Actually, Scout meeting was last night, and all we did was sit around and discuss how to legislate morality. The merit badges and helping old ladies across the street is just a cover.
That statistic is right on the money. You don't have to be legally intoxicated to be impaired. It's called driving under the influence for a reason. Some people may be impaired at 0.04 or even 0.01, everyone is different.
And so what if the drunk driver killed themselves. That is still a fatality and their life still matters.
It seems right on the money to me, not deceptive at all.
No one takes their vitamins then suddenly beats their wife and kids, pees all over the floor, then gets in the car and kills a family just driving down the road and minding their own business, and can't remember any of it in the morning.
Yup, I'm sure missing a lot... Tempting, but I'll pass.
Add up all of those what if's, and you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers.
I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me.
47 people a day is a steep price to pay so some drunk can carelessly drive home. As far as I'm concerned every DUI should involve serious jail time, the permanent loss of the vehicle, and a steep fine.
Do I believe people should be able to own rifles, pistols, and shotguns? Yes.
Do I believe people should be able to own machine guns, tanks, nukes and the like? No, not without being licensed and regulated.
The current system for things like 50 caliber rifles and fully automatic weapons works pretty well, where you can do it if you are interested but it is regulated and you need a license. That is a reasonable balance.
Either extreme, owning anything you want or no weapons at all, is unacceptable. Admittedly the slope in the middle is slippery.
I'm not saying I disagree with that circumstance, but show it to me in the Constitution.
You're not talking about what the Constitution says. You're talking about years and years of different judges and their interpretations, and interpretations based upon interpretations based upon interpretations until the final interpretation has nothing to do with the original text of the Constitution.
No offense, but I think that actual lawyers is whacked.
That article states, The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in all cases; it requires that all searches be "reasonable."
I've read Amendment IV a dozen different ways just now, trying to see where or how it doesn't require a warrant. To me it says that warrants are always required and will only be issued if there is probable cause.
Current legal interpretation may differ, but it differs based upon how someone else interpreted it years ago.
It's just like the phrase "separation of church and state". Neither the phrase or the concept are anywhere in the Constitution, but people say all the time that "mixing church and state is unconstitutional". Horse crap. Nowhere does it say that. What it does say is that there won't be a single, state sponsored religion crammed down people throat like the Church of England.
Well, where we are at legally in the U.S. and what the Constitution actually says (and what the founding Fathers intended) are very, very different things.
Take for instance the phrase "separation of church and state", which exists nowhere in the Constitution, Ammendments, or Bill of Rights. In fact the concept doesn't even exist. But because somebody interpreted it that way in the past, we're stuck with it and "separation of church and state" is acted upon all the time in the courts, as if it existed and spelled out in plain English.
I've read Amendment IV a dozen times just now, trying to see where it doesn't require a warrant in all cases. I can't see how anyone would arrive at that conclusion. Except that someone did, somewhere, sometime, so now it's just always interpreted that way, as if it were written that way.
Slashdot is not about technology. Or at least it isn't limited to that.
The slogan is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.", not "News About Nerdy Technology. Stuff That Matters to blofeld42.".
The fact that this story does belong on Slashdot is evidenced by the fact that more people have commented on this story than on MySQL changing their license, and they MySQL story has been up longer.
The slogan would be more accurately stated as "New for Nerds. Stuff that Matters to Them.".
Nonetheless, the fact that it says you must have probable cause before you can issue a warrant implies without exception that the warrant itself is necessary prior to the search and seizure.
13. The right of the people to be secure in their papers and possessions against searches and seizures shall not be violated except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization.
No emphasis or "..." was needed. It's been fine for 2 centuries.
The important part the Mr. Bush is overlooking is "except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization".
The current administration has removed or ignored almost every check and balance put in place by the founding fathers.
That's all fine and dandy, until the other team takes office and picks up where Bush and Co. left off.
The checks and balances are their for everyone's protection. Or at least they were.
I agree. Vertical is dumb for landing in a high gravity environment (earth bad, moon good).
For that matter, tether this thing to a balloon, take it to high altitude and do a drop launch. High safety margin (if something goes wrong you have a long time to deploy shoots or dictate your will to a lawyer on the ground), much less fuel consumption.
But, alas, not as glorious and sci-fi looking (the only two reasons I can think of for VTOL).
I said I had read up on Monsanto, I didn't say I had read every single one of their patents or was a Monsanto expert.
If you have a specific question, you look it up. I'm not your secretary or librarian. After watching the documentary I looked into what I was interested in. You are welcome to do the same.
This link certainly doesn't support your claims.
The link provided certainly provided information about Monsanto and their practices. The fact that Monsanto had tried to pull the wool over the EU's eyes is a good indication about how they do business. The fact that they lost in the EU says nothing about whether similar attempts were successful in the U.S.
After watching the documentary and reading up on Monsanto further, I am satisfied that they have not only attempted similar tactics and far worse in the U.S. and Canada, but that they have been very successful in doing so.
This isn't Monsanto 101 at Slashdot University. If you want to dig deeper feel free.
Here are the first and second ten minutes of it on YouTube. Others are there as well, but these deal specifically with Monsanto and patents (but the whole one and a half hour documentary deals with it as well).
There is plenty other information on the net about Monsanto and their practices.
After seeing the Future of Food and reading up on Monsanto, I no longer buy any of their products or those of their subsidiaries if I can avoid it. They are cornering the market so much in food, seeds, and pesticides that it's hard to avoid. So now I'm trying to avoid pesticides altogether.
Ask Monsanto. They have patents on over 11,000 crops, only about 10% of which are genetically modified. The rest are natural varieties, just as God / Nature created them.
Of course, that could be because everyone that had anything to do with that aspect of the government at that time was a former Monsanto or former Monsanto subsidiary executive (for instance, John Asscroft, former Attorney General).
When you "own" the government, in time you own everything else, too.
I'm trying to remember the name of an Atari game where crap was flying towards you from the top of the screen. Things shaped like honeycomb cereal come to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Scout meeting was last night, and all we did was sit around and discuss how to legislate morality. The merit badges and helping old ladies across the street is just a cover.
That statistic is right on the money. You don't have to be legally intoxicated to be impaired. It's called driving under the influence for a reason. Some people may be impaired at 0.04 or even 0.01, everyone is different.
And so what if the drunk driver killed themselves. That is still a fatality and their life still matters.
It seems right on the money to me, not deceptive at all.
I'll take vitamins instead.
No one takes their vitamins then suddenly beats their wife and kids, pees all over the floor, then gets in the car and kills a family just driving down the road and minding their own business, and can't remember any of it in the morning.
Yup, I'm sure missing a lot... Tempting, but I'll pass.
Alcohol schmalcohol indeed.
Drunk driving fatalities total 17,000 a year, 39% of all fatal crashes.
Phones account for 1,032 fatalities a year, or 0.3% of all fatal crashes.
What was Toyota thinking? I can't believe they got distracted with something so insignificant...
Add up all of those what if's, and you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers.
I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me.
47 people a day is a steep price to pay so some drunk can carelessly drive home. As far as I'm concerned every DUI should involve serious jail time, the permanent loss of the vehicle, and a steep fine.
Yeah, I'm sure this car will kill 17,000 people a year, making it more dangerous than the alternative.
Do I believe people should be able to own rifles, pistols, and shotguns? Yes.
Do I believe people should be able to own machine guns, tanks, nukes and the like? No, not without being licensed and regulated.
The current system for things like 50 caliber rifles and fully automatic weapons works pretty well, where you can do it if you are interested but it is regulated and you need a license. That is a reasonable balance.
Either extreme, owning anything you want or no weapons at all, is unacceptable. Admittedly the slope in the middle is slippery.
I should have been more explicit:
In fact the concept doesn't even exist in the Constitution.
I meant neither the phrase "separation of church and state" or the concept it represents are in the Constitution.
I'm not saying I disagree with that circumstance, but show it to me in the Constitution.
You're not talking about what the Constitution says. You're talking about years and years of different judges and their interpretations, and interpretations based upon interpretations based upon interpretations until the final interpretation has nothing to do with the original text of the Constitution.
No offense, but I think that actual lawyers is whacked.
That article states, The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in all cases; it requires that all searches be "reasonable."
I've read Amendment IV a dozen different ways just now, trying to see where or how it doesn't require a warrant. To me it says that warrants are always required and will only be issued if there is probable cause.
Current legal interpretation may differ, but it differs based upon how someone else interpreted it years ago.
It's just like the phrase "separation of church and state". Neither the phrase or the concept are anywhere in the Constitution, but people say all the time that "mixing church and state is unconstitutional". Horse crap. Nowhere does it say that. What it does say is that there won't be a single, state sponsored religion crammed down people throat like the Church of England.
Well, where we are at legally in the U.S. and what the Constitution actually says (and what the founding Fathers intended) are very, very different things.
Take for instance the phrase "separation of church and state", which exists nowhere in the Constitution, Ammendments, or Bill of Rights. In fact the concept doesn't even exist. But because somebody interpreted it that way in the past, we're stuck with it and "separation of church and state" is acted upon all the time in the courts, as if it existed and spelled out in plain English.
I've read Amendment IV a dozen times just now, trying to see where it doesn't require a warrant in all cases. I can't see how anyone would arrive at that conclusion. Except that someone did, somewhere, sometime, so now it's just always interpreted that way, as if it were written that way.
Slashdot is not about technology. Or at least it isn't limited to that.
The slogan is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.", not "News About Nerdy Technology. Stuff That Matters to blofeld42.".
The fact that this story does belong on Slashdot is evidenced by the fact that more people have commented on this story than on MySQL changing their license, and they MySQL story has been up longer.
The slogan would be more accurately stated as "New for Nerds. Stuff that Matters to Them.".
Good catch... Darn that Google!
Nonetheless, the fact that it says you must have probable cause before you can issue a warrant implies without exception that the warrant itself is necessary prior to the search and seizure.
I stand by the rest of my previous comment.
Here, let me fix it for real:
13. The right of the people to be secure in their papers and possessions against searches and seizures shall not be violated except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization.
No emphasis or "..." was needed. It's been fine for 2 centuries.
The important part the Mr. Bush is overlooking is "except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization".
The current administration has removed or ignored almost every check and balance put in place by the founding fathers.
That's all fine and dandy, until the other team takes office and picks up where Bush and Co. left off.
The checks and balances are their for everyone's protection. Or at least they were.
Worst. President. Ever.
I agree. Vertical is dumb for landing in a high gravity environment (earth bad, moon good).
For that matter, tether this thing to a balloon, take it to high altitude and do a drop launch. High safety margin (if something goes wrong you have a long time to deploy shoots or dictate your will to a lawyer on the ground), much less fuel consumption.
But, alas, not as glorious and sci-fi looking (the only two reasons I can think of for VTOL).
I said I had read up on Monsanto, I didn't say I had read every single one of their patents or was a Monsanto expert.
If you have a specific question, you look it up. I'm not your secretary or librarian. After watching the documentary I looked into what I was interested in. You are welcome to do the same.
This link certainly doesn't support your claims.
The link provided certainly provided information about Monsanto and their practices. The fact that Monsanto had tried to pull the wool over the EU's eyes is a good indication about how they do business. The fact that they lost in the EU says nothing about whether similar attempts were successful in the U.S.
After watching the documentary and reading up on Monsanto further, I am satisfied that they have not only attempted similar tactics and far worse in the U.S. and Canada, but that they have been very successful in doing so.
This isn't Monsanto 101 at Slashdot University. If you want to dig deeper feel free.
Sounds pretty ideal.
Now if they'd just design and sell (or someone would design open source plans for) a backyard unit where you could grow a percentage of your own fuel.
My house sits on 1.1 acres. I love to use 10% of that (a little more if required) to grow a large portion of my own fuel.
Just once.
The algae actually produces the fuel as it bores it's way to the center of the earth. Then you have to start over again with a different acre.
Are the algae they are having success with compatible with salt water? Or are any salt water algae suitable for producing biofuel?
The documentary "The Future of Food" is a great place to start.
Here are the first and second ten minutes of it on YouTube. Others are there as well, but these deal specifically with Monsanto and patents (but the whole one and a half hour documentary deals with it as well).
There is plenty other information on the net about Monsanto and their practices.
After seeing the Future of Food and reading up on Monsanto, I no longer buy any of their products or those of their subsidiaries if I can avoid it. They are cornering the market so much in food, seeds, and pesticides that it's hard to avoid. So now I'm trying to avoid pesticides altogether.
You still misunderstand. The vast majority of crop patents held by Monsanto are on crops that they didn't breed, modify, grow, change, etc.
They patented them because they could and because no one had.
The responsibility for this (horrendous act, in my opinion) it two-fold:
1. Monsanto for trying to steal and control that which rightly belongs to all.
2. The governments (U.S. and Canada, at least, probably more) for having such a stupid system of patents in the first place.
OK, OK. Let me put it another way.
90% of the plants they have patented they have no more (or less) rights to than you or I and they have done nothing to improve or modify them.
Ask Monsanto. They have patents on over 11,000 crops, only about 10% of which are genetically modified. The rest are natural varieties, just as God / Nature created them.
Of course, that could be because everyone that had anything to do with that aspect of the government at that time was a former Monsanto or former Monsanto subsidiary executive (for instance, John Asscroft, former Attorney General).
When you "own" the government, in time you own everything else, too.
Bless you! That's the one.
My cousin used to kill me at that game (since it was his and I only got to play when I'd visit).
Time to go into training for some payback...
I'm trying to remember the name of an Atari game where crap was flying towards you from the top of the screen. Things shaped like honeycomb cereal come to mind.
Anyone remember it?