Here they've also added smaller blue lights to the ambulances and fire trucks.
But green strobes are legal in many places for volunteer fire fighters, and possession of that is legal even if you're not currently a fire fighter. Normally people use magnet mount roof ones, but you could install it in the grill for the claimed purpose of increasing the resale value.
Heck, I live in Oregon and I'll be drenched in sweat after 1.5 mile trip too, even in winter. In fact, I'm heading out right now for a 3 mile walk, it's pouring rain and 52F, and I'll be sweating in a couple minutes. I'll also get there quickly and have time to enjoy lunch.
It amazes me how unfamiliar with natural human cooling systems so many people are these days. If you sweat a lot when you work, and you're already in shape, it often means you'll be able to work or exercise a lot harder than the next person, especially on a hot day. How much you sweat is related to how much heat you can dissipate, and dissipating heat is actually a limiting factor when you're doing something hard.
Some people would naturally be working hard even on a casual 1.5 mile trip, because whenever they're engaged in transportation they go at full cruising speed. Other people wander along at the same speed they'd move if they were walking barefoot in the sand, have no idea what their "cruising" speed would be, (because they'd be out of breath right away if they moved fast; there would be no sustainable speed above slow-walking) and so they view sweating not as a good thing that happens when they're doing something, but as some sort of inconvenience.
It is funny how different people's ideas of time and distance are.
For grades 2-5 I lived exactly 1 mile from school, with a hill in the middle (about 500' elevation change) and I had the daily choice of walking or bicycling. (all weather) If it was truly raining too hard to bicycle, I could just wear a rain coat and walk. (umbrellas are for tourists around here)
"Be home by dark" was the rule, so a 5 mile round trip after school to a friends house, the mall, and back would be a pretty normal day.
Studies show that short-term memory recall is impacted, not actual memory, and certainly not the ability of short-term memories to become long-term memories.
Actual marijuana users are able to do basic things like consume media, or tell you what happened during a movie, in the same way as other people.
If you figure out how to use google maps just click on some place in South Bay, zoom out, click "satellite view," turn off 3d so you can actually see the satellite view, now look at the open spaces. Lots of them will be within easy bicycle distance for a bored teenager, if their parents let them risk having experiences.
I can't even tell if you're a non-native speaker who doesn't understand the word "projection" in this context, or if you just don't understand who said what.
Either way, weak sauce. Do better. Shouting "sophistry" when you lack understanding doesn't even convince me you know what that word means. Maybe use smaller words, so that you can arrange them in a way that makes sense?
And you're right, you didn't introduce the subject of gaslighting; I did. Are you trying to gaslight me, or did you really not comprehend that part of the conversation, either?
When you give out "red flag" type of relationship data, (that your wife doesn't trust you with personal information, even though marriage is the most personal form of familial relationship) and then accuse people who notice of projecting, I just have to assume you should also stop gaslighting her.
It is up to you to succeed in communicating if that is your goal. If your goal is not to communicate, then yes, that is perfectly good prose of some sort of if you claim it has meaning to you.
They're both correct, and English is an open language so if you already observed a thousand examples of a construction that means you already have evidence of its use, and therefore its correctness.
Stop blathering like an ignoramus and learn you an English.
If you want rules, switch to French. They have rules. English only has style guides and known constructions.
Even if Gmail goes away tomorrow, you still have all of your data (minus whatever you haven't fetched yet), so you can just switch to some other service, and send updates to your contacts as needed.
The rest of your post is good advice, in any case.
The rest of your post is good.;) But google has a really good track record of letting you download your data when they shut something down. So the analysis of the potential harm should limit itself to the cost of switching services. There is not a realistic risk of losing your actual email data, it's only the integration with their other tools that you'd lose.
I even still use ICQ. Some people have switched IM platforms 10+ times in that period, and yet they have no new features in 20 years. They were taught a new word for graphical emoticons and misunderstood it for a new feature... and they they were given another new word for graphical emoticons, again told it was a new feature, but now told it costs money, and they bought it. "Hurdur, `stickers.'" If the same person had all their personal items covered in printed stickers, I'd forgive it.
You're just wallowing in your desire to have me argue from authority to you, but your cries will not result in me doing the basic research for you.
Listen to ideas, and go and research them to find out if they are well-supported or not.
Asking for citations is a privilege you'd get if you were an expert, and had already read all the normal supporting documents you'd need to understand a citation, and if in fact the context of our conversation was such that I would expect you to go and read the whole study and consider it in detail. But that isn't this context, this is a non-professional conversation; researching the claims should be done using your own research abilities and resources, it should not be conducted by being credulous of links people provide. That is not knowledge, that is rumor. There is no need to cite rumor in support of ideas that were already themselves explained. An idea under consideration is right or wrong independently of your ability, or lack of ability, to research if it is also well-supported.
You added nothing to the conversation other than implying that you paid so little attention, you didn't even notice if your comment was going to add anything.
In 250 years, there is one SCOTUS ruling that talks about the individual right to gun ownership, and they did nothing to establish the boundaries at either end. So talking about it is just blah-blah. They didn't change anything with that ruling. Nothing at all, not even a small detail on the edges.
You were told by political propaganda to repeat the words you repeated, but you didn't comprehend why or what the meaning is or when it is relevant. Does having an individual right to gun ownership suddenly convert "shall not be infringed" into "shall make no law?" No, no it doesn't, and no, it doesn't change those words in any way at all. It still leaves it at, Congress cannot regulate what press you buy, but they can regulate which guns you buy as long as you still get to buy some.
It may be simply that the US cares more about legal rights, and has more freedom of speech, and so you hear more people talking about supposed violations of rights in the US. And the other places where they don't care, they also don't talk about it.
Maybe in the US sometimes people who get an unfair trial end up getting Justice, and you hear about it when their case gets overturned. And maybe in your country, people who get an unfair trial were already convicted and nobody talked about it anymore because it was already proven.
As with everything else in Law, the words have actual meaning and the goal is to understand and apply the legal principle, not just to find a word you associate with loopholes (here, the word "political") and then assert that the word applies because you say so. "Political crime" doesn't mean, a crime by a person who has political views, or a crime against a person who you have a political grudge.
If you were to look into specific cases of IRA members, for example, you'd find the ones whose crimes were considered political were ones where they are basically accused of some conspiracy, and the evidence is primarily based on who they associate with. That's going to be a "political crime;" maybe there was some murder that happened, and 3 people were accused of being directly involved, but then another 10 people were accused of having helped, only there is no specific allegation that they helped with anything, just evidence of who they were associated with. The UK has a solid history of doing that, in fact many American legal principles are designed to prevent exactly that sort of prosecution. So the 3 would get extradited and the 10 might not. Probably half the 10 would get extradited anyways, because Courts usually side with prosecutors.
A political crime isn't so much a "political crime" as a "political prosecution" in cases other than relating to speech or elections. And even in elections, violating most electoral laws wouldn't count as political crimes, it would be regular crimes. A political crime in that case would be if you're accused of being a member of a banned political party; the supposed thing is a crime because of the thing's politics. Just like, an NRA member who was friends with somebody who committed a murder is accused of a political crime; being friends with the wrong person. The murderer still committed murder.
Also, if you're at war with an occupying power, taking a life isn't automatically murder. War is hell, after all.
You're welcome to drop all the treaties you want. The treaty doesn't say you can't leave, it says you have to tell us that you're leaving.
Same as with Brexit. Go ahead and leave. Byeeeeeee.
Don't come back tomorrow and wonder why weren't not the good friends we used to be, though. That would be weak, and lame. Have the courage of your convictions, and go it your own way. You have the most important land in the world, right? You'll still be a wealthy country without friends, right? You do have lots of natural resources to base your economy on... right?
They blather about precedent, but in reality there is still an extradition treaty and if they do a repeat they'll risk damaging their relationship with their only large ally.
This was a single case, there is no precedent created. And the nonsense about "hackers" is just straight horse pucky, the Court didn't say anything about that, there were 2 problems with the case: #1 the US didn't want to share the evidence to allow for UK prosecution of the crime, which of course makes UK courts dubious about it and #2 he's mentally disabled. What they ruled was that the case against him wasn't strong enough to make it worth punishing him, because of his disability. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime, because he's too crazy.
His condition isn't even close to the point of disability, so even if you thought that was some sort of precedent (it would need to have created some sort of new rule to be that, and it didn't offer to do that at all) it wouldn't actually matter; in future cases, courts would still most likely realize that Asperger syndrome is a named syndrome but not actually the sort of disability that the Court treated it as here.
Normally in extradition cases they're not offering to do a local prosecution, so there is no way this rather unique situation would be likely to create precedent, and if it did it would be very narrow, not something broadly about "hackers."
Anything political, Ars has become a really awful source of information. I had to dredge up the BBC articles on it just to get the basic facts without a bunch of misleading hyperbole and absurd legal guessing.
Try historical sources and not political ones. You'll know you're in the right place when they're telling you what happened instead of telling you how you think and feel about it.
Also, any legal history of the 2nd amendment that isn't political will tell you that right at the start, with references. If they left it out, they probably also expressed opinions, and if they did that, they're not a source of information they're propaganda.
I assumed people who are joining this conversation would know this stuff, or else they should really be doing 101-level history readings on their own instead.
A militia is a group of volunteers who practice on their own, and in times of war are called up by the State or Federal authorities to fight. They're then placed under the command of some military leader. If they haven't been called up by their State to fight, they're only supposed to be training. They're not a private army that is allowed to self-deploy. The only scenario where they would be fighting without being called up is if their community was under foreign invasion and the military hadn't had time to organize a response; something possible back then, but not really relevant now. But even in that case, they have no special powers and it is their common-law right of self defense that lets them fight, not any militia powers.
That's what it was for. If you're in a militia, then instead of getting conscripted into some army you get to fight with your unit. But your unit has to be able to pass a parade drill. If you can't pass a parade drill, then you're not well regulated and you're all going to have to put on government uniforms and go off to boot camp with everybody else.
Nobody said that militias fought the British using European battle formations, it is simply that the parade drill was given as a proxy for if you had been trained. The point isn't about what type of combat you're experienced in or preparing for, the point is are you practiced in following arbitrary orders from your leader, and does that include the ability of your leader to direct your body physically to certain part of a formation? If you don't think that is important because the word "guerilla" is next to your tactics, you probably haven't even read descriptions of the battles. Yes, they used trees and things for cover more often than the British. Yes, they tried to surprise the enemy. Those things are a lot more effective when your commanders can choose which trees you hide behind, instead of having every Homer just guess what to do all the time. How are you going to ambush anybody if you can't move as a unit?! Almost the whole value of a militia is that even though they don't have full training, they can move together because they've at least practiced that much together, and they know each other so they're less likely to scatter.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily, California isn't in the UK.
They don't even know which side of the road to drive on there!
That's only true at night, on a rural road, where there is no shoulder to walk on and you're exiting the roadway whenever a vehicle approaches.
In all other conditions you should walk with traffic in a normal way, behaving as traffic behaves.
If you're not sure, stop repeating what your uncle told you and consult your state's driver manual.
Would a horseless carriage be useful if it required a horse?
Yes, if it was designed to act as a buffer. Maybe the horse is running the battery charger!
The horse might even stay home.
Here they've also added smaller blue lights to the ambulances and fire trucks.
But green strobes are legal in many places for volunteer fire fighters, and possession of that is legal even if you're not currently a fire fighter. Normally people use magnet mount roof ones, but you could install it in the grill for the claimed purpose of increasing the resale value.
Heck, I live in Oregon and I'll be drenched in sweat after 1.5 mile trip too, even in winter. In fact, I'm heading out right now for a 3 mile walk, it's pouring rain and 52F, and I'll be sweating in a couple minutes. I'll also get there quickly and have time to enjoy lunch.
It amazes me how unfamiliar with natural human cooling systems so many people are these days. If you sweat a lot when you work, and you're already in shape, it often means you'll be able to work or exercise a lot harder than the next person, especially on a hot day. How much you sweat is related to how much heat you can dissipate, and dissipating heat is actually a limiting factor when you're doing something hard.
Some people would naturally be working hard even on a casual 1.5 mile trip, because whenever they're engaged in transportation they go at full cruising speed. Other people wander along at the same speed they'd move if they were walking barefoot in the sand, have no idea what their "cruising" speed would be, (because they'd be out of breath right away if they moved fast; there would be no sustainable speed above slow-walking) and so they view sweating not as a good thing that happens when they're doing something, but as some sort of inconvenience.
It is funny how different people's ideas of time and distance are.
For grades 2-5 I lived exactly 1 mile from school, with a hill in the middle (about 500' elevation change) and I had the daily choice of walking or bicycling. (all weather) If it was truly raining too hard to bicycle, I could just wear a rain coat and walk. (umbrellas are for tourists around here)
"Be home by dark" was the rule, so a 5 mile round trip after school to a friends house, the mall, and back would be a pretty normal day.
It doesn't actually work that way.
Studies show that short-term memory recall is impacted, not actual memory, and certainly not the ability of short-term memories to become long-term memories.
Actual marijuana users are able to do basic things like consume media, or tell you what happened during a movie, in the same way as other people.
If you figure out how to use google maps just click on some place in South Bay, zoom out, click "satellite view," turn off 3d so you can actually see the satellite view, now look at the open spaces. Lots of them will be within easy bicycle distance for a bored teenager, if their parents let them risk having experiences.
You're not comprehending.
I can't even tell if you're a non-native speaker who doesn't understand the word "projection" in this context, or if you just don't understand who said what.
Either way, weak sauce. Do better. Shouting "sophistry" when you lack understanding doesn't even convince me you know what that word means. Maybe use smaller words, so that you can arrange them in a way that makes sense?
And you're right, you didn't introduce the subject of gaslighting; I did. Are you trying to gaslight me, or did you really not comprehend that part of the conversation, either?
When you give out "red flag" type of relationship data, (that your wife doesn't trust you with personal information, even though marriage is the most personal form of familial relationship) and then accuse people who notice of projecting, I just have to assume you should also stop gaslighting her.
That's vector 86, if you're keeping score.
It is up to you to succeed in communicating if that is your goal. If your goal is not to communicate, then yes, that is perfectly good prose of some sort of if you claim it has meaning to you.
They're both correct, and English is an open language so if you already observed a thousand examples of a construction that means you already have evidence of its use, and therefore its correctness.
Stop blathering like an ignoramus and learn you an English.
If you want rules, switch to French. They have rules. English only has style guides and known constructions.
Even if Gmail goes away tomorrow, you still have all of your data (minus whatever you haven't fetched yet), so you can just switch to some other service, and send updates to your contacts as needed.
The rest of your post is good advice, in any case.
The rest of your post is good. ;) But google has a really good track record of letting you download your data when they shut something down. So the analysis of the potential harm should limit itself to the cost of switching services. There is not a realistic risk of losing your actual email data, it's only the integration with their other tools that you'd lose.
Weird, I use lots of software from the 90s still.
I even still use ICQ. Some people have switched IM platforms 10+ times in that period, and yet they have no new features in 20 years. They were taught a new word for graphical emoticons and misunderstood it for a new feature... and they they were given another new word for graphical emoticons, again told it was a new feature, but now told it costs money, and they bought it. "Hurdur, `stickers.'" If the same person had all their personal items covered in printed stickers, I'd forgive it.
Knowledge is for people who can think and read, not for people who whine and play a game of seeking approval.
Approval can't be substituted for knowledge in actual situations, only in your game.
You're just wallowing in your desire to have me argue from authority to you, but your cries will not result in me doing the basic research for you.
Listen to ideas, and go and research them to find out if they are well-supported or not.
Asking for citations is a privilege you'd get if you were an expert, and had already read all the normal supporting documents you'd need to understand a citation, and if in fact the context of our conversation was such that I would expect you to go and read the whole study and consider it in detail. But that isn't this context, this is a non-professional conversation; researching the claims should be done using your own research abilities and resources, it should not be conducted by being credulous of links people provide. That is not knowledge, that is rumor. There is no need to cite rumor in support of ideas that were already themselves explained. An idea under consideration is right or wrong independently of your ability, or lack of ability, to research if it is also well-supported.
You added nothing to the conversation other than implying that you paid so little attention, you didn't even notice if your comment was going to add anything.
In 250 years, there is one SCOTUS ruling that talks about the individual right to gun ownership, and they did nothing to establish the boundaries at either end. So talking about it is just blah-blah. They didn't change anything with that ruling. Nothing at all, not even a small detail on the edges.
You were told by political propaganda to repeat the words you repeated, but you didn't comprehend why or what the meaning is or when it is relevant. Does having an individual right to gun ownership suddenly convert "shall not be infringed" into "shall make no law?" No, no it doesn't, and no, it doesn't change those words in any way at all. It still leaves it at, Congress cannot regulate what press you buy, but they can regulate which guns you buy as long as you still get to buy some.
It may be simply that the US cares more about legal rights, and has more freedom of speech, and so you hear more people talking about supposed violations of rights in the US. And the other places where they don't care, they also don't talk about it.
Maybe in the US sometimes people who get an unfair trial end up getting Justice, and you hear about it when their case gets overturned. And maybe in your country, people who get an unfair trial were already convicted and nobody talked about it anymore because it was already proven.
Trump and the Evil Elf in office
I didn't even realize Stormy had joined the administration!
haha, NRA at the end was an accidental joke, not an intentional one. Meant IRA as above.
Correct?
False.
As with everything else in Law, the words have actual meaning and the goal is to understand and apply the legal principle, not just to find a word you associate with loopholes (here, the word "political") and then assert that the word applies because you say so. "Political crime" doesn't mean, a crime by a person who has political views, or a crime against a person who you have a political grudge.
If you were to look into specific cases of IRA members, for example, you'd find the ones whose crimes were considered political were ones where they are basically accused of some conspiracy, and the evidence is primarily based on who they associate with. That's going to be a "political crime;" maybe there was some murder that happened, and 3 people were accused of being directly involved, but then another 10 people were accused of having helped, only there is no specific allegation that they helped with anything, just evidence of who they were associated with. The UK has a solid history of doing that, in fact many American legal principles are designed to prevent exactly that sort of prosecution. So the 3 would get extradited and the 10 might not. Probably half the 10 would get extradited anyways, because Courts usually side with prosecutors.
A political crime isn't so much a "political crime" as a "political prosecution" in cases other than relating to speech or elections. And even in elections, violating most electoral laws wouldn't count as political crimes, it would be regular crimes. A political crime in that case would be if you're accused of being a member of a banned political party; the supposed thing is a crime because of the thing's politics. Just like, an NRA member who was friends with somebody who committed a murder is accused of a political crime; being friends with the wrong person. The murderer still committed murder.
Also, if you're at war with an occupying power, taking a life isn't automatically murder. War is hell, after all.
You're welcome to drop all the treaties you want. The treaty doesn't say you can't leave, it says you have to tell us that you're leaving.
Same as with Brexit. Go ahead and leave. Byeeeeeee.
Don't come back tomorrow and wonder why weren't not the good friends we used to be, though. That would be weak, and lame. Have the courage of your convictions, and go it your own way. You have the most important land in the world, right? You'll still be a wealthy country without friends, right? You do have lots of natural resources to base your economy on... right?
They blather about precedent, but in reality there is still an extradition treaty and if they do a repeat they'll risk damaging their relationship with their only large ally.
This was a single case, there is no precedent created. And the nonsense about "hackers" is just straight horse pucky, the Court didn't say anything about that, there were 2 problems with the case: #1 the US didn't want to share the evidence to allow for UK prosecution of the crime, which of course makes UK courts dubious about it and #2 he's mentally disabled. What they ruled was that the case against him wasn't strong enough to make it worth punishing him, because of his disability. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime, because he's too crazy.
His condition isn't even close to the point of disability, so even if you thought that was some sort of precedent (it would need to have created some sort of new rule to be that, and it didn't offer to do that at all) it wouldn't actually matter; in future cases, courts would still most likely realize that Asperger syndrome is a named syndrome but not actually the sort of disability that the Court treated it as here.
Normally in extradition cases they're not offering to do a local prosecution, so there is no way this rather unique situation would be likely to create precedent, and if it did it would be very narrow, not something broadly about "hackers."
Anything political, Ars has become a really awful source of information. I had to dredge up the BBC articles on it just to get the basic facts without a bunch of misleading hyperbole and absurd legal guessing.
Try historical sources and not political ones. You'll know you're in the right place when they're telling you what happened instead of telling you how you think and feel about it.
Also, any legal history of the 2nd amendment that isn't political will tell you that right at the start, with references. If they left it out, they probably also expressed opinions, and if they did that, they're not a source of information they're propaganda.
Nobody said militias were part of the military.
I assumed people who are joining this conversation would know this stuff, or else they should really be doing 101-level history readings on their own instead.
A militia is a group of volunteers who practice on their own, and in times of war are called up by the State or Federal authorities to fight. They're then placed under the command of some military leader. If they haven't been called up by their State to fight, they're only supposed to be training. They're not a private army that is allowed to self-deploy. The only scenario where they would be fighting without being called up is if their community was under foreign invasion and the military hadn't had time to organize a response; something possible back then, but not really relevant now. But even in that case, they have no special powers and it is their common-law right of self defense that lets them fight, not any militia powers.
That's what it was for. If you're in a militia, then instead of getting conscripted into some army you get to fight with your unit. But your unit has to be able to pass a parade drill. If you can't pass a parade drill, then you're not well regulated and you're all going to have to put on government uniforms and go off to boot camp with everybody else.
Nobody said that militias fought the British using European battle formations, it is simply that the parade drill was given as a proxy for if you had been trained. The point isn't about what type of combat you're experienced in or preparing for, the point is are you practiced in following arbitrary orders from your leader, and does that include the ability of your leader to direct your body physically to certain part of a formation? If you don't think that is important because the word "guerilla" is next to your tactics, you probably haven't even read descriptions of the battles. Yes, they used trees and things for cover more often than the British. Yes, they tried to surprise the enemy. Those things are a lot more effective when your commanders can choose which trees you hide behind, instead of having every Homer just guess what to do all the time. How are you going to ambush anybody if you can't move as a unit?! Almost the whole value of a militia is that even though they don't have full training, they can move together because they've at least practiced that much together, and they know each other so they're less likely to scatter.