I haven't measured it with a GPS, but I knew it was 10,000ft MSL and sometimes amuse myself by trying to guess based on field elevation (on take-off) or cruise elevation (on landing) and my wristwatch when they'll make the announcement. I have never quite been on to the second, but I have always been spot-on calling which chime would be the one with the electronics announcement.
Mod parent up +5 understands-orthogonality. I am a lifelong guitarist and play several other instruments and sing. I scoffed at Guitar Hero a bit as being silly, and eventually played it and got hooked for several months. It is indeed silly but it has way better music than any other video game, involves the same types of eye-hand coordination as most good games even if it lacks the strategic thinking that I normally enjoy in a game, and is in no way an affront to real guitarists anywhere.
Guitar Hero actually made me a better guitarist, too, since playing on Expert mode forces you to use your pinky, something that you can cheat around when playing most styles of lead guitar. That was me, but Guitar Hero actually forced me to develop more dexterity, strength, and speed in my pinky, which led me to use it much more in my melodic lines on the real instrument.
I did this to my neighbors once, to get them off my lawn in a sense. But the downstairs neighbors wanted me off their lawn, too, so the generation wars took a turn for the worse that week.
Fuck censorship. Also, fuck you, lazy parents who probably teach your children far more offensive beliefs, much less language, than they could possibly derive from reading the Great American Novel without butchering it. Replacing "injun" with "slave" doesn't even make sense.
A mistrial results in holding a second trial before a newly selected jury. If the judge had not declared a mistrial on the motion of the defendant, which was based on a juror obtaining outside information from an unreliable source in aid of the guilty verdict, then there would be grounds for appeal. The appellate court would most likely find that a mistrial occurred and remand the case for a second trial before a newly selected jury. Same result, less wasted taxpayer-funded resources, and less delay.
Not likely. The jury is supposed to decide the case on the law (as presented in the jury instructions, which have been selected by the opposing attorneys, argued about where necessary, and finally approved and delivered by the judge) and the evidence (which is presented in a certain way to ensure reliability). As others have pointed out, if the jury wants to know what something means, take another look at tangible evidence, or ask any question at all, they are instructed to ask the bailiff, who will pass their request or question on to the judge. The judge then calls the lawyers in to craft a response that they and the judge agree is appropriate.
In this case, the question was apparently one of defining a particular term. The attorneys and judge may have consulted Wikipedia, Britannica, or another source (for instance, calling one of the expert witnesses on a speakerphone to ask him about it) to craft that answer, but it would not go to the jury without discussion and agreement.
Classic ways to become despised in law school: Argue the majority position in Dred Scott v. Sandford, even if you intend merely to play devil's advocate to get an actual discussion of the law off everyone's chests. If you divorce the discussion from the point that Dred Scott was a member of Homo sapiens, which was at the time a legally irrelevant point, then the case was correctly decided. But it turns out that people today are simply not able to divorce the discussion from that point.
Similarly, it appears that many people today are not able to divorce the discussion of the constitutionality of the Obama health insurance mandate from their moral perception that everyone is entitled to health care without regard to ability to pay for it, and end up despising anyone who takes up the position that the mandate is not a permissible act under the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution.
But we're really afield of the topic at hand by this point.
Actually, from the Slashdot front page you can tell everything you need to know about the differences between the article and the summary: It was posted by kdawson, and therefore the differences are fundamental in nature.
I still want to see a MythBusters special on transportation security myths, especially after Adam's recent knife incident. Can someone with an account on their forums post the suggestion (preferably more than one such someone)?
That assumes that there are more terrorists than armed Texans, which we lack statistics on. That's my whole point: arguments either way are pure speculation.
You think that the vastly outnumbered terrorists would have been able to identify which person on the plane was the Texan with a pistol accurately enough to succeed? Arguments for either outcome (success or failure of the attacks) based on the hypothetical presence of law-abiding, armed passengers on the planes are pure speculation.
GRAMMAR BOT 9001 does not recognize ambiguities as errors. It is programmed to understand the construction "taking this issue laying down" to refer to placing feathers on top of something while dealing with the issue. This was not a lexical error, although it was certainly an idiomatic one.
Re:LISP a bad choice as a starter language.
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
General rule: Someone who spells it LISP has not used it either enough or recently enough to present an accurate, credible, or relevant criticism of the language.
The expense itself does not result in immunity to fatal flaws. But the expense does indicate two things (modulo corruption, mismanagement, waste, etc.): (1) More time and effort being put into reducing fatal flaws and (2) allocation of the risk of a fatal flaw in the final product. Spend less, asymptotically end up with more fatal flaws. Spend more, asymptotically reduce the number of fatal flaws. There is perhaps a level of expense that would truly immunize against fatal flaws, but the question will always be whether that expense is worth the marginal reduction in fatal flaws versus the expensive but still affordable version of the product that may have a flaw or two.
Can someone explain what actually happened in the alarm? It seems to me that there are a few possibilities, all of which lead to the alarm going off an hour early or on time. Maybe I'm missing something.
Is that rule a limitation on distance from the baseline or on distance from a line from the point you're at when the play is attempted to the base? That makes a bit of a difference.
Many people desperately want to do the "hard hacks" that would earn them geek cred. They want to be the guy who builds a 5,000rpm pneumatic Lego engine or who converts a Roomba into an automatic dog-walker. The problem is that most of them are stupid and uncreative, so you end up with "hacks" like cooking bacon with power from USB ports.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't measured it with a GPS, but I knew it was 10,000ft MSL and sometimes amuse myself by trying to guess based on field elevation (on take-off) or cruise elevation (on landing) and my wristwatch when they'll make the announcement. I have never quite been on to the second, but I have always been spot-on calling which chime would be the one with the electronics announcement.
Yeah, but hoverboards are now only 4 years away!
Mod parent up +5 understands-orthogonality. I am a lifelong guitarist and play several other instruments and sing. I scoffed at Guitar Hero a bit as being silly, and eventually played it and got hooked for several months. It is indeed silly but it has way better music than any other video game, involves the same types of eye-hand coordination as most good games even if it lacks the strategic thinking that I normally enjoy in a game, and is in no way an affront to real guitarists anywhere.
Guitar Hero actually made me a better guitarist, too, since playing on Expert mode forces you to use your pinky, something that you can cheat around when playing most styles of lead guitar. That was me, but Guitar Hero actually forced me to develop more dexterity, strength, and speed in my pinky, which led me to use it much more in my melodic lines on the real instrument.
I did this to my neighbors once, to get them off my lawn in a sense. But the downstairs neighbors wanted me off their lawn, too, so the generation wars took a turn for the worse that week.
That's a strange assumption to make.
My guess is at least 100% of those whose parents wouldn't buy them the original version.
A Mad Lib version of a classic novel is far less offensive than a censored one.
Fuck censorship. Also, fuck you, lazy parents who probably teach your children far more offensive beliefs, much less language, than they could possibly derive from reading the Great American Novel without butchering it. Replacing "injun" with "slave" doesn't even make sense.
A mistrial results in holding a second trial before a newly selected jury. If the judge had not declared a mistrial on the motion of the defendant, which was based on a juror obtaining outside information from an unreliable source in aid of the guilty verdict, then there would be grounds for appeal. The appellate court would most likely find that a mistrial occurred and remand the case for a second trial before a newly selected jury. Same result, less wasted taxpayer-funded resources, and less delay.
Not likely. The jury is supposed to decide the case on the law (as presented in the jury instructions, which have been selected by the opposing attorneys, argued about where necessary, and finally approved and delivered by the judge) and the evidence (which is presented in a certain way to ensure reliability). As others have pointed out, if the jury wants to know what something means, take another look at tangible evidence, or ask any question at all, they are instructed to ask the bailiff, who will pass their request or question on to the judge. The judge then calls the lawyers in to craft a response that they and the judge agree is appropriate.
In this case, the question was apparently one of defining a particular term. The attorneys and judge may have consulted Wikipedia, Britannica, or another source (for instance, calling one of the expert witnesses on a speakerphone to ask him about it) to craft that answer, but it would not go to the jury without discussion and agreement.
Classic ways to become despised in law school: Argue the majority position in Dred Scott v. Sandford, even if you intend merely to play devil's advocate to get an actual discussion of the law off everyone's chests. If you divorce the discussion from the point that Dred Scott was a member of Homo sapiens, which was at the time a legally irrelevant point, then the case was correctly decided. But it turns out that people today are simply not able to divorce the discussion from that point.
Similarly, it appears that many people today are not able to divorce the discussion of the constitutionality of the Obama health insurance mandate from their moral perception that everyone is entitled to health care without regard to ability to pay for it, and end up despising anyone who takes up the position that the mandate is not a permissible act under the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution.
But we're really afield of the topic at hand by this point.
In Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), SCOTUS held as a matter of law that tomatoes are vegetables.
Actually, from the Slashdot front page you can tell everything you need to know about the differences between the article and the summary: It was posted by kdawson, and therefore the differences are fundamental in nature.
I still want to see a MythBusters special on transportation security myths, especially after Adam's recent knife incident. Can someone with an account on their forums post the suggestion (preferably more than one such someone)?
That assumes that there are more terrorists than armed Texans, which we lack statistics on. That's my whole point: arguments either way are pure speculation.
You think that the vastly outnumbered terrorists would have been able to identify which person on the plane was the Texan with a pistol accurately enough to succeed? Arguments for either outcome (success or failure of the attacks) based on the hypothetical presence of law-abiding, armed passengers on the planes are pure speculation.
GRAMMAR BOT 9001 does not recognize ambiguities as errors. It is programmed to understand the construction "taking this issue laying down" to refer to placing feathers on top of something while dealing with the issue. This was not a lexical error, although it was certainly an idiomatic one.
General rule: Someone who spells it LISP has not used it either enough or recently enough to present an accurate, credible, or relevant criticism of the language.
Here's how you can tell it's not news, even without looking for the same story from 4 years ago: The headline has an exclamation point.
The expense itself does not result in immunity to fatal flaws. But the expense does indicate two things (modulo corruption, mismanagement, waste, etc.): (1) More time and effort being put into reducing fatal flaws and (2) allocation of the risk of a fatal flaw in the final product. Spend less, asymptotically end up with more fatal flaws. Spend more, asymptotically reduce the number of fatal flaws. There is perhaps a level of expense that would truly immunize against fatal flaws, but the question will always be whether that expense is worth the marginal reduction in fatal flaws versus the expensive but still affordable version of the product that may have a flaw or two.
Can someone explain what actually happened in the alarm? It seems to me that there are a few possibilities, all of which lead to the alarm going off an hour early or on time. Maybe I'm missing something.
I disagree. Americans' freedom is best protected by deadlock between the purported liberals and the purported conservatives.
Is that rule a limitation on distance from the baseline or on distance from a line from the point you're at when the play is attempted to the base? That makes a bit of a difference.
Many people desperately want to do the "hard hacks" that would earn them geek cred. They want to be the guy who builds a 5,000rpm pneumatic Lego engine or who converts a Roomba into an automatic dog-walker. The problem is that most of them are stupid and uncreative, so you end up with "hacks" like cooking bacon with power from USB ports.
Ultimately, the only good try/catch 22 joke is the one about not making one.