I'm happy to oblige. I'll probably get modded down agin for it. But there does seem to be a shortage of cold hard facts in this dicussion, so for the good of slashdot I'll sacrifice some of my hard-earned karma.
The following is from the California Penal Code. The bolding is mine.
(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
A theater owner may detain a person for a reasonable time for the
purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the theater owner has probable cause to believe the person
to be detained is attempting to operate a video recording device
within the premises of a motion picture theater without the authority
of the owner of the theater.
A person employed by a library facility may detain a person for a
reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a
reasonable manner whenever the person employed by a library facility
has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting
to unlawfully remove or has unlawfully removed books or library
materials from the premises of the library facility.
(2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person
employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of
nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
intangible property.
(3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or
theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library
facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the
premises of the merchant or library facility, or recorded on theater
premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the
merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for
the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof.
(4) A merchant, theater owner, a person employed by a library
facility, or an agent thereof, having probable cause to believe the
person detained was attempting to unlawfully take or has taken any
item from the premises, or was attempting to operate a video
recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater
without the authority of the owner of the theater, may request the
person detained to voluntarily surrender the item or recording.
Should the person detained refuse to surrender the recording or item
of which there is probable cause to believe has been recorded on or
unlawfully taken from the premises, or attempted to be recorded or
unlawfully taken from the premises, a limited and reasonable search
may be conducted by those authorized to make the detention in order
to recover the item. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other
property in the immediate possession of the person detained, but not
including any clothing worn by the person, may be searched pursuant
to this subdivision. Upon surrender or discovery of the item, the
person detained may also be requested, but may not be required, to
provide adequate proof of his or her true identity.
(5) If any person admitted to a theater in which a motion picture
is to be or is being exhibited, refuses or fails to give or surrender
possession or to cease operation of any video recording device that
the person has brought into or attempts to bring into that theater,
then a theater owner shall have the right to refuse admission to that
person or request that the person leave the premises and shall
thereupon offer to refund and, unless that offer is refused, refund
to that person the price paid by that person for admission to that
theater. If the person thereafter refuses to leave the theater or
cease operation of the video recording device, then the person shall
be deemed to be intentionally interfering with
"open and shut"? I'd love to see the Ohio laws quoted here.
I own a retail store in California, and have made it my business to know the law. Here the store would win any lawsuit hands down. It wouldn't even make it to a trial; the defending attorney would quote all the case law that has already decide the issue and the judge would throw the suit out in pre-trial motions.
Perhaps Ohio is radically different, but I doubt it.
They're actually trying to fix it. But the problem is that they can't find the right people. Seems that everyone they try to hire thinks they are id thieves and hangs up on them.
Actually , I consider myself to have a fairly good understading of what rights are. Perhaps I was too brief.
What I was trying to get at is the slow degredation and blurring of the concept of a 'right'.
Originally right a was a claim that you had against a government to compel it to leave you alone - to compel it to do nothing. The classic examples are freedom of speech, press, assembly. The beauty of it was that no governmental coersion was involved when it worked properly. ( And when there was coersion, it was one branch of government correcting another )
Then came that class of rights in which the govenment was compelled to do something for you. A right to an education, for example. This meant that the government now had to actively do something coercive to somebody. They had to either - in this example - force someone to teach, or forcibly tax some third party or parties to pay for a teacher. There was now coersion, but at least it was subject to due process: you could not be enslaved or taxed unfairly.
Next was the concept of a civil right that is a claim against a private party: K-Mart, for example, was now prevented from firing someone because they were black, or female or a Vietnam vet, etc. At least this was simply a order that a third party not do something.
The last and seemingly unsurpassable interpretation of a 'right' is that in which a private party is compelled to do something for you. In the name of the rights of the disabled, K-Mart now has to build special doors, ramps, toilet facilities, rails, etc. In the name of the rights of vets, they must prove - without presumption of innocence - that they have made sufficient attempts to hire vets.
In summary, the four steps have been:
1) Government being compelled to do nothing
2) Government being compelled to do something
3) Private parties being compelled to do nothing
2) Private parties being compelled to do something
Perversely, the concept of a right has come full circle, originally a right meant that you could force the government to leave you alone, now in the name of rights they can force you to do something. ( FWIW, the most extreme example of this that I have heard about is the SCOTUS nominee Lani Guanier arguing that the right to free speech didn't mean anything in a vacuum, therefore people had to be compelled to listen. )
Now when somone wants to have strict policies on his own web site, people speak of rights.
Touche. You're right, K-Mart can't kick you out for bein black, gay, vietnam vet, etc. But there was no mention of protected classes in TFA.
What I was trying to get at is the slow degredation and blurring of the concept of a 'right'.
Originally right a was a claim that you had against a government to compel it to leave you alone - to compel it to do nothing. The classic examples are freedom of speech, press, assembly. The beauty of it was that no governmental coersion was involved when it worked properly. ( And when there was coersion, it was one branch of government correcting another )
Then came that class of rights in which the govenment was compelled to do something for you. A right to an education, for example. This meant that the government now had to actively do something coercive to somebody. They had to either - in this example - force someone to teach, or forcibly tax some third party or parties to pay for a teacher. There was now coersion, but at least it was subject to due process: you could not be enslaved or taxed unfairly.
Next was the concept of a civil right that is a claim against a private party: K-Mart, for example, was now prevented from firing someone because they were black, or female or a Vietnam vet, etc. At least this was simply a order that a third party not do something.
The last and seemingly unsurpassable interpretation of a 'right' is that in which a private party is compelled to do something for you. In the name of the rights of the disabled, K-Mart now has to build special doors, ramps, toilet facilities, rails, etc. In the name of the rights of vets, they must prove - without presumption of innocence - that they have made sufficient attempts to hire vets.
In summary, the four steps have been:
1) Government being compelled to do nothing
2) Government being compelled to do something
3) Private parties being compelled to do nothing
2) Private parties being compelled to do something
Perversely, the concept of a right has come full circle, originally a right meant that you could force the government to leave you alone, now in the name of rights they can force you to do something. ( FWIW, the most extreme example of this that I have heard about is the SCOTUS nominee Lani Guanier arguing that the right to free speech didn't mean anything in a vacuum, therefore people had to be compelled to listen. )
Now the concept has become so misunderstood that when someone wants to impose a resrictive policy on his own web site, people speak of rights.
This is not about "your rights online". LiveJournal is a private company, not a govenrment agency. Their web site is private property, and it is not a monopoly.
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any. If you don't like what K-Mart does, you leave and go to their competitor.
If LiveJournal does something that you find intolerably stupid, then quit and go post on their competition's web site.
Almost. I'd respect the results more if they did real-world simulation of a pandemic. ( Sort of like paintball is a real-world simulation of a firefight; it tells you a whole lot more about warfare than a bunch of people sitting around a conference table speculating. ) All that needs to be done is to tell certain randomly chosen people to pretend to be sick and to stop working. See how things function.
It turns out that someone has actually done this. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=282747&cid=204 00859
Underneath the Hilton sarcasm, P has a valid point. How useful is this, really?
participants will gather in conference rooms and assess how their businesses would be affected if a bird flu outbreak or other pandemic resulted in major reductions in the number of available employees. Note they are not doing any real-world testing of what would happen. No, they are sitting in conference rooms talking about what they think would happen.
They don't have hookers either. OMG!! A hooker crisis! They probably don't have a decent symphony orchestra either. An orchestra crisis!
Sorry, not meaning to flame, but this is what it means to live in rural America. You have elbow room, privacy, lots of fresh air, and cheap housing costs. In return, you do without some things.
As population density drops outside of metropolitan areas, it's impossible for telecommunications companies or cable service providers to justify the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile it can cost to bring fiber to every rural community, let alone every home. It's easy to make a superficial comparison with other countries - particularly European - who have higher population densities. I'd like to see a study in which the figures for broadband access were weighted for density.
Not by the engines. Often it is a small dedicated turbine in the tailcone. That way you can have relatively quiet power while you are on the tarmac, and nobody gets sucked into the engines, and the relibility is higher because they are run at lower stresses ( ie: never at 100%, like the main engnes do at takeoff)
Listen up slashdotters please, (almost) nobody wants to type in rpm/apt-get/emerge somepackage -u -r/dev etc etc in the command line to install a program. They want something that just works (i.e. clicking to install, maybe a login and password, maybe a pop-up menu with options of types of installs that can be done with explainations).
Well said.
In addition, I want a teaching utility that generates a command line when I use the graphic interface, ie: "if you want to do what you just did on a command line, this is how to do it". That way, when there really is something that is better done by command line, I'l have learned enough to do it.
I agree that it is rather vauge, and that all of the possible curves that you describe are possible interpretations of the data. But we don't need to know what the curve looks like for the discussion at hand.
Remember OP's original contention is that using sugar like this decreases food for the poor. We're looking for total calories here, not demographics of calorie-consumers. The article referenced by GP does demonstrate that there are enough calories to go around.
Your use - or, for that matter, everybody's use - of sugar to power a laptop won't have nearly the effect on starving third worlders as their own government's corruption and mismanagement. There is enough food to go around, the problem is allocation, not your laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
what laws exactly?
I'm happy to oblige. I'll probably get modded down agin for it. But there does seem to be a shortage of cold hard facts in this dicussion, so for the good of slashdot I'll sacrifice some of my hard-earned karma.
The following is from the California Penal Code. The bolding is mine.
(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises. A theater owner may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the theater owner has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to operate a video recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater without the authority of the owner of the theater. A person employed by a library facility may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the person employed by a library facility has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully remove or has unlawfully removed books or library materials from the premises of the library facility. (2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or intangible property. (3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the premises of the merchant or library facility, or recorded on theater premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof. (4) A merchant, theater owner, a person employed by a library facility, or an agent thereof, having probable cause to believe the person detained was attempting to unlawfully take or has taken any item from the premises, or was attempting to operate a video recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater without the authority of the owner of the theater, may request the person detained to voluntarily surrender the item or recording. Should the person detained refuse to surrender the recording or item of which there is probable cause to believe has been recorded on or unlawfully taken from the premises, or attempted to be recorded or unlawfully taken from the premises, a limited and reasonable search may be conducted by those authorized to make the detention in order to recover the item. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other property in the immediate possession of the person detained, but not including any clothing worn by the person, may be searched pursuant to this subdivision. Upon surrender or discovery of the item, the person detained may also be requested, but may not be required, to provide adequate proof of his or her true identity. (5) If any person admitted to a theater in which a motion picture is to be or is being exhibited, refuses or fails to give or surrender possession or to cease operation of any video recording device that the person has brought into or attempts to bring into that theater, then a theater owner shall have the right to refuse admission to that person or request that the person leave the premises and shall thereupon offer to refund and, unless that offer is refused, refund to that person the price paid by that person for admission to that theater. If the person thereafter refuses to leave the theater or cease operation of the video recording device, then the person shall be deemed to be intentionally interfering with
"open and shut"? I'd love to see the Ohio laws quoted here.
I own a retail store in California, and have made it my business to know the law. Here the store would win any lawsuit hands down. It wouldn't even make it to a trial; the defending attorney would quote all the case law that has already decide the issue and the judge would throw the suit out in pre-trial motions.
Perhaps Ohio is radically different, but I doubt it.
They're actually trying to fix it. But the problem is that they can't find the right people. Seems that everyone they try to hire thinks they are id thieves and hangs up on them.
More likely sub-roadway pressure or magnetic sensors
Actually , I consider myself to have a fairly good understading of what rights are. Perhaps I was too brief.
What I was trying to get at is the slow degredation and blurring of the concept of a 'right'.
Originally right a was a claim that you had against a government to compel it to leave you alone - to compel it to do nothing. The classic examples are freedom of speech, press, assembly. The beauty of it was that no governmental coersion was involved when it worked properly. ( And when there was coersion, it was one branch of government correcting another )
Then came that class of rights in which the govenment was compelled to do something for you. A right to an education, for example. This meant that the government now had to actively do something coercive to somebody. They had to either - in this example - force someone to teach, or forcibly tax some third party or parties to pay for a teacher. There was now coersion, but at least it was subject to due process: you could not be enslaved or taxed unfairly.
Next was the concept of a civil right that is a claim against a private party: K-Mart, for example, was now prevented from firing someone because they were black, or female or a Vietnam vet, etc. At least this was simply a order that a third party not do something.
The last and seemingly unsurpassable interpretation of a 'right' is that in which a private party is compelled to do something for you. In the name of the rights of the disabled, K-Mart now has to build special doors, ramps, toilet facilities, rails, etc. In the name of the rights of vets, they must prove - without presumption of innocence - that they have made sufficient attempts to hire vets.
In summary, the four steps have been:
1) Government being compelled to do nothing
2) Government being compelled to do something
3) Private parties being compelled to do nothing
2) Private parties being compelled to do something
Perversely, the concept of a right has come full circle, originally a right meant that you could force the government to leave you alone, now in the name of rights they can force you to do something. ( FWIW, the most extreme example of this that I have heard about is the SCOTUS nominee Lani Guanier arguing that the right to free speech didn't mean anything in a vacuum, therefore people had to be compelled to listen. )
Now when somone wants to have strict policies on his own web site, people speak of rights.
Touche. You're right, K-Mart can't kick you out for bein black, gay, vietnam vet, etc. But there was no mention of protected classes in TFA.
What I was trying to get at is the slow degredation and blurring of the concept of a 'right'.
Originally right a was a claim that you had against a government to compel it to leave you alone - to compel it to do nothing. The classic examples are freedom of speech, press, assembly. The beauty of it was that no governmental coersion was involved when it worked properly. ( And when there was coersion, it was one branch of government correcting another )
Then came that class of rights in which the govenment was compelled to do something for you. A right to an education, for example. This meant that the government now had to actively do something coercive to somebody. They had to either - in this example - force someone to teach, or forcibly tax some third party or parties to pay for a teacher. There was now coersion, but at least it was subject to due process: you could not be enslaved or taxed unfairly.
Next was the concept of a civil right that is a claim against a private party: K-Mart, for example, was now prevented from firing someone because they were black, or female or a Vietnam vet, etc. At least this was simply a order that a third party not do something.
The last and seemingly unsurpassable interpretation of a 'right' is that in which a private party is compelled to do something for you. In the name of the rights of the disabled, K-Mart now has to build special doors, ramps, toilet facilities, rails, etc. In the name of the rights of vets, they must prove - without presumption of innocence - that they have made sufficient attempts to hire vets.
In summary, the four steps have been:
1) Government being compelled to do nothing
2) Government being compelled to do something
3) Private parties being compelled to do nothing
2) Private parties being compelled to do something
Perversely, the concept of a right has come full circle, originally a right meant that you could force the government to leave you alone, now in the name of rights they can force you to do something. ( FWIW, the most extreme example of this that I have heard about is the SCOTUS nominee Lani Guanier arguing that the right to free speech didn't mean anything in a vacuum, therefore people had to be compelled to listen. )
Now the concept has become so misunderstood that when someone wants to impose a resrictive policy on his own web site, people speak of rights.
*gets off of soapbox*
This is not about "your rights online". LiveJournal is a private company, not a govenrment agency. Their web site is private property, and it is not a monopoly.
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any. If you don't like what K-Mart does, you leave and go to their competitor.
If LiveJournal does something that you find intolerably stupid, then quit and go post on their competition's web site.
Almost. I'd respect the results more if they did real-world simulation of a pandemic. ( Sort of like paintball is a real-world simulation of a firefight; it tells you a whole lot more about warfare than a bunch of people sitting around a conference table speculating. ) All that needs to be done is to tell certain randomly chosen people to pretend to be sick and to stop working. See how things function.4 00859
It turns out that someone has actually done this. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=282747&cid=20
As population density drops outside of metropolitan areas, it's impossible for telecommunications companies or cable service providers to justify the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile it can cost to bring fiber to every rural community, let alone every home. It's easy to make a superficial comparison with other countries - particularly European - who have higher population densities. I'd like to see a study in which the figures for broadband access were weighted for density.
If it is a rootkit or not seems to me an academic question. I prefer to be asking: is my computer more vulnerable?
No, it won't "crash". It will "deboot".
Not by the engines. Often it is a small dedicated turbine in the tailcone. That way you can have relatively quiet power while you are on the tarmac, and nobody gets sucked into the engines, and the relibility is higher because they are run at lower stresses ( ie: never at 100%, like the main engnes do at takeoff)
In addition, I want a teaching utility that generates a command line when I use the graphic interface, ie: "if you want to do what you just did on a command line, this is how to do it". That way, when there really is something that is better done by command line, I'l have learned enough to do it.
I agree that it is rather vauge, and that all of the possible curves that you describe are possible interpretations of the data. But we don't need to know what the curve looks like for the discussion at hand.
Remember OP's original contention is that using sugar like this decreases food for the poor. We're looking for total calories here, not demographics of calorie-consumers. The article referenced by GP does demonstrate that there are enough calories to go around.
I remember something like this running on a Kaypro 10 using CPM back in the 80s.
"There are now more overweight people in the world than people who are undernourished..."m ain1962961.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/03/health/
Your use - or, for that matter, everybody's use - of sugar to power a laptop won't have nearly the effect on starving third worlders as their own government's corruption and mismanagement. There is enough food to go around, the problem is allocation, not your laptop.
Weapons of Mass Duplication?
I did it. Hire me.
I use bedsheets
I suspect that the armor will act like a faraday cage.
Why is Parent offtopic??? GP makes a relevant - though possibly inaccurate - comment about TFA, and P tries to correct that alleged inaccuracy.
Thanks for the wustl link.
I AM 50.