Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference). I get the principle and everything, but it's not like there's a while lot of difference between the currencies these days.
Ever since the advent of anti-ship missiles, a big part of naval surface warfare tactics has been managing to get enough anti-ship missiles on target at the same time to overwhelm the target ships' defenses, so this is pretty much "Duh!"
Also, AEGIS is a 1970s naval air defense technology for protecting against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. It's only recently had an ABM capability added. It is true, as I understand it from public sources, that the VLS systems most often used with AEGIS are difficult at best to resupply at sea and pretty much is never done.
It would depend on how much of the actual players simulation logic is offloaded. Sure, you might be able to replace it locally, but then you have a different game.
The issue here appears to be many of the calculations to run the city are offloaded to EA servers and don't exist in the code you've installed on your system. Thus, offline single player is not possible and a connection is required during the whole game.
Annoying and unlikely to be worked around with a pirated version.
Well, not entirely illegal to own an assault rifle. However, if you want a automatic M16 there are significantly more hoops to jump through than for a semi-auto AR15.
Find one which was registered with the ATF prior to 1986 and is for sale.
Pay around $15-20 THOUSAND for it (artificial scarcity due to regulations).
Fill out a Form 4 to transfer it to yourself. Visit a local LEO for a certification there's nothing to prevent you from owning it. Get fingerprinted. Set the above with a check for $200 to the ATF. Some of this step can be short circuited by buying it as part of a trust or corporation.
Wait months for the Form 4 to be approved and returned to you.
Pick up your assault rifle.
Additionally, some states have their own prohibitions on actual assault rifles.
Ultimately, and it's borne out by a National Academy of Sciences survey of available research, there's no conclusive data supporting an AWB (or any gun control, for that matter) as reducing crime. It's supposition. As stated by the Supreme Court in Heller, the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right and I'm very hesitant to support restriction of an individual right based on such guesswork. We don't support prior restraint of Free Speech, even though it has motivated mass killings, yet we do here. I'm also very hesitant to support such restriction on everyone because some may misuse that right. In the case of the 2nd, it's pretty clear it was intended to protect the individual's right to own and use the state of the art infantry small arms of the day. It's equally clear the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights aren't restricted to the technologies available at the time it was enacted. So why the 2nd? IMO because, in the wake of tragedies such as Newtown, it's easier to focus on the tools than the why.
The core is there, we just need to rationalize it further.
A yard isn't that far from 2^5 inches. A mile is already pretty darned close to 2^16 inches.
And, surely you're familiar with the rounding errors involved in trying to represent base 10 decimals in binary? That is, no finite representation of 1 cm in meters? 1 1 cm = 0.0000001010001110101... m
Face it, base 2 measures are superior for our computerized society. I'f we're going to switch measures in the US, let's go with a system which recognizes the problems of base 10.
And, using the base 2 advantage, it'd just be shifts for a computer. 2' 8-3/8": 100000.011 inches (binary) mid-point: 10000.0011 inches 4' 7-3/16": 110111.0011 inches mid-point: 11011.10011 inches
It's 11011.10011 - 10000.0011 inches from the wall or 1011.01101 inches or (in decimal) 11-13/32". No floating point rounding errors.
I'll always shop locally for books. There online experience doesn't compare to browsing a bookstore.
I'll also particularly support my current local bookstore for their excellent program of sci-fi/fantasy book signings with such authors as Jim Butcher, Patrick Rothfuss, and Brandon Sanderson as regular visitors. In the past year they've also had George R. R. Martin, Cory Doctorow, Kevin Hearne, John Scalzi, Terry Brooks and Orson Scott Card.
They're also pretty popular for signings in other genres. Not bad for a local (well, now regional chain but started here) in a smallish mid-Western/Southern city: Joseph-Beth Booksellers in Lexington, Kentucky.
Not that simple. There's 100+ different sales tax districts in the state of California alone which would need to be looked up by street address (or at least 5+4 zip, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption) not by state or even county. Add to that an address in California can be within multiple sales tax jurisdictions with portions of the total sales tax getting sent different places. Amazon might need to collect 7.25% for people on one side of a street but 8% for people on the other and the next block down 8.5%.
The legal standard in most states for the use of deadly force is belief of imminent severe bodily injury or death. Essentially, would a reasonable person believe they might die or be severely injured and that use of deadly force would prevent it? States differ on what other avenues must be attempted prior to the use of deadly force, such as trying to run away, etc.
You can die in a fist fight. You can certainly sustain severe bodily injury.
There's another issue here. In most states, the initiator of the use or threat of force can't claim self defense. So if I punch you and we start fighting, you could then claim self defense if you shot me, but I couldn't if I shot you. The same if I pulled a knife and threatened to stab you.
And thirdly, there's the difference between what's moral and legal. There are probably situations where I'd think the person's choice to shoot was morally despicable but should be legal under the general principles of self defense.
Which is immaterial to whether the defense should be able to look at it for potential use. You're talking about prior restraint because they might use it in a particular way even though there are legitimate reasons to investigate it for use.
In an fairly extreme example: if I post on FB about my martial arts hobby that I'm going to go out and beat some random guy on the street up. Then I'm shot dead out on the street. Then the shooter is prosecuted for shooting innocent me with wide reporting of how innocuous I was. Then it's certainly reasonable to use my prior statements displaying bad intent to call that description of me into question and of my martial arts training to suggest capabilities beyond what might normally be expected of someone my age and appearance.
I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech.
Tweeting and posting Facebook are protected free speech in the US. They are also generally public speech and can certainly be used against you as a defendant in criminal court if the content suggests illegal activity. The First Amendment protection is only against being prosecuted for the speech itself. The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination doesn't apply to such public, voluntary statements.
But, ultimately that doesn't apply here since Trayvon isn't the defendant. This is about the use of public statements by the other parties by the criminal defendant. Miranda warnings don't apply here. They apply when the police arrest you and presumably charge you for a crime. When did they arrest or charge Trayvon?
But where? It's not clear from the article. As far as I can tell, the New Zealand Mint doesn't produce any legal New Zealand tender, but they do produce legal tender commemoratives for other South Pacific countries, e.g. Fiji. And, this sort of coin looks like it's right up their alley with their Muhammed Ali, Star Wars, etc. coin sets. They could be legal tender on Pitcairn Island.
Per the Reserve Bank of New Zealand coins have been minted at (as of 2009): Royal Mint: 1967, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 Royal Australian Mint: 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1988 Royal Canadian Mint: 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Norwegian Mint: 1996 and 1997 (Cupro-Nickel coins only) South African Mint Company: 1997 ($2 coins only), 1998, and 1999
Are these official New Zealand currency (typically minted by the Royal Mint in the UK or the Royal Canadian Mint), or commemoratives produced by the New Zealand Mint, a private company which doesn't produce New Zealand's currency?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference). I get the principle and everything, but it's not like there's a while lot of difference between the currencies these days.
With vertical stabilizers added.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_X-36
True, but the name is definitely 1970s. There is an implication in the summary that it's an ABM system.
Ever since the advent of anti-ship missiles, a big part of naval surface warfare tactics has been managing to get enough anti-ship missiles on target at the same time to overwhelm the target ships' defenses, so this is pretty much "Duh!"
Also, AEGIS is a 1970s naval air defense technology for protecting against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. It's only recently had an ABM capability added. It is true, as I understand it from public sources, that the VLS systems most often used with AEGIS are difficult at best to resupply at sea and pretty much is never done.
It would depend on how much of the actual players simulation logic is offloaded. Sure, you might be able to replace it locally, but then you have a different game.
If the dev's team explanations are correct, and actual simulation logic if off-loaded, you'd have to replace logic which only exists on the servers.
"...GlassBox works by attributing portions of the computing to EA servers (the cloud) and some on the player's local computer."
http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/The-Benefits-of-Live-Service
The issue here appears to be many of the calculations to run the city are offloaded to EA servers and don't exist in the code you've installed on your system. Thus, offline single player is not possible and a connection is required during the whole game.
Annoying and unlikely to be worked around with a pirated version.
Which mean, by definition, any parts Boeing puts in it as original equipment are OEM parts.
Well, not entirely illegal to own an assault rifle. However, if you want a automatic M16 there are significantly more hoops to jump through than for a semi-auto AR15.
Additionally, some states have their own prohibitions on actual assault rifles.
Ultimately, and it's borne out by a National Academy of Sciences survey of available research, there's no conclusive data supporting an AWB (or any gun control, for that matter) as reducing crime. It's supposition. As stated by the Supreme Court in Heller, the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right and I'm very hesitant to support restriction of an individual right based on such guesswork. We don't support prior restraint of Free Speech, even though it has motivated mass killings, yet we do here. I'm also very hesitant to support such restriction on everyone because some may misuse that right. In the case of the 2nd, it's pretty clear it was intended to protect the individual's right to own and use the state of the art infantry small arms of the day. It's equally clear the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights aren't restricted to the technologies available at the time it was enacted. So why the 2nd? IMO because, in the wake of tragedies such as Newtown, it's easier to focus on the tools than the why.
Try weights and volumes:
1 gallon = 4 quarts = 8 pints = 16 cups = 128 ounces = 256 tablespoons
1 pound = 16 ounces = 256 drams
The core is there, we just need to rationalize it further.
A yard isn't that far from 2^5 inches.
A mile is already pretty darned close to 2^16 inches.
And, surely you're familiar with the rounding errors involved in trying to represent base 10 decimals in binary? That is, no finite representation of 1 cm in meters? 1 1 cm = 0.0000001010001110101... m
Face it, base 2 measures are superior for our computerized society. I'f we're going to switch measures in the US, let's go with a system which recognizes the problems of base 10.
And, using the base 2 advantage, it'd just be shifts for a computer.
2' 8-3/8": 100000.011 inches (binary)
mid-point: 10000.0011 inches
4' 7-3/16": 110111.0011 inches
mid-point: 11011.10011 inches
It's 11011.10011 - 10000.0011 inches from the wall or 1011.01101 inches or (in decimal) 11-13/32". No floating point rounding errors.
After all, Imperial (in the US flavor) is better for computing than metric since it's at least partially base 2.
We know exactly where they all are, including the one Iran just captured.
Or summer performance tires.
I'll always shop locally for books. There online experience doesn't compare to browsing a bookstore.
I'll also particularly support my current local bookstore for their excellent program of sci-fi/fantasy book signings with such authors as Jim Butcher, Patrick Rothfuss, and Brandon Sanderson as regular visitors. In the past year they've also had George R. R. Martin, Cory Doctorow, Kevin Hearne, John Scalzi, Terry Brooks and Orson Scott Card.
They're also pretty popular for signings in other genres. Not bad for a local (well, now regional chain but started here) in a smallish mid-Western/Southern city: Joseph-Beth Booksellers in Lexington, Kentucky.
Amazon can't do that.
Not that simple. There's 100+ different sales tax districts in the state of California alone which would need to be looked up by street address (or at least 5+4 zip, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption) not by state or even county. Add to that an address in California can be within multiple sales tax jurisdictions with portions of the total sales tax getting sent different places. Amazon might need to collect 7.25% for people on one side of a street but 8% for people on the other and the next block down 8.5%.
This pretty much covers it. You might be able to get away with a solar powered airship, but nothing like the current speed of air travel.
Possibly.
The legal standard in most states for the use of deadly force is belief of imminent severe bodily injury or death. Essentially, would a reasonable person believe they might die or be severely injured and that use of deadly force would prevent it? States differ on what other avenues must be attempted prior to the use of deadly force, such as trying to run away, etc.
You can die in a fist fight. You can certainly sustain severe bodily injury.
There's another issue here. In most states, the initiator of the use or threat of force can't claim self defense. So if I punch you and we start fighting, you could then claim self defense if you shot me, but I couldn't if I shot you. The same if I pulled a knife and threatened to stab you.
And thirdly, there's the difference between what's moral and legal. There are probably situations where I'd think the person's choice to shoot was morally despicable but should be legal under the general principles of self defense.
Which is immaterial to whether the defense should be able to look at it for potential use. You're talking about prior restraint because they might use it in a particular way even though there are legitimate reasons to investigate it for use.
But generally not on self-incrimination grounds, which is the protection the Miranda warning about "anything you say" is about.
Why should they need to have prior knowledge?
In an fairly extreme example: if I post on FB about my martial arts hobby that I'm going to go out and beat some random guy on the street up. Then I'm shot dead out on the street. Then the shooter is prosecuted for shooting innocent me with wide reporting of how innocuous I was. Then it's certainly reasonable to use my prior statements displaying bad intent to call that description of me into question and of my martial arts training to suggest capabilities beyond what might normally be expected of someone my age and appearance.
I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech.
Tweeting and posting Facebook are protected free speech in the US. They are also generally public speech and can certainly be used against you as a defendant in criminal court if the content suggests illegal activity. The First Amendment protection is only against being prosecuted for the speech itself. The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination doesn't apply to such public, voluntary statements.
But, ultimately that doesn't apply here since Trayvon isn't the defendant. This is about the use of public statements by the other parties by the criminal defendant. Miranda warnings don't apply here. They apply when the police arrest you and presumably charge you for a crime. When did they arrest or charge Trayvon?
Actually, most newer subs from any country don't have aft tubes, not just the USN.
But where? It's not clear from the article. As far as I can tell, the New Zealand Mint doesn't produce any legal New Zealand tender, but they do produce legal tender commemoratives for other South Pacific countries, e.g. Fiji. And, this sort of coin looks like it's right up their alley with their Muhammed Ali, Star Wars, etc. coin sets. They could be legal tender on Pitcairn Island.
Per the Reserve Bank of New Zealand coins have been minted at (as of 2009):
Royal Mint: 1967, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008
Royal Australian Mint: 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1988
Royal Canadian Mint: 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2008
Norwegian Mint: 1996 and 1997 (Cupro-Nickel coins only)
South African Mint Company: 1997 ($2 coins only), 1998, and 1999
Are these official New Zealand currency (typically minted by the Royal Mint in the UK or the Royal Canadian Mint), or commemoratives produced by the New Zealand Mint, a private company which doesn't produce New Zealand's currency?