Is it really going the other way? Or is it just the case that this happened just as much back then and we just never heard of it because, prior to the internet, there was no way an American would have heard of local level arrests in rural India?
There are a number of things many people think are becoming more common when they're actually becoming more rare and we just hear about them more often then we used to.
The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine.
It can fly on one engine if one fails while cruising. During takeoff, when the plane is still accelerating to cruising speed, it can't get by on just one. If it could, do you think the Navy would be wasting both the expense, weight, and fuel necessary to purchase and fly around completely unecessary engines?
It's none of anyone else's business who you are and what you are doing when you're walking down a sidewalk.
Which is why you're free to ignore them. But the approach and asking of the questions themselves are not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you attempt to detain or otherwise assault the person to force them to respond.
The kid had no weapons; kid could have called him names and given him the finger and STILL no way that guy should get away with shooting him.
Agreed, the question is who started the fight? I suspect Zimmerman started it, but the fact is we don't know since no one saw the start of the fight, and in the absence of proof, we have to assume the facts that favor the defendant (i.e. we have to assume Martin started the fight, it's the prosecution's burden to prove otherwise).
Hell, in self defense there should still be sentence handed out. If it saved your life then a year in jail is worth it - but to let somebody totally off because they were afraid or felt their life threatened in some way... that is going too far.
So if someone is trying to beat you to death, you feel you have a legal obligation to lie their and let them and hope they get tired of beating you before you die? The problem isn't the idea of self defenes, it's whether or not Zimmerman was actually defending himself. As I said, I suspect what really happened is he started a fight and then wanted to pull a gun when he realized he was losing. Which isn't legal self defense, even in Florida.
The problem is proving that, particularly when the police appear to have tanked the investigation.
On the other hand, just asking someone who they are and why they're in your neighborhood does not, by itself, qualify as instigating a confrontation. Now I personally suspect that Zimmerman did more than just ask Martin some questions, but on the other hand that will be hard to prove unless someone saw how the fight started.
My personal suspiciou is this is going to end up like the OJ case: Zimmerman is guilty, but he's gonna get away with it because it won't be provable in court.
We'll find out if it ever goes to trial and Zimmerman's lawyer puts their expert on the witness stand.
Not really, the jury rarely has the background to objectively evaluate scientific claims, so dueling experts usually just lead to them believing the prosecution's expert, no matter how ridiculous his argument actually is.
While I'm personally of the opinion that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, I've also seen too many cases of "forensic science" of dubious validity being allowed in trials (for example Steven Hayne in Mississippi help convict dozens of people on the base of 'bite mark identification' techniques that are widely considered fraudulent). Can anyone point to any independent blind trials to demonstrate 1) that the metrics used by this program actually are invariant for a particular individual and 2) are sufficiently unique that they can be used to reliably distinguish two individuals?
I'm reminded of the Car Talk Christmas special, where they did there rendition of A Christmas Carol with various public radio personalities in the various rolls. Ira Glass ended up being Tiny Tim, who was described as dying from "chronic tragic sincerity syndrome".
They also did a piece a week or so ago about Grover Norquist that frankly did a much better job of making his views look like a good idea than he normally does himself.
This is completely nonsense. No doctor goes around hoping to declare patients braindead so that we can take your organs.
Yes, clearly every doctor in the world is an uncorruptable paragon of virtue and empathy. It's ridiculous to think that anyone could ever possibly become a doctor because they are motivated by greed and willing to take ethical short cuts as a result.
Re:Take my organs, but how 'bout some anesthetic?
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Seems more likely that there are medical reasons rather than cost reasons
Like what? Do you think the patient reciving the organ doesn't have anesthesia in their blood supply? It obviously doesn't interfere with the surgery or the function of the organ.
Also they were loading lifeboats according to your travel class. First class passengers were more likely to be saved. Third class passengers had to wait their turns. That's why for the blockbuster Titanic they had a first class woman paired with a third class man.
This is one of those myths that gets repeated despite not being true. The first class passengers had an advantage in that the lifeboats were located on the upper decks and thus the started physically closer to them, but no attempt was made to keep third class passengers from the lifeboats, nor where the first class passengers given preferential seating.
And the actual best/worst survival case was second class children and second class males (in fact, the survival rater for third class males was 50% higher than for second class males).
... The watertight doors on the Titanic weren't open when it went down. That's part of why it went down nose first, because the front section of the ship flooded faster than the rear.
The problem is that this document never defines what it means by either "consumer" or "personal data" (although there are suggestions they're both far broader then we'd normally use the terms: "Still, data brokers and other companies that collect personal data without direct consumer interactions or a reasonably detectable presence in consumer-facing activities should seek innovative ways to provide consumers with effective Individual Control."). Given this will get the typically clueless implementation that Congress invariably comes up with on technology matters, this creates all kinds of possibilities for abuse.
Does The Church of Scientology have a right to control the content of its Wikipedia page? If a news organization does an undercover investigation of corruption at some company, do they have to approve the distribution of information that gets collected? Is talking about who's funding a particular interest group allowed?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but as usual, news reporting of SCOTUS decisions is invariably completely wrong; as they try to create an exciting narrative they end up completely messing up the often crutial details.
In this case, the court did not rule that you need a warrant to track people with GPS. All they ruled is that doing such constitutes a serach for the purposes of the fourth ammendment.
The ruling explicitly leaves open the questions of whether or not performing this search without a warrant is a reasonable or unreasonable search, and if unreasonable what the remedy is (so we don't know if the exclusionary principle applies to any evidence gained or not).
Much better analysis of the ruling and how its not the huge victory everyone is portraying:
Certified education is only useful for jobs. If your interested in education purely for education's sake, it can be done far more cheaply outside of a degree program.
The problem is that the NCSE doesn't just want to teach about the science of climate change. They want to push specific policy proposals as "The Solution" to the problem:
Hate to break it to you, but Boeing's planes are fly by wire too. They're just designed to act like a plane with direct hydraulic control even though they aren't.
Their reasoning is probably a more fancy version of: it's only copyright violation when little people do it to a big corporation. When a big corporation wants to do it to an unknown author, that should be perfectly legal.
Yes, but you can put up a billboard and refuse to let Disney by space on it. Facebook isn't using the trademark improperly, merely refusing to let either side use it. This makes perfect sense for Facebook. Whichever one it would have sided with, the other would have sued them. If it lets neither use the name, there's nothing they can do.
And what's the failure mode for this system? On current trains if someone takes too long to get on or off, the train can continue waiting at the station until the trouble is resolved. In this proposed system, what happens? The doors clamp shut and then rip them in half when the two trains pull apart?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really going the other way? Or is it just the case that this happened just as much back then and we just never heard of it because, prior to the internet, there was no way an American would have heard of local level arrests in rural India?
There are a number of things many people think are becoming more common when they're actually becoming more rare and we just hear about them more often then we used to.
No, seniors are on Medicare, which is a completely different program.
It can fly on one engine if one fails while cruising. During takeoff, when the plane is still accelerating to cruising speed, it can't get by on just one. If it could, do you think the Navy would be wasting both the expense, weight, and fuel necessary to purchase and fly around completely unecessary engines?
Which is why you're free to ignore them. But the approach and asking of the questions themselves are not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you attempt to detain or otherwise assault the person to force them to respond.
Agreed, the question is who started the fight? I suspect Zimmerman started it, but the fact is we don't know since no one saw the start of the fight, and in the absence of proof, we have to assume the facts that favor the defendant (i.e. we have to assume Martin started the fight, it's the prosecution's burden to prove otherwise).
So if someone is trying to beat you to death, you feel you have a legal obligation to lie their and let them and hope they get tired of beating you before you die? The problem isn't the idea of self defenes, it's whether or not Zimmerman was actually defending himself. As I said, I suspect what really happened is he started a fight and then wanted to pull a gun when he realized he was losing. Which isn't legal self defense, even in Florida.
The problem is proving that, particularly when the police appear to have tanked the investigation.
On the other hand, just asking someone who they are and why they're in your neighborhood does not, by itself, qualify as instigating a confrontation. Now I personally suspect that Zimmerman did more than just ask Martin some questions, but on the other hand that will be hard to prove unless someone saw how the fight started.
My personal suspiciou is this is going to end up like the OJ case: Zimmerman is guilty, but he's gonna get away with it because it won't be provable in court.
Not really, the jury rarely has the background to objectively evaluate scientific claims, so dueling experts usually just lead to them believing the prosecution's expert, no matter how ridiculous his argument actually is.
While I'm personally of the opinion that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, I've also seen too many cases of "forensic science" of dubious validity being allowed in trials (for example Steven Hayne in Mississippi help convict dozens of people on the base of 'bite mark identification' techniques that are widely considered fraudulent). Can anyone point to any independent blind trials to demonstrate 1) that the metrics used by this program actually are invariant for a particular individual and 2) are sufficiently unique that they can be used to reliably distinguish two individuals?
I'm reminded of the Car Talk Christmas special, where they did there rendition of A Christmas Carol with various public radio personalities in the various rolls. Ira Glass ended up being Tiny Tim, who was described as dying from "chronic tragic sincerity syndrome".
They also did a piece a week or so ago about Grover Norquist that frankly did a much better job of making his views look like a good idea than he normally does himself.
Yes, clearly every doctor in the world is an uncorruptable paragon of virtue and empathy. It's ridiculous to think that anyone could ever possibly become a doctor because they are motivated by greed and willing to take ethical short cuts as a result.
Like what? Do you think the patient reciving the organ doesn't have anesthesia in their blood supply? It obviously doesn't interfere with the surgery or the function of the organ.
Yes, but it does make me want to sure it doesn't end with me being vivsected because some doctor is too cheap to spring for anesthetic.
This is one of those myths that gets repeated despite not being true. The first class passengers had an advantage in that the lifeboats were located on the upper decks and thus the started physically closer to them, but no attempt was made to keep third class passengers from the lifeboats, nor where the first class passengers given preferential seating.
And the actual best/worst survival case was second class children and second class males (in fact, the survival rater for third class males was 50% higher than for second class males).
There's also an International Ice Patrol that flies around the north atlantic looking for icebergs.
... The watertight doors on the Titanic weren't open when it went down. That's part of why it went down nose first, because the front section of the ship flooded faster than the rear.
The problem is that this document never defines what it means by either "consumer" or "personal data" (although there are suggestions they're both far broader then we'd normally use the terms: "Still, data brokers and other companies that collect personal data without direct consumer interactions or a reasonably detectable presence in consumer-facing activities should seek innovative ways to provide consumers with effective Individual Control."). Given this will get the typically clueless implementation that Congress invariably comes up with on technology matters, this creates all kinds of possibilities for abuse.
Does The Church of Scientology have a right to control the content of its Wikipedia page? If a news organization does an undercover investigation of corruption at some company, do they have to approve the distribution of information that gets collected? Is talking about who's funding a particular interest group allowed?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but as usual, news reporting of SCOTUS decisions is invariably completely wrong; as they try to create an exciting narrative they end up completely messing up the often crutial details.
In this case, the court did not rule that you need a warrant to track people with GPS. All they ruled is that doing such constitutes a serach for the purposes of the fourth ammendment.
The ruling explicitly leaves open the questions of whether or not performing this search without a warrant is a reasonable or unreasonable search, and if unreasonable what the remedy is (so we don't know if the exclusionary principle applies to any evidence gained or not).
Much better analysis of the ruling and how its not the huge victory everyone is portraying:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/reactions-to-jones-v-united-states-the-government-fared-much-better-than-everyone-realizes/
Certified education is only useful for jobs. If your interested in education purely for education's sake, it can be done far more cheaply outside of a degree program.
The problem is that the NCSE doesn't just want to teach about the science of climate change. They want to push specific policy proposals as "The Solution" to the problem:
http://ncse.com/climate/teaching/humans-can-reduce-climate-change
Hate to break it to you, but Boeing's planes are fly by wire too. They're just designed to act like a plane with direct hydraulic control even though they aren't.
Their reasoning is probably a more fancy version of: it's only copyright violation when little people do it to a big corporation. When a big corporation wants to do it to an unknown author, that should be perfectly legal.
Yes, but you can put up a billboard and refuse to let Disney by space on it. Facebook isn't using the trademark improperly, merely refusing to let either side use it. This makes perfect sense for Facebook. Whichever one it would have sided with, the other would have sued them. If it lets neither use the name, there's nothing they can do.
And what's the failure mode for this system? On current trains if someone takes too long to get on or off, the train can continue waiting at the station until the trouble is resolved. In this proposed system, what happens? The doors clamp shut and then rip them in half when the two trains pull apart?
They just spent $10.5 million to remake Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?