That's nothing, A friend of mine in high school had a chinese grandmother. She made Stir Fry for for him one christmas and their cat was never seen again.
That would run into constitutional issues. The president, supreme court, and I believe federal judges cannot be arrested until they have been impeached by the house and removed from office by the senate.
Citizen's arrests are rarely justified in any case, you are better off letting the person go and swearing out a warrent before a court commissioner. A citizen's arrest really just opens you up to false arrest charges. About the only people who could safely perform a citizen's arrest are judges, lawyers and police officers out of thier jurisdicition. And they know enough not to do it.
I have a feeling the meeting this weekend will be to announce that Dunn is "retiring" to "explore other interests and career opportunities", and "spend more time with her family"
Well, No criminal charges have been filed because it is likely that no laws were broken. The PIs called the phone company, asked for information, and lied to the phone company. None of these things is illegal.
Now, the fact that no laws were broken does not protect the sneaky little bastards from getting sued. I fully expect everyone, Dunn, HP, PIs and the phone company to get sued, and to lose, and to pay big bucks. Dunn, HP, and the PIs for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, the Phone Company for lack of due dilligence. I know I would sue if I was the offended party
I'd also expect the SEC will tear them a new ass over the failure to disclose this episode to stock holders in a timely manner.
Those situations are not analogous to what is happening regarding Pluto. Aristotle did not redefine "flat", he merely pointed out that the Earth did not meet the generally acccepted definition of flat in use at the time. The IAU did not point out that pluto does not meet the generally accepted definition of planet. It redefined planet in a way that excluded pluto.
Personally, I preferred the proposed definition that would have resulted in 12 planets, but it is not a big enough deal to make me want to get a doctorate in astronomy, join the IAU, and straighten them out.
Great, now we are gonna have little grey Plutonians running around, Yelling "help, I'm Being Repressed!", kidnapping Fox News reporters, and demanding that we recognize their pissant little planet again.
Well, there are 3 chemicals that you would need to mix to create the explosives. Two of those chemicals disolve flesh, and in all likelyhood there is a sign in the Security breakroom stating, "falling to the ground writhing in pain after tasting formula is a posible indicator of terrorist activity". It isn't a matter of trying not to make a face while drinking something sour, it is a matter of trying not to make a face while your tongue disolves.
Also, the screwdriver can be used as a hardware solution to replace the caps lock functionality if you do need it after the caps lock has been removed. Just wedge the screwdriver in the small gap next to the shift key pinning the key in the depressed position and the caps lock functionality is restored until the screwdriver is removed.
I doubt this will be a primary screening technique it would be far too time consuming. I see it being used if a person's behavior seems suspicious or matches some other criteria. It could even make it easier for some people to fly. "I'm sorry sir, your name seems to be on the don't fly list, I'm sure you aren't the person they are looking for, we can straighten this out in a few minutes if you will just sit down in this cubicle and answer a few questions".
Also a false positive on this test would no more flag you as a terrorist then setting off the metal detector would. You might be sent through the explosives sniffer, or your carry ons get hand searched.
As a side note, I wonder if the new carry on restrictions apply to flight crews, as they usually carry on thier baggage. Stewertesses with BO and bad breath from not being allowed to carry deodorant, toothpaste, or mouthwash will take away alot of the charm of flying.
Tourniquets are cheap, but artificial limbs are a bit pricy, and damned inconvenient for the people who have to use them. If the device costs $200,000 a piece, and each one only saves one limb it is still a huge savings. And then you have the quality of life issues, Even a badly mangled limb beats the hell out of the best artificial limb in existance.
You can't change the rules and assume that the election would have gone the same. Both campaigns knew the rules and campaigned to win under those rules. If the rules were changed the campaigns would have been run completely differently. Under current rules candidates greatly reduce spending in a state once they are sure of winning that state's electors. For example, I live in Maryland and never saw a Kerry ad, because he was assured of victory here when he won the democratic primary. If the popular vote was the only thing that mattered kerry would have advertized here and bush would have advertized in states he was strong in trying to get more voters to the polls.
Neither Kerry or Bush was trying to win the popular vote, both would have liked to, but they were trying to win the electorial college.
Making the assumption changing the rules would not have changed the campaigns is like reversing the values of touchdowns and fieldgoals in the football rules and refiguring the results of last year's NFL season. It doesn't work because teams would have gone for 7 point fieldgoals instead of 3 point touchdowns.
A couple of problems with fly wheels. Gyroscopic effects can cause a car to flip on its side if it turns at high to moderate speed. In the case of an accident, damage to a rapidly spinning flywheel will often cause catastophic failure, and throw lethal shrapnel a long way. Fender benders that kill everyone within 100 yards are very bad.
Flywheels are great in fixed applications, but moving flywheels powerful enough to propel a car for any meaningful distance are bad mojo.
If you just dump explosives in the train, yes damage would be minimal. But a person who was moderately intelligent would not do that. Think of antitank weapons. An M60 tank can easily survive 5 lbs of C4 explosives set off on it. But a 5 Lb anti-tank warhead will cut through it like butter. It is a matter of maximizing and directing the aspects of the explosion that you need to accomplish your goals. The principles have been understood since world war 2.
Breaking the concrete and rock is not very difficult. The military currently uses explosives to penetrate steel plate up to I believe 2 feet in thickness, this with relatively small devices, shells fired from cannons or dropped from aircraft. Without the limitations imposed by barrel diameter and aerodynamic drag these devices could be scaled up. I have don't know if it would be enough to cause complete failure of the tunnel, but it would shut the tunnel for months to years.
It would be very difficult if not impossible for a person to hit an aircraft taking off or landing. The easiest shot would be from directly under the aircraft. You only have to compensate for the aircraft's forward speed and accelaration. Assuming the plane was passing 200 yards overhead, and traveling at 150 mph you would just have to lead your target by 70 feet. But if you are using a scope you do not have a 70 foot field of view, by the time the plane appears in your scope it is too late, you should have already have fired. If you are using open sights you need to estimate the lead on a sky with no visual refernces. Then if you hit you are firing up through the bottom of the plane. Any bullet would have to go through the outer skin, cargo container skin, 6 feet of various luggage, the other side of the cargo container skin, and the cabin floor before it could hit a person. A 50 caliber might do it, but I doubt it, but no lesser bullet could possibly do it. The airline would only know of the incident from the damaged luggage claims.
The chance is roughly the same as your chance of getting hit by lightning, but people have been selling lightning rods for 200 years. In a year 50,000,000 people can pass through a major airport. Each of them may have to pony up 10 cents to fund this program. With the increasing availibility of ManPads in international arms markets I think its worth the dime.
About 10 years ago I worked as a Computer tech in the international banking dept of a mid-large american bank. We were on the SWIFT system. It was definately not used at that time for personal transfers. Now I have no idea if they have changed thier business model since then but the smallest transfers I saw were in the mid 6 figures and the average was more like 10-20 million dollars per transfer. Along the lines of, "I would like to buy some oil, here is $50,000,000.00 Supertankers will be along to pick it up soon." Currency speculating was also real big at the time, so many of the transfers were just purchases of foriegn currency. If those were coming from big banks they could be huge I recall seeing more than one billion dollar trade.
The first amendment does not grant any special exemption to members of the press, it states that the press may not be specifically targeted by laws that do not apply to the population as a whole. Reporters are subject to the same laws as everyone else, as they should be.
Reports cannot:
Smuggle real bombs onto planes for a story.
Harbor criminals in order to get an interview.
Slander people in thier stories.
Run red lights on the way to cover a story.
and finally, they cannot publish classified documents.
If they do they can be charged and a jury of thier peers will determine if thier actions were justified. If thier actions were committed for good cause I have confidence in the people to see that. The reporters will go free, the mighty will be laid low, and all will be right with the world.
If thier actions were not justified they may well end up in jail, and all will still be right with the world
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing, A friend of mine in high school had a chinese grandmother. She made Stir Fry for for him one christmas and their cat was never seen again.
That would run into constitutional issues. The president, supreme court, and I believe federal judges cannot be arrested until they have been impeached by the house and removed from office by the senate.
Citizen's arrests are rarely justified in any case, you are better off letting the person go and swearing out a warrent before a court commissioner. A citizen's arrest really just opens you up to false arrest charges. About the only people who could safely perform a citizen's arrest are judges, lawyers and police officers out of thier jurisdicition. And they know enough not to do it.
I have a feeling the meeting this weekend will be to announce that Dunn is "retiring" to "explore other interests and career opportunities", and "spend more time with her family"
Well, No criminal charges have been filed because it is likely that no laws were broken. The PIs called the phone company, asked for information, and lied to the phone company. None of these things is illegal.
Now, the fact that no laws were broken does not protect the sneaky little bastards from getting sued. I fully expect everyone, Dunn, HP, PIs and the phone company to get sued, and to lose, and to pay big bucks. Dunn, HP, and the PIs for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, the Phone Company for lack of due dilligence. I know I would sue if I was the offended party
I'd also expect the SEC will tear them a new ass over the failure to disclose this episode to stock holders in a timely manner.
Those situations are not analogous to what is happening regarding Pluto. Aristotle did not redefine "flat", he merely pointed out that the Earth did not meet the generally acccepted definition of flat in use at the time. The IAU did not point out that pluto does not meet the generally accepted definition of planet. It redefined planet in a way that excluded pluto.
Personally, I preferred the proposed definition that would have resulted in 12 planets, but it is not a big enough deal to make me want to get a doctorate in astronomy, join the IAU, and straighten them out.
Great, now we are gonna have little grey Plutonians running around, Yelling "help, I'm Being Repressed!", kidnapping Fox News reporters, and demanding that we recognize their pissant little planet again.
Well, there are 3 chemicals that you would need to mix to create the explosives. Two of those chemicals disolve flesh, and in all likelyhood there is a sign in the Security breakroom stating, "falling to the ground writhing in pain after tasting formula is a posible indicator of terrorist activity". It isn't a matter of trying not to make a face while drinking something sour, it is a matter of trying not to make a face while your tongue disolves.
Also, the screwdriver can be used as a hardware solution to replace the caps lock functionality if you do need it after the caps lock has been removed. Just wedge the screwdriver in the small gap next to the shift key pinning the key in the depressed position and the caps lock functionality is restored until the screwdriver is removed.
I doubt this will be a primary screening technique it would be far too time consuming. I see it being used if a person's behavior seems suspicious or matches some other criteria. It could even make it easier for some people to fly. "I'm sorry sir, your name seems to be on the don't fly list, I'm sure you aren't the person they are looking for, we can straighten this out in a few minutes if you will just sit down in this cubicle and answer a few questions".
Also a false positive on this test would no more flag you as a terrorist then setting off the metal detector would. You might be sent through the explosives sniffer, or your carry ons get hand searched.
As a side note, I wonder if the new carry on restrictions apply to flight crews, as they usually carry on thier baggage. Stewertesses with BO and bad breath from not being allowed to carry deodorant, toothpaste, or mouthwash will take away alot of the charm of flying.
Tourniquets are cheap, but artificial limbs are a bit pricy, and damned inconvenient for the people who have to use them. If the device costs $200,000 a piece, and each one only saves one limb it is still a huge savings. And then you have the quality of life issues, Even a badly mangled limb beats the hell out of the best artificial limb in existance.
You can't change the rules and assume that the election would have gone the same. Both campaigns knew the rules and campaigned to win under those rules. If the rules were changed the campaigns would have been run completely differently. Under current rules candidates greatly reduce spending in a state once they are sure of winning that state's electors. For example, I live in Maryland and never saw a Kerry ad, because he was assured of victory here when he won the democratic primary. If the popular vote was the only thing that mattered kerry would have advertized here and bush would have advertized in states he was strong in trying to get more voters to the polls.
Neither Kerry or Bush was trying to win the popular vote, both would have liked to, but they were trying to win the electorial college.
Making the assumption changing the rules would not have changed the campaigns is like reversing the values of touchdowns and fieldgoals in the football rules and refiguring the results of last year's NFL season. It doesn't work because teams would have gone for 7 point fieldgoals instead of 3 point touchdowns.
A couple of problems with fly wheels. Gyroscopic effects can cause a car to flip on its side if it turns at high to moderate speed. In the case of an accident, damage to a rapidly spinning flywheel will often cause catastophic failure, and throw lethal shrapnel a long way. Fender benders that kill everyone within 100 yards are very bad. Flywheels are great in fixed applications, but moving flywheels powerful enough to propel a car for any meaningful distance are bad mojo.
If you just dump explosives in the train, yes damage would be minimal. But a person who was moderately intelligent would not do that. Think of antitank weapons. An M60 tank can easily survive 5 lbs of C4 explosives set off on it. But a 5 Lb anti-tank warhead will cut through it like butter. It is a matter of maximizing and directing the aspects of the explosion that you need to accomplish your goals. The principles have been understood since world war 2.
Breaking the concrete and rock is not very difficult. The military currently uses explosives to penetrate steel plate up to I believe 2 feet in thickness, this with relatively small devices, shells fired from cannons or dropped from aircraft. Without the limitations imposed by barrel diameter and aerodynamic drag these devices could be scaled up. I have don't know if it would be enough to cause complete failure of the tunnel, but it would shut the tunnel for months to years.
It would be very difficult if not impossible for a person to hit an aircraft taking off or landing. The easiest shot would be from directly under the aircraft. You only have to compensate for the aircraft's forward speed and accelaration. Assuming the plane was passing 200 yards overhead, and traveling at 150 mph you would just have to lead your target by 70 feet. But if you are using a scope you do not have a 70 foot field of view, by the time the plane appears in your scope it is too late, you should have already have fired. If you are using open sights you need to estimate the lead on a sky with no visual refernces. Then if you hit you are firing up through the bottom of the plane. Any bullet would have to go through the outer skin, cargo container skin, 6 feet of various luggage, the other side of the cargo container skin, and the cabin floor before it could hit a person. A 50 caliber might do it, but I doubt it, but no lesser bullet could possibly do it. The airline would only know of the incident from the damaged luggage claims.
The chance is roughly the same as your chance of getting hit by lightning, but people have been selling lightning rods for 200 years. In a year 50,000,000 people can pass through a major airport. Each of them may have to pony up 10 cents to fund this program. With the increasing availibility of ManPads in international arms markets I think its worth the dime.
About 10 years ago I worked as a Computer tech in the international banking dept of a mid-large american bank. We were on the SWIFT system. It was definately not used at that time for personal transfers. Now I have no idea if they have changed thier business model since then but the smallest transfers I saw were in the mid 6 figures and the average was more like 10-20 million dollars per transfer. Along the lines of, "I would like to buy some oil, here is $50,000,000.00 Supertankers will be along to pick it up soon." Currency speculating was also real big at the time, so many of the transfers were just purchases of foriegn currency. If those were coming from big banks they could be huge I recall seeing more than one billion dollar trade.
The first amendment does not grant any special exemption to members of the press, it states that the press may not be specifically targeted by laws that do not apply to the population as a whole. Reporters are subject to the same laws as everyone else, as they should be. Reports cannot: Smuggle real bombs onto planes for a story. Harbor criminals in order to get an interview. Slander people in thier stories. Run red lights on the way to cover a story. and finally, they cannot publish classified documents. If they do they can be charged and a jury of thier peers will determine if thier actions were justified. If thier actions were committed for good cause I have confidence in the people to see that. The reporters will go free, the mighty will be laid low, and all will be right with the world. If thier actions were not justified they may well end up in jail, and all will still be right with the world