Would you say the same thing about the US MOAB? ie. the US will use it on its own people? I would, if the same two conditions are met. Those two conditions, implicit in my previous post, I'll make explicit here:
1) Demonstrated willingness to sacrifice a bunch of your own civilians.
2) Building FAEs bigger than a minimum nuke.
On condition #1, we - fortunately - don't have anything even close to the Beslan debacle. ( Iraqi deaths, although reprehensible, don't qualifiy here as they are someone else's civilians ) So, no on #1.
On condition #2, we have the MOAB which is just barely in the neighborhood of the theoretical minimum size for a nuke. ( Last I heard, the minimum was about.015-.02Kt. ) So, let's call this one 50%.
In summary, only one-half of two for the USA, two of two for the Russians. So I'm pointing my finger at the Russians.
Sure you can, if you don't mind a few casualties. The Russians seem to have a liberal policy about random deaths in terrorism matters.
Example: when 32 Chechnyen separatists took over the Beslan School and had 1200 hostages ( several hundred of them children ), Russian security forces used tanks ( firing - according to one of the tank comander's testimony - "antipersonnel-high explosive shells" ), flamethrowers, and at least one Mi-24 helicopter gunship. At least 334 hostages died, and approximately 700 were wounded.
This is a weapon for political control as much as for war. They already have more nukes than they can reasonably use. What is the point of building a non-radiactive bomb this powerful? The only reason seems to be so you can retake the territory soon after. They're going to use it on their own territory.
Yes, environmentally friendly in this case means no readiation. So they can come in and rebuild as soon as it cools. With a Russian economy that is growing at 7-8% per year, they are capable of big rebuilding projects, so this is a rather useful weapon.
For those who want to do more research on the subject, try spelling Magnuson with one 'S'. I'm not sure which is the correct spelling, but google returns about 10 times as much with one as with two.
If yuo corss yuor eeys smoetemis, you sohlud be albe to raed tihs qitue eailsy. I terid it, and it mdae all the sepllnig msitaeks on salsdhot go aawy. Hvewoer, it ddi not ipormve Sttucle Mkoney's eitding.
It's a noble quest you are on, but it is doomed to failure. Books/movies/shows won't do it. As any psychologist can tell you, by far the strongest formative influences on a child are other people. First among these are the parents. If they discuss Paris Hilton's latest cunt flash at the dinner table, the kids are not going to learn that science and math are important. They can be exposed to good books/movies/shows, but they just won't care. If they discuss mathematical proofs - as happened at our dinner table - the child will develop an interest in math and science. Then you won't need to find books/shows etc for him - he'll hunt them down himself.
The one good bit of news is that the next most influential person in a child's life is often a teacher. Your own enthusiasm for the subject will do more than you know. Just be your nerdy self; you will change their lives.
It's not the starting time, it's the change in starting time.
I know it makes a difference for me. I live in southern California. When I do business in Chicago, I'm a little fuzzy for the first day. So I go a day earlier. I pay for an extra day's food and an extra night's lodging. And when I'm at a convention, making decisions worth thousands of dollars per hour, being more alert more than compensates for the extra expenses.
For guys who have millions hanging on this, it is a relevant issue. I'd ask the court too. It costs nothing to try and they might do it. Since it failed, I expect that they will fly to DC a day or two early. They'd be crazy not to.
Your definition of libertarianism is a good one, and if we were purely political creatures, I'd agree with your conclusion.
But we're more than that; there is a psychological side to us. The ideals and beliefs that leads up to choose our political affiliations also affect other facets of our lives. Most libertarians who I know really believe in the idea of not meddling in other people's affairs. The don't think that the government should meddle, and they don't think that they themselves should meddle.
They are really ornery people if you knowingly step on their toes, and very easy to get along with otherwise.
A parallel: If I were to say that most libertarians like SF, you could also respond that that is not part of the definition of libertarianism, and you would again be right. But again there is something prior to the politics ( a preference for what-if thinking , or the building of whole different worlds ) that leads to one's choice of politics and reading material.
Anyone who holds the opinions that he does, and calls himself a libertarian, is clearly brain damaged. Any sane libertarian would look at the GIJoe issue and say 'The producers bought the rights, they can do anything they please with it. They're consenting adults, it's none of my business."
If it gets punctured or the control valve goes wonky, you lose all the fuel.
If you have four fuel tanks, you still have at least three other tanks. So any reasonble person would suspect. But in the design that they used, according to a more informative article at
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/pu- era090507.php,
"The tanks are pressurized with the helium. If one tank runs out of fuel, the next time the valve in that tank is opened to ignite the rocket thrusters, the helium from that tank mixes with fuel going to the thrusters from the other tanks, preventing the thrusters from firing and shutting down the propulsion system." In other words, in this design, if one tank empties completely, it screws up the other three thrusters. The way they did it, four tanks do not increase reliability, they actually increase the likelyhood of failure.
Good question. We've only been observing the asteroid belt for a relatively short time ( on a solar scale ), so it may be that splattering the local neighborhood is a regular phenomenon.
...a run down backwater airport in about 20 years time? Maybe. There is going to be plenty of competition. From Seed magazine:
New Mexico isn't the only state with atmospheric ambitions. In March the Wisconsin legislature voted for a $15-million spaceport in Sheboygan. Oklahoma is converting a former B-52 base into a launch site for things like rocket-powered Learjets. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is quietly building mission control for his space company, Blue Origin, on his West Texas ranch, while Virginia-based Space Adventures plans two enormous facilities in the United Arab Emirates and Singapore. Spaceports in Florida, Virginia, Nevada and Alabama are also in the pipeline. And as happens when growing industries begin to mature, there is a winnowing process in which only the most fit survive. Since they are
the closest one to me, I do hope they make it.
Let me ask you something then, as a business owner:
Assuming you support the idea of examining people's bags on their way out the door, why would you treat them like criminals? Ok, here is the business owner's answer. ( When reading it, please keep in mind that TFA contains only one person's side of the story. We have not heard the store management tell their side. )
Part 1: examining bags.
I support the right of a business owner to let a person know when they come on to the premises that they must either consent to bag searches when leaving OR not enter the premises. I think that that paticular policy is a foolish one, but I support the right of a private property owner to set almost any policy he wants. If you don't like his policy, you don't have to enter his premises.
I think this particular policy is foolish for the following reason. If you check people's bags as they leave and someone refuses, you find yourself in an unpleasant dilemma: you either have to back off or be confrontational. Either you look like a wimp or a thug. Having either reputation is bad for business.
At my place, we ask people to leave bags at the front desk as they come in. This seems to make more sense. If the customer doesn't like the policy, he can leave without any confrontation. Nobody has to lose. ( In 20+ years, only one person has refused. I suggested that in that case both he and I would be happier if he shopped elsewhere. He agreed, and left. )
Part 2: treating people like criminals.
I support a business owner's right to detain someone whom he suspects of shoplifting as long as he does it the right way. ( Right way == He must use minimum force, he must call the cops as soon as possible, etc. ) In other words, it's ok to treat him like a criminal if you are sure that he is one. ( What does 'sure' mean in this context? At my place it means beyond a reasonable doubt. It means you saw him do it. )
BTW, Mr. Righi seems to suggest that since he called the cops, only he called the cops. I suspect that the store management did it also.
Connecting parts 1 and 2.
Mr. Righi suggests that their sole reason for stopping him was that he would not let them examine his bag. What seems clear to me, as a store owner, is that they did suspect him of shoplifting for other reasons.
Righi implies the following logic:
1) We won't say that they believe that he is shoplifting, therefore they don't believe that he is shoplifting.
2) If they don't believe that he is shoplifting, therefore they must be detaining him solely because he refuses to let his bags be examined.
He is mistaken about premise #1. If they won't accuse him of shoplifting, it merely means that they do not want to commit slander. Thus his conclusion - that they are detaining him because he refuses to let his bags be examined - is unsupported.
One of the things that loss prevention experts advise is to never publicly tell the shoplifter that you think he is a shoplifter. ( Yeah, it feels like it goes against the tradition of the rights of the accused. But those rights apply vis-a-vis governments, not stores. ) The problem is that you then can be sued for slander if there is a third party present. And since most of these situations unfold very quickly you never know who might be listening. ( This, BTW, is one of the reasons why the store often tries to get the person in a back room. Then they can be honest with him. There may be other, less honorable reasons, but they are outside the scope of this thread. )
In summary:
I support the business owner's right to have a bag search policy, however foolish that policy may be.
I support treating a person like a criminal if you honestly believe that he is one.
I don't believe in treating someone like a criminal solely because he objects to a search.
I don't think that the store management believes in that either.
In closing, a prediction: if this ever does go to trial, criminal or civil, the store will explain that they had other reasons for suspecting Mr. Righi. I'd put money on this. -HB
...I'd like to see the details. Sure. Please check the sibling thread. It's all there.
But, if you want to skip the dense legalese: you don't have to have probable cause, you have to have a reasonable belief ( which, to a non-lawyer, seems to mean about the same thing. So yes, you're right. ).
Did they have a reasonable belief that he has shoplifted? Who knows? We haven't heard their side of the story.
Did they claim that a bag search refusal constitutes a reasonable belief? Nope. He suggests that they did. They didn't.
One thing to keep in mind: the store owner does not have to tell a suspected shoplifter that they suspect him of shoplifting. And they won't, even if they have him red-handed on tape in living color. Because they then risk charges of slander.
Slashdot Mirror
It is cheaper to offer a suplementary prize for 3rd place of 5 million, knowing it is a virtual certainty that it won't be collected.
He's got a point; it is hardly a troll. Mods, wanna correct this?
Would you say the same thing about the US MOAB? ie. the US will use it on its own people? I would, if the same two conditions are met. Those two conditions, implicit in my previous post, I'll make explicit here:
1) Demonstrated willingness to sacrifice a bunch of your own civilians.
2) Building FAEs bigger than a minimum nuke.
On condition #1, we - fortunately - don't have anything even close to the Beslan debacle. ( Iraqi deaths, although reprehensible, don't qualifiy here as they are someone else's civilians ) So, no on #1.
On condition #2, we have the MOAB which is just barely in the neighborhood of the theoretical minimum size for a nuke. ( Last I heard, the minimum was about
In summary, only one-half of two for the USA, two of two for the Russians. So I'm pointing my finger at the Russians.
Oh, I guess I should have said, "...random deaths of their own civilians in terrorism matters." It seemed implied in the context.
Sure you can, if you don't mind a few casualties. The Russians seem to have a liberal policy about random deaths in terrorism matters.
Example: when 32 Chechnyen separatists took over the Beslan School and had 1200 hostages ( several hundred of them children ), Russian security forces used tanks ( firing - according to one of the tank comander's testimony - "antipersonnel-high explosive shells" ), flamethrowers, and at least one Mi-24 helicopter gunship.
At least 334 hostages died, and approximately 700 were wounded.
This is a weapon for political control as much as for war. They already have more nukes than they can reasonably use. What is the point of building a non-radiactive bomb this powerful? The only reason seems to be so you can retake the territory soon after. They're going to use it on their own territory.
Yes, environmentally friendly in this case means no readiation. So they can come in and rebuild as soon as it cools. With a Russian economy that is growing at 7-8% per year, they are capable of big rebuilding projects, so this is a rather useful weapon.
For those who want to do more research on the subject, try spelling Magnuson with one 'S'. I'm not sure which is the correct spelling, but google returns about 10 times as much with one as with two.
...the French.
Check out http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/
There is a minor exception to the first and last letter rule: on three letter words, the second and third letter can be switched.
If yuo corss yuor eeys smoetemis, you sohlud be albe to raed tihs qitue eailsy. I terid it, and it mdae all the sepllnig msitaeks on salsdhot go aawy. Hvewoer, it ddi not ipormve Sttucle Mkoney's eitding.
It's a noble quest you are on, but it is doomed to failure. Books/movies/shows won't do it. As any psychologist can tell you, by far the strongest formative influences on a child are other people. First among these are the parents. If they discuss Paris Hilton's latest cunt flash at the dinner table, the kids are not going to learn that science and math are important. They can be exposed to good books/movies/shows, but they just won't care. If they discuss mathematical proofs - as happened at our dinner table - the child will develop an interest in math and science. Then you won't need to find books/shows etc for him - he'll hunt them down himself.
The one good bit of news is that the next most influential person in a child's life is often a teacher. Your own enthusiasm for the subject will do more than you know. Just be your nerdy self; you will change their lives.
One of their experts has probably testified to it under oath.
It's not the starting time, it's the change in starting time.
I know it makes a difference for me. I live in southern California. When I do business in Chicago, I'm a little fuzzy for the first day. So I go a day earlier. I pay for an extra day's food and an extra night's lodging. And when I'm at a convention, making decisions worth thousands of dollars per hour, being more alert more than compensates for the extra expenses.
For guys who have millions hanging on this, it is a relevant issue. I'd ask the court too. It costs nothing to try and they might do it.
Since it failed, I expect that they will fly to DC a day or two early. They'd be crazy not to.
Your definition of libertarianism is a good one, and if we were purely political creatures, I'd agree with your conclusion.
But we're more than that; there is a psychological side to us. The ideals and beliefs that leads up to choose our political affiliations also affect other facets of our lives. Most libertarians who I know really believe in the idea of not meddling in other people's affairs. The don't think that the government should meddle, and they don't think that they themselves should meddle. They are really ornery people if you knowingly step on their toes, and very easy to get along with otherwise. A parallel: If I were to say that most libertarians like SF, you could also respond that that is not part of the definition of libertarianism, and you would again be right. But again there is something prior to the politics ( a preference for what-if thinking , or the building of whole different worlds ) that leads to one's choice of politics and reading material.
Anyone who holds the opinions that he does, and calls himself a libertarian, is clearly brain damaged. Any sane libertarian would look at the GIJoe issue and say 'The producers bought the rights, they can do anything they please with it. They're consenting adults, it's none of my business."
Yeah, when they get the right equipment: "IN! OUT! IN! OUT! IN! OUT...
If you have four fuel tanks, you still have at least three other tanks. So any reasonble person would suspect. But in the design that they used, according to a more informative article at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/pu
The article he refers to has a much better explanation than TFA.
That's 6 of 6. Then they told him that he wasn't allowed to run again.
"when does the best 2 out of 3 match take place?"
Good question. We've only been observing the asteroid belt for a relatively short time ( on a solar scale ), so it may be that splattering the local neighborhood is a regular phenomenon.
It gives us one more variable in Fermi's paradox.
...a run down backwater airport in about 20 years time? Maybe. There is going to be plenty of competition. From Seed magazine: New Mexico isn't the only state with atmospheric ambitions. In March the Wisconsin legislature voted for a $15-million spaceport in Sheboygan. Oklahoma is converting a former B-52 base into a launch site for things like rocket-powered Learjets. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is quietly building mission control for his space company, Blue Origin, on his West Texas ranch, while Virginia-based Space Adventures plans two enormous facilities in the United Arab Emirates and Singapore. Spaceports in Florida, Virginia, Nevada and Alabama are also in the pipeline. And as happens when growing industries begin to mature, there is a winnowing process in which only the most fit survive. Since they are the closest one to me, I do hope they make it.Assuming you support the idea of examining people's bags on their way out the door, why would you treat them like criminals? Ok, here is the business owner's answer. ( When reading it, please keep in mind that TFA contains only one person's side of the story. We have not heard the store management tell their side. )
Part 1: examining bags.
I support the right of a business owner to let a person know when they come on to the premises that they must either consent to bag searches when leaving OR not enter the premises. I think that that paticular policy is a foolish one, but I support the right of a private property owner to set almost any policy he wants. If you don't like his policy, you don't have to enter his premises.
I think this particular policy is foolish for the following reason. If you check people's bags as they leave and someone refuses, you find yourself in an unpleasant dilemma: you either have to back off or be confrontational. Either you look like a wimp or a thug. Having either reputation is bad for business.
At my place, we ask people to leave bags at the front desk as they come in. This seems to make more sense. If the customer doesn't like the policy, he can leave without any confrontation. Nobody has to lose. ( In 20+ years, only one person has refused. I suggested that in that case both he and I would be happier if he shopped elsewhere. He agreed, and left. )
Part 2: treating people like criminals.
I support a business owner's right to detain someone whom he suspects of shoplifting as long as he does it the right way. ( Right way == He must use minimum force, he must call the cops as soon as possible, etc. ) In other words, it's ok to treat him like a criminal if you are sure that he is one. ( What does 'sure' mean in this context? At my place it means beyond a reasonable doubt. It means you saw him do it. )
BTW, Mr. Righi seems to suggest that since he called the cops, only he called the cops. I suspect that the store management did it also.
Connecting parts 1 and 2.
Mr. Righi suggests that their sole reason for stopping him was that he would not let them examine his bag. What seems clear to me, as a store owner, is that they did suspect him of shoplifting for other reasons.
Righi implies the following logic:
1) We won't say that they believe that he is shoplifting, therefore they don't believe that he is shoplifting.
2) If they don't believe that he is shoplifting, therefore they must be detaining him solely because he refuses to let his bags be examined.
He is mistaken about premise #1. If they won't accuse him of shoplifting, it merely means that they do not want to commit slander. Thus his conclusion - that they are detaining him because he refuses to let his bags be examined - is unsupported.
One of the things that loss prevention experts advise is to never publicly tell the shoplifter that you think he is a shoplifter. ( Yeah, it feels like it goes against the tradition of the rights of the accused. But those rights apply vis-a-vis governments, not stores. ) The problem is that you then can be sued for slander if there is a third party present. And since most of these situations unfold very quickly you never know who might be listening. ( This, BTW, is one of the reasons why the store often tries to get the person in a back room. Then they can be honest with him. There may be other, less honorable reasons, but they are outside the scope of this thread. )
In summary:
I support the business owner's right to have a bag search policy, however foolish that policy may be.
I support treating a person like a criminal if you honestly believe that he is one.
I don't believe in treating someone like a criminal solely because he objects to a search.
I don't think that the store management believes in that either.
In closing, a prediction: if this ever does go to trial, criminal or civil, the store will explain that they had other reasons for suspecting Mr. Righi. I'd put money on this. -HB
...I'd like to see the details. Sure. Please check the sibling thread. It's all there.But, if you want to skip the dense legalese: you don't have to have probable cause, you have to have a reasonable belief ( which, to a non-lawyer, seems to mean about the same thing. So yes, you're right. ).
Did they have a reasonable belief that he has shoplifted? Who knows? We haven't heard their side of the story.
Did they claim that a bag search refusal constitutes a reasonable belief? Nope. He suggests that they did. They didn't.
One thing to keep in mind: the store owner does not have to tell a suspected shoplifter that they suspect him of shoplifting. And they won't, even if they have him red-handed on tape in living color. Because they then risk charges of slander.