The problem is, science at this level is not allways obviously wrong or right. The conclusions are often easy to grasp and easy to apply, but the methods used to reach those conclusions are often only understood by a select few. That's why it's important for some of those select few to review these articles. Not only does it help the public because they can have some amount of confidence in the material printed in a journal, but it also helps the researcher. If he's wrong he's going to want to know, and articles that are rejected by peer review are returned with notes explaining why it was rejected. Those mistakes are often fixable, it's not uncommon for papers to be submitted more then once before they are accepted.
If they haven't violated a law then he has no case. And the first amendment specifically states that there can be no law of this kind for them to violate. So it certainly does apply.
Obviously the law doesn't see it this way. But personally I feel that the "terms" of the sale are terms of just that, the sale. Once the sale is complete the product is mine to do with as I please.
The heart slows, it doesn't stop. If it stopped the animal would die; that is the definition of death, your heart stops. As for the definition of hibernation, it's a state of regulated hypothermia. That is why bears are not technically hibernating, their body temperature doesn't drop, so it is not considered a state of hypothermia. That is also the reason why they can be woken up easly. Heart rate can be increased fairly quickly, but body tempature is a much slower process.
I think the fact that we're knowhere near even thinking about trying today means it wont be possible tomorrow. There is a natural evolution to science, it appears to go by leaps and bounds but you can only leap so far ahead at once. But hey, maybe one day in the future we'll find that Relativity is a limiting case of a theorum that does allow faster then light travel.
Of course, my interpretation of relativity might be a bit off. But I'm pretty sure that, by the current method of measuring velocity, it's not that we can't get up to speeds faster then light, it's that those speeds don't exist and are pointless to discuss.
I like how you describe only one part of your highly theoretical plan to be "the hard part". I love theory as much as the next guy, but converting from theory to application has never been easy, and that applies to all parts of it.:)
California isn't unique in that. Most state laws AFAIK have that you can drive no faster then the speed limit and no faster then is safe. Meaning speed limits are hard upper bounds but you can still get a speeding ticket under that limit if the conditions make the posted limit unsafe.
This isn't going to help people catch drunk drivers. Drunk driving is a crime even if your not breaking any traffic laws. A black box can't tell if you're blitzed.
From what I understand though, don't these vehicles need to be driven on roads with special magnets driller into the center lane? I didn't think they worked on just any old road.
Lets put it differently, what would you call someone who is charged with rape and ordered to donate DNA for investigation and then says NO because it may finger me in previous rapes I commited?
It's called the 5th Amendment. You have the right not to incriminate yourself.
And no, people don't want their cars looking over their shoulder. There's nothing wrong with that either. You say it's using technology to proove someone broke the law, which if it was, would be perfectly fine. But it's using technology to incriminate people in the first place, which is not fine when it's something that those people own and payed for.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind we still have plenty of time to fall victim to one of those.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116995 &cid=9899221
The problem is, science at this level is not allways obviously wrong or right. The conclusions are often easy to grasp and easy to apply, but the methods used to reach those conclusions are often only understood by a select few. That's why it's important for some of those select few to review these articles. Not only does it help the public because they can have some amount of confidence in the material printed in a journal, but it also helps the researcher. If he's wrong he's going to want to know, and articles that are rejected by peer review are returned with notes explaining why it was rejected. Those mistakes are often fixable, it's not uncommon for papers to be submitted more then once before they are accepted.
Science is for everyone, reguardless of nationality. There is no security needed.
Seriously though. Scientific research is for everyone, not just the people that can afford it.
Yes, they should make it available. We don't own the moon.
This is government funded science, not defence research. They are two seperate things.
If they haven't violated a law then he has no case. And the first amendment specifically states that there can be no law of this kind for them to violate. So it certainly does apply.
Apparently so considering the /. readership far exceeds that of any Yahoo message board.
No they don't, but if you decide not too then other people are free to use your domain name as... say... the title of a book..
Lincolns republican party can't really be compared to the current republican party.
Obviously the law doesn't see it this way. But personally I feel that the "terms" of the sale are terms of just that, the sale. Once the sale is complete the product is mine to do with as I please.
The heart slows, it doesn't stop. If it stopped the animal would die; that is the definition of death, your heart stops. As for the definition of hibernation, it's a state of regulated hypothermia. That is why bears are not technically hibernating, their body temperature doesn't drop, so it is not considered a state of hypothermia. That is also the reason why they can be woken up easly. Heart rate can be increased fairly quickly, but body tempature is a much slower process.
Of course, my interpretation of relativity might be a bit off. But I'm pretty sure that, by the current method of measuring velocity, it's not that we can't get up to speeds faster then light, it's that those speeds don't exist and are pointless to discuss.
Not really. From your frame of referance on the ship the earth would never be traveling away from at a speed of greater then light.
I like how you describe only one part of your highly theoretical plan to be "the hard part". I love theory as much as the next guy, but converting from theory to application has never been easy, and that applies to all parts of it. :)
Store owners aren't required to have survaliance.
Most accidents are caused by human error. If you take the human element out of it then you get rid of those accidents.
That would be harrasment, entrapment would be if the police officer invited you to break the law.
California isn't unique in that. Most state laws AFAIK have that you can drive no faster then the speed limit and no faster then is safe. Meaning speed limits are hard upper bounds but you can still get a speeding ticket under that limit if the conditions make the posted limit unsafe.
3. Neither
This isn't going to help people catch drunk drivers. Drunk driving is a crime even if your not breaking any traffic laws. A black box can't tell if you're blitzed.
The two don't conflict. It's called traffic laws and police to enforce them.
From what I understand though, don't these vehicles need to be driven on roads with special magnets driller into the center lane? I didn't think they worked on just any old road.
It's called the 5th Amendment. You have the right not to incriminate yourself.
And no, people don't want their cars looking over their shoulder. There's nothing wrong with that either. You say it's using technology to proove someone broke the law, which if it was, would be perfectly fine. But it's using technology to incriminate people in the first place, which is not fine when it's something that those people own and payed for.