Usually a foreign property search requires the permission of that country to pre-approve the search. I very much doubt the US requested permission. Violating another country's sovereignty should never be taken lightly.
Thank goodness that "obligation to shareholders" does not include a 100% fixation on the bottom line. Governance is about achieving value, which is not the same as maximizing share return. Feel free to vote with your feet, if you don't like the way the company you bought into is being run.
The cost of movies, even today, is based on what the market will support. Yes, sometimes movies make a ton of profit, but sometimes they lose. If you don't want to spend big bucks on a big name actress, then don't. But the risks of not making any money might go up. Its all risky, and large corporations tend to be risk averse.
To be honest, the budgets for most movies is driven by labour costs, and the largest component of that is for A-listers.
Summer Ice retreat in the arctic has never been more severe in our records. Ice thickness has similarly never been so low. The extent of winter ice is entirely a different matter. Its the difference between "weather" and "climate".
Except that politicians will apply any new cognitive abilities to suit their prime consideration: reelection. What our politicians are interested in is how to make the "country" better. This is not the same as making the country better for its citizens. The metric for how they make the country better is how can they make the country better for themselves. Does this mean I'm lumping all the politicians together, and painting politicians that really are looking out for the greatest good of their citizens with the same brush? Sadly, yes. But I look forward to the 1% proving me wrong.
I play stock only. I imagine it is harder, but then the purpose of the game isn't to win, its to achieve. When I assembled my 1050t, 900 part mothership in orbit (13 launches) around Kerbin then flew it to Jool to explore all the moons at the same time using dedicated explorer ships, was it hard and rather tedious to do it without using a single mod or manipulating craft files? Damn right it was, especially when the part count got higher and the framerate dropped. Manual orbital maneuvers and docking can be a bitch at times.
Only ever considered the cosmetic mods, but never downloaded them when I saw the performance hit they all impart.
I just don't see the benefit of adding mods to take away the hard work, when the whole point is the effort. And yes, I only play minecraft on hardcore.
That's the problem in Quebec. Too many of the Pequists do live in the past. They are trying to hold Quebec back from evolving like the rest of the world. When the premier of Quebec states in public that saying "bonjour, hi" as a greeting in a store with a bilingual clientele is unacceptable (as the entire greeting must be in French, in her mind), she is clearly not functioning in the real world.
Get evil genius from GOG.
It loses steam in the mid-play , but the start and the end are fantastic. don't bother with the surface buildings (hotel casino, etc.) Pros don't bother with traps, either.
Not a Christian stereotype, a fundamentalist one. I refuse to stereotype as Christian those that use the Christian moniker for such restrictive viewpoints.
I completely agree that most Christians believe in evolution and the use of science to understand the existing universe, regardless of the source of the Universe.
I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.
As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.
It has been obvious for a long time, that when it comes to privacy of the person and their rights when in conflict with the demands of the state and defending these rights in court, that the subject of the court case will be a scumball.
Just because he is scum doesn't mean he doesn't have rights. Someone's grandmother up on similar charges, we could all support defending their rights, unfortunately, they are not the ones likely to end up with those charges in the first place.
I can see how my comments addressed items not in your original post. I will say that I agree that those agencies providing review of trustworthiness of a product, must themselves, be open to inspection. If I need to trust person B to review device X to inform me as to whether I should trust that device, I need satisfaction that B can be trusted. From this position, both aspects of trust are the same. However, I will maintain that no enough is done in our marketplace (primarily due to governments not wanting to limit their own reach) to ensure the security of our private communications. The telecom and data industries are only limiting themselves to what is required by law. There is no advantage to them to provide better security, and I have no doubt, that there is considerable pressure not to. Here, the market does not provide the device, service, or product I desire; either limited by legislation or by actions from state agencies.
I cannot agree on this. There is no double standard here, only different standards applied to different concepts. When I produce a product for public consumption where that device facilitates a protected right, the device should be tested for its ability to be trusted. i.e. source code public and/or peer reviewed. My personal communication is protected. The software for my device to facilitate that communication should be trusted, and the only way to ensure that trust is to have its functionality peer reviewed.
There are different standards here, because there are different rights at stake, and they have different values.
Sorry Sunshine, you're mixing apples and oranges. He's advocating peer-review for technologies to be widely used and trusted by people. He's advocating privacy and anonymity for people. You are trying to say that asking that the tools we use to privately communicate should be trusted, because the corporate bodies that make them deserve to be trusted. People have the right for private communication, with the exception of pre-authorized, court sponsored, evidence gathering. People are allowed to be anonymous. We do not have to carry papers when we travel locally/internally. We are free to associate. I do not have to trust that the software you have installed on a device that that I own. I certainly do not have to give up my rights to grant rights where they do not belong
With only 1/4 the oxygen pickup, this protein would likely not be a substitute for your own blood, but it could be something to tide you over until you could get a proper top up.
If memory serves, artifacts like this are caused generally from the timing difference from the 3 colour images that were superimposed on each other to get the composite colour image.
Other Saturn images are similar artifacts. The astronomy site talks about them on another Saturn picture page.
So, you've discounted the fact that we won't be using a flammable substance for the ship's skin, and we won't be using a flammable gas for lift ? Helium doesn't burn/explode, and neither does the intended skin.
Those that dies in the Hindenburg were burned by diesel fuel spilled when the skin and lifting gas ignited. So on the whole, I'd say we have learned from History in this case. Of course, we still drive to work knowing that this is the least safe commuting option.
Unfortunately, the law would compel Bob to testify, IF the law knew Bob was a witness. Such testimony would be to Bob's disadvantage.
Of course, the legal teams would need to learn about Bob's information. Bob is not required under any law to indicate that he was in possession of such information. However, once he admits that he was a witness he can be compelled to testify.
I'm sorry, perhaps the quoting the actual wording of the amendment confused you.
You cannot be compelled to provide testimony that may incriminate yourself. It doesn't matter if its your trial or someone else's.
However, the premise of TFA is that a witness can be compelled to incriminate a third party. The 5th clearly places restrictions against self-incrimination, but does not offer any such restriction on the incrimination of others.
nor shall any person... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
If I am giving testimony as to another's guilt or innocence and the defense asks me a direct question (to cast doubt to either my honesty, or if I have an issue with the defendant, for example) that would have me admitting to my own criminal behavior (connected or not to this case) or committing perjury, I may refuse to answer this question.
In this case I am providing "third-party" testimony and am covered by both the intent and the letter of the Fifth Amendment.
As a note, in many countries this protection is also included in civil cases, not just criminal ones.
I agree to your definition of immorality, but again, I don't see how it applies to human living on another planet. Are you are indicating that because humans will not be living in (earthly) optimal conditions, that having them there is immoral ?
You have indicated that we are part of Earth and not Mars, so living on Mars is immoral.
Do you believe that having astronauts living on the space station is immoral?
Do you believe that humans living in the Arctic is immoral?
Would denying the opportunity for people to live on other planets be considered immoral ?
Ignoring the concept that good and evil, and right and wrong are not germane to the discussion, but why have you decided that it is "immoral" ?
If I may simplify something for you, the heavy elements that form our bodies and the Earth did not come from within this solar system. We are no more tied to the Earth than anywhere else. The elements that were created in a supernova explosion and deposited within our solar system came from 'outside' our system. We are stardust, as much as we are Earth's children.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually a foreign property search requires the permission of that country to pre-approve the search. I very much doubt the US requested permission. Violating another country's sovereignty should never be taken lightly.
Thank goodness that "obligation to shareholders" does not include a 100% fixation on the bottom line. Governance is about achieving value, which is not the same as maximizing share return. Feel free to vote with your feet, if you don't like the way the company you bought into is being run.
The cost of movies, even today, is based on what the market will support. Yes, sometimes movies make a ton of profit, but sometimes they lose. If you don't want to spend big bucks on a big name actress, then don't. But the risks of not making any money might go up. Its all risky, and large corporations tend to be risk averse.
To be honest, the budgets for most movies is driven by labour costs, and the largest component of that is for A-listers.
Summer Ice retreat in the arctic has never been more severe in our records. Ice thickness has similarly never been so low. The extent of winter ice is entirely a different matter. Its the difference between "weather" and "climate".
Except that politicians will apply any new cognitive abilities to suit their prime consideration: reelection. What our politicians are interested in is how to make the "country" better. This is not the same as making the country better for its citizens. The metric for how they make the country better is how can they make the country better for themselves. Does this mean I'm lumping all the politicians together, and painting politicians that really are looking out for the greatest good of their citizens with the same brush? Sadly, yes. But I look forward to the 1% proving me wrong.
Yes, I know that some mods add realism (reentry heating, for example), that was one I seriously considered.
I play stock only. I imagine it is harder, but then the purpose of the game isn't to win, its to achieve. When I assembled my 1050t, 900 part mothership in orbit (13 launches) around Kerbin then flew it to Jool to explore all the moons at the same time using dedicated explorer ships, was it hard and rather tedious to do it without using a single mod or manipulating craft files? Damn right it was, especially when the part count got higher and the framerate dropped. Manual orbital maneuvers and docking can be a bitch at times.
Only ever considered the cosmetic mods, but never downloaded them when I saw the performance hit they all impart.
I just don't see the benefit of adding mods to take away the hard work, when the whole point is the effort. And yes, I only play minecraft on hardcore.
Thank goodness the St. Lawrence isn't a provincial resource, its a Federal one.
Check that. Our current current Prime Minister is far more likely to sell the river to the US for a few beads then Quebec would.
"...people living there in the past."
That's the problem in Quebec. Too many of the Pequists do live in the past. They are trying to hold Quebec back from evolving like the rest of the world. When the premier of Quebec states in public that saying "bonjour, hi" as a greeting in a store with a bilingual clientele is unacceptable (as the entire greeting must be in French, in her mind), she is clearly not functioning in the real world.
Get evil genius from GOG. It loses steam in the mid-play , but the start and the end are fantastic. don't bother with the surface buildings (hotel casino, etc.) Pros don't bother with traps, either.
Not a Christian stereotype, a fundamentalist one. I refuse to stereotype as Christian those that use the Christian moniker for such restrictive viewpoints.
I completely agree that most Christians believe in evolution and the use of science to understand the existing universe, regardless of the source of the Universe.
I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.
As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.
I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.
Colour me surprised.
Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.
It has been obvious for a long time, that when it comes to privacy of the person and their rights when in conflict with the demands of the state and defending these rights in court, that the subject of the court case will be a scumball.
Just because he is scum doesn't mean he doesn't have rights. Someone's grandmother up on similar charges, we could all support defending their rights, unfortunately, they are not the ones likely to end up with those charges in the first place.
I can see how my comments addressed items not in your original post. I will say that I agree that those agencies providing review of trustworthiness of a product, must themselves, be open to inspection. If I need to trust person B to review device X to inform me as to whether I should trust that device, I need satisfaction that B can be trusted. From this position, both aspects of trust are the same. However, I will maintain that no enough is done in our marketplace (primarily due to governments not wanting to limit their own reach) to ensure the security of our private communications. The telecom and data industries are only limiting themselves to what is required by law. There is no advantage to them to provide better security, and I have no doubt, that there is considerable pressure not to. Here, the market does not provide the device, service, or product I desire; either limited by legislation or by actions from state agencies.
I cannot agree on this. There is no double standard here, only different standards applied to different concepts. When I produce a product for public consumption where that device facilitates a protected right, the device should be tested for its ability to be trusted. i.e. source code public and/or peer reviewed. My personal communication is protected. The software for my device to facilitate that communication should be trusted, and the only way to ensure that trust is to have its functionality peer reviewed.
There are different standards here, because there are different rights at stake, and they have different values.
Sorry Sunshine, you're mixing apples and oranges. He's advocating peer-review for technologies to be widely used and trusted by people. He's advocating privacy and anonymity for people. You are trying to say that asking that the tools we use to privately communicate should be trusted, because the corporate bodies that make them deserve to be trusted. People have the right for private communication, with the exception of pre-authorized, court sponsored, evidence gathering. People are allowed to be anonymous. We do not have to carry papers when we travel locally/internally. We are free to associate. I do not have to trust that the software you have installed on a device that that I own. I certainly do not have to give up my rights to grant rights where they do not belong
With only 1/4 the oxygen pickup, this protein would likely not be a substitute for your own blood, but it could be something to tide you over until you could get a proper top up.
If memory serves, artifacts like this are caused generally from the timing difference from the 3 colour images that were superimposed on each other to get the composite colour image.
Other Saturn images are similar artifacts. The astronomy site talks about them on another Saturn picture page.
I once used Genomics as the name of a boardgame I developed, where the basis of the game was earning money by breeding gnomes.
I think, however, I spelled it Gegnomics.
So, you've discounted the fact that we won't be using a flammable substance for the ship's skin, and we won't be using a flammable gas for lift ? Helium doesn't burn/explode, and neither does the intended skin.
Those that dies in the Hindenburg were burned by diesel fuel spilled when the skin and lifting gas ignited. So on the whole, I'd say we have learned from History in this case. Of course, we still drive to work knowing that this is the least safe commuting option.
Sadly, I feel your pain.
Unfortunately, the law would compel Bob to testify, IF the law knew Bob was a witness. Such testimony would be to Bob's disadvantage.
Of course, the legal teams would need to learn about Bob's information. Bob is not required under any law to indicate that he was in possession of such information. However, once he admits that he was a witness he can be compelled to testify.
I'm sorry, perhaps the quoting the actual wording of the amendment confused you.
You cannot be compelled to provide testimony that may incriminate yourself. It doesn't matter if its your trial or someone else's.
However, the premise of TFA is that a witness can be compelled to incriminate a third party. The 5th clearly places restrictions against self-incrimination, but does not offer any such restriction on the incrimination of others.
nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
If I am giving testimony as to another's guilt or innocence and the defense asks me a direct question (to cast doubt to either my honesty, or if I have an issue with the defendant, for example) that would have me admitting to my own criminal behavior (connected or not to this case) or committing perjury, I may refuse to answer this question.
In this case I am providing "third-party" testimony and am covered by both the intent and the letter of the Fifth Amendment.
As a note, in many countries this protection is also included in civil cases, not just criminal ones.
I agree to your definition of immorality, but again, I don't see how it applies to human living on another planet. Are you are indicating that because humans will not be living in (earthly) optimal conditions, that having them there is immoral ?
You have indicated that we are part of Earth and not Mars, so living on Mars is immoral.
Do you believe that having astronauts living on the space station is immoral?
Do you believe that humans living in the Arctic is immoral?
Would denying the opportunity for people to live on other planets be considered immoral ?
"Immoral" ?
Ignoring the concept that good and evil, and right and wrong are not germane to the discussion, but why have you decided that it is "immoral" ?
If I may simplify something for you, the heavy elements that form our bodies and the Earth did not come from within this solar system. We are no more tied to the Earth than anywhere else. The elements that were created in a supernova explosion and deposited within our solar system came from 'outside' our system. We are stardust, as much as we are Earth's children.