them is important to me. Certainly much more important than "not getting my bag barely looked at by a bored box-store lackey."
I suppose it's different if you've got mean relatives or you're a psychopath. And psychopaths do have rights after all.
I have, and they didn't. But how they choose to handle non-emergency calls is their business. Your duty in the matter is to self-flag as non-emergency if possible. If you know for a fact that's how they do things in your town, then I suppose you can take advantage of it.
You're an ass, and you've clearly been looking for an opportunity to press this very issue.
In fact, pressing the issue isn't what makes you an ass. Calling 911 is. Unless you believed you were in danger of physical harm from a department store manager, you should not have used that number. It's there for emergencies, which your escapade clearly was not. If someone died of a heart attack while you were tying up an operator, you'd feel pretty stupid right now. Or maybe not, but you should.
Every police department has a non-emergency number for just this kind of thing, and frankly I'm surprised the officer did not explain it to you. If you don't know the non-emergency (i.e. regular) number for wherever you are, an operator can connect you. The numbers are also conveniently located in the government pages of your phone book, which I understand you would not have handy at the time.
It's all well and good to make a stand over some minor civil rights infraction, but it's bad form to tie up dedicated emergency resources to do it.
So.. they're not reading the receipts, then. If they were, they'd notice the date, and wouldn't need the yellow stripe. And what about rejected returns?
The can certainly make "agree to present receipt upon exiting the store" a precondition of sale, but as far as I know, they don't actually post anything about that anywhere, let alone getting your express permission.
Yeah I made this mistake in 2000, by voting against Gore. I'm glad Gore isn't president, but I knew at the time that Bush wasn't really a conservative. I just though, Well, at least he's a Republican, so how bad can he really be? Since then we've had one of the biggest expansions of federal government in history (prescription drug program) and a commander in chief with absolutely no interest in securing our border.
It has occurred to me that it's quite possible a lot of people are "not wasting their vote" by wasting it on someone they only don't despise slightly less than someone else. Based on my anecdotal evidence of personal experience, I'd guess that fully four fifths of the voting population are doing this, and the rest either inexplicable party loyalists or random-voting chad impregnators.
I dunno, I don't think it's wasting your vote to vote for the person that you would actually like to see in there. Especially now that democrats and republicans are so similar that they might as well be one big, "Democratic Republican" party.
If everyone always voted for their actual top choice (rather than who they think is "electable") it'd change the game entirely. Oh, also, If you're still undecided a month before the election, you fail thinking. Don't vote at all.
An equally valid reference when discussing the Pope's stance on tax avoision? Did you even read the title of the article?