Italy, Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Poland and the Netherlands voted no. This law needs to be written into the laws of each EU country. What if those six countries simply didn't write laws implementing that, or did write laws implementing those two sections but half-assed it by making the burden of proof high and/or the punishment low?
Walls dont work. Thats why we already built a bunch at major border entry points, rich people like Nancy and Obama have walls around their mansions, jails have them, the military uses them in various forms for defense, golf courses for the rich use them, dog parks use them, the federal government uses them at high security facilities and so on.
Walls work IF you have people guarding against attackers using ladders, tunnels, write cutters, or other tools/techniques to bypass, damage, or destroy the walls. In all the examples you gave except perhaps for the dog parks, there are people whose job it is to monitor the wall and act if they see someone climbing or breaking the wall.
People have climbed over the wall around the White House. They were stopped by Secret Service agents. If the agents weren't present, the wall wouldn't prevent someone from trespassing. At best it stopped the lazy from trying to enter and slowed the determined attackers enough for the Secret Service agents to get into position.
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramowitz_and_Stegun) "Because the Handbook is the work of U.S. federal government employees acting in their official capacity, it is not protected by copyright in the United States." At the end of the article are links to places you can download it. The successor to A&S, the NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions (which has an online companion, https://dlmf.nist.gov/) omits the tables (referring to A&S or to other papers.)
If you're talking about the definition of terrorism in the United States, the US Code states:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Giving blankets infected with smallpox to people located in the United States obviously satisfies part A and C. [Attempted murder is a violation of United States law.] One could argue that it was intended to intimidate the civilian population to whom the blankets were given and so satisfies part B item i.
Agreed. How much money would the City of London's financial corporations lose as companies moved their funds to banks in other countries that protect their accounts with strong encryption? How much money would May's government be willing to throw at the City of London to keep those banks afloat? How many of those banks are "too big to fail"?
I'm skeptical that these companies lobbying the government of Texas would cause them to change their mind. But if the NCAA does in Texas what they did in North Carolina, and announces that due to the actions of these government officials in supporting this bill that the seven (American) football bowl games currently scheduled to be held in various Texas stadiums in December 2017 would be moved to other venues, THAT would draw the attention of the citizens of Texas. Football is kind of a big thing in Texas.
I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.
It's worse than that. I'm no lawyer but assuming this cop remains on the force, I would be shocked if any defense attorney fails to bring this up when he takes the witness stand in a trial, using it to speak to his (lack of) credibility. "You offered a 'reenactment' in that case -- how can we believe that you didn't do another reenactment in this case?" He becomes a defense attorney's favorite witness.
According to the charges document from the Ars Technica article (https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cajacharges.pdf):
"Count 4 - Possession of a weapon by previous offender (F6)
On or about November 2, 2016, Joseph Frank Cajar unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly possessed, used, or carried upon his person a firearm or other weapon, namely:.357 Magnum, and Joseph Frank Cajar was previously convicted of a felony, namely: Menacing, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S. 18-3-206(1)(2)(a)(1), on July 12, 2000 and/or Sex Assault, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S. 18--3-403(1)(a)(D), on May 20, 1998 and/or Theft, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S 18-4-401(1)(2)(c) on September 1,1994; in violation of section 18-12-108(1), C.R.S."
From LexisNexis, C.R.S. (Colorado Revised Statutes) section 18-12-108(1) states:
"(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender if the person knowingly possesses, uses, or carries upon his or her person a firearm as described in section 18-1-901 (3) (h) or any other weapon that is subject to the provisions of this article subsequent to the person's conviction for a felony, or subsequent to the person's conviction for attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony, under Colorado or any other state's law or under federal law.
C.R.S. 18-12-108"
To forestall the Second Amendment argument, I note that the page from which I copied that statue says "Constitutionality of section upheld. People v. Marques, 179 Colo. 86, 498 P.2d 929 (1972).", "The felon with a gun statute is not unconstitutional. People v. Bergstrom, 190 Colo. 105, 544 P.2d 396 (1975).", "This section is legitimate and constitutional means of accomplishing the general assembly's obvious purpose. People v. Tenorio, 197 Colo. 137, 590 P.2d 952 (1979).", "Because the right to bear arms is not absolute, nor is this section vague or overbroad. People v. Taylor, 190 Colo. 144, 544 P.2d 392 (1975).", "The right to bear arms is not absolute as that right is limited to the defense of one's home, person, and property. People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977).", and "Balancing of rights. The conflicting rights of the individual's right to bear arms and the state's right, indeed its duty under its inherent police power, to make reasonable regulations for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the people prohibits granting an absolute right to bear arms under all situations. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975)."
He HAD a backup hard drive. When he found that the hard drive had failed, he tried to access the files on Megaupload. In how many places should he have kept his data, and how much more should he have spent purchasing the hardware or subscribing to a storage service in the case that both his local hard drive and the cloud account where he stored his data were rendered inaccessible?
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.
Can be disabled or removed... for now. As soon as this politician needs to run for re-election, he'll toughen his stance and find some data to cherry-pick to support his position that this software should be mandatory and should only be able to be disabled by paying a fee to the government. Meanwhile by the time a kid is 8 or 9 they'll probably be savvy enough with technology to bypass or uninstall the software.
Did you ask your current boss to ask your former boss to remove you from the list? If so, and your former boss refused, I would have hoped your current boss would escalate the issue to your former boss's boss. Kick it up the management chain.
Others have called out how this will impact politicians and law enforcement. On a slightly different note, how many voice actors have recorded twenty minutes of dialog in the past? How many of their contracts give them control over how the movie studios use those recordings or mandate that the studios give them royalties for using "remixed" versions of their voices?
For example why pay (a bunch of money to) Mark Hamill to provide the voice for a new animated version of the Joker when you can use this tool to put Hamill's words in Joker's mouth by paying (a lot less) money to Adobe?
And if the tool becomes good enough, why not "find" a "lost" Freddie Mercury (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) recording that he never sang? It may sound exactly like Mercury, but the recording industry will argue that it's different enough that they don't owe Mercury's estate (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) anything.
I'd argue that the forces that created the possibility of a Trump/Sanders presidency are more dangerous than those candidates individually. As such, a vote for Hillary is probably worse in the long term. At least Trump would be such a disaster that it would force change. Trump might not be back next time, but someone adept at harnessing pent-up frustration and anger sure will be.
You're assuming that there would BE a next time if Trump became President. I'm not certain that is a valid assumption
Given his reaction to criticism during this campaign, what would he do if China, Russia, or North Korea insulted him? I think there would be a very real possibility that Trump would order some action (either a deliberate diplomatic insult or an accidental faux pas or some good old fashioned saber rattling) in defense of his bruised ego that would escalate the situation to the point where a war of words would transition to a war of bullets or an economic battle. And if his Secretary of State tried to calm things down, I wouldn't be surprised if he told him or her "You're fired!"
When Trump is the 500 pound gorilla in the room, he's fully willing and able to throw his weight around. But when you put two or more gorillas in a room, if they become antagonistic towards one another it's probably not going to end well for one or all of the gorillas.
Bubble wrap is a mature (and fun) technology used for safeguarding fragile objects from damage suffered by falling to the ground. Wrapping a lander in balloons is just a generalization of that technology;)
Nearly sixty thousand bridges in the United States are structurally deficient. What does that mean?
Deficient bridges aren’t necessarily falling down, but are in need of repair. Bridges are rated on a scale of zero to nine, with a top score meaning excellent condition. Scores of four or below are classified structurally deficient.
and:
The current pace of investment would take 21 years to replace or upgrade all the deficient bridges.
If we can't (or don't want to contribute the resources to) repair or replace bridges that are structurally deficient, I submit we don't have the resources to install roadside sensors.
The woman who had pledged to donate to the college fund for the son of your late PR consultant in exchange for the chance to punch you in the face reneged on the deal. How much would we have to raise in funding to let one of the current world boxing champions take that shot?
If all it takes is that "the general public demanded for him to be punished for his actions" then I demand that Colonel Fawaz Al-Mayman be punished for his actions, along with every member of the police that arrested Abu Sin. Who's with me?
If you live in a state where the outcome of the presidential election is not in doubt, then voting for a third-party candidate is a sensible idea.
And when enough people in that "safe" state vote for a third-party candidate, suddenly the state isn't quite so "safe" any longer. Remember Brexit?
In an interview on BBC’s Victoria Live, one man who voted "Leave" said, "I didn’t think my vote was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to remain."
The man, who was introduced as Adam, said he is now "worried" because he assumed "Remain" would win. He added, "I think the period of uncertainty that we’re going to have for the next couple of months — that’s just been magnified now. So yeah, quite worried."
Right now the app allows users to catch 151 different Pokemon. The Wikipedia page states there are 721 Pokemon available in all the different games. If they need to give the app's popularity a little boost, they'll release some of the 570 others. "Gotta catch 'em all", right?
Think back to the last end user license agreement you agreed that you had read and whose terms you promised to satisfy. How confident are you that if I quizzed you on it, you could answer the questions?
You can agree to obey or defend a document without reading it, understanding it, or intending to obey or defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
Italy, Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Poland and the Netherlands voted no. This law needs to be written into the laws of each EU country. What if those six countries simply didn't write laws implementing that, or did write laws implementing those two sections but half-assed it by making the burden of proof high and/or the punishment low?
Walls dont work. Thats why we already built a bunch at major border entry points, rich people like Nancy and Obama have walls around their mansions, jails have them, the military uses them in various forms for defense, golf courses for the rich use them, dog parks use them, the federal government uses them at high security facilities and so on.
Walls work IF you have people guarding against attackers using ladders, tunnels, write cutters, or other tools/techniques to bypass, damage, or destroy the walls. In all the examples you gave except perhaps for the dog parks, there are people whose job it is to monitor the wall and act if they see someone climbing or breaking the wall.
People have climbed over the wall around the White House. They were stopped by Secret Service agents. If the agents weren't present, the wall wouldn't prevent someone from trespassing. At best it stopped the lazy from trying to enter and slowed the determined attackers enough for the Secret Service agents to get into position.
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramowitz_and_Stegun) "Because the Handbook is the work of U.S. federal government employees acting in their official capacity, it is not protected by copyright in the United States." At the end of the article are links to places you can download it. The successor to A&S, the NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions (which has an online companion, https://dlmf.nist.gov/) omits the tables (referring to A&S or to other papers.)
If she's being charged with federal crimes, how much is she going to have to pay Trump for her pardon? Maybe that's why she's looking for funding.
Giving blankets infected with smallpox to people located in the United States obviously satisfies part A and C. [Attempted murder is a violation of United States law.] One could argue that it was intended to intimidate the civilian population to whom the blankets were given and so satisfies part B item i.
Agreed. How much money would the City of London's financial corporations lose as companies moved their funds to banks in other countries that protect their accounts with strong encryption? How much money would May's government be willing to throw at the City of London to keep those banks afloat? How many of those banks are "too big to fail"?
I'm skeptical that these companies lobbying the government of Texas would cause them to change their mind. But if the NCAA does in Texas what they did in North Carolina, and announces that due to the actions of these government officials in supporting this bill that the seven (American) football bowl games currently scheduled to be held in various Texas stadiums in December 2017 would be moved to other venues, THAT would draw the attention of the citizens of Texas. Football is kind of a big thing in Texas.
*this*
I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.
It's worse than that. I'm no lawyer but assuming this cop remains on the force, I would be shocked if any defense attorney fails to bring this up when he takes the witness stand in a trial, using it to speak to his (lack of) credibility. "You offered a 'reenactment' in that case -- how can we believe that you didn't do another reenactment in this case?" He becomes a defense attorney's favorite witness.
According to the charges document from the Ars Technica article (https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cajacharges.pdf):
"Count 4 - Possession of a weapon by previous offender (F6)
On or about November 2, 2016, Joseph Frank Cajar unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly possessed, used, or carried upon his person a firearm or other weapon, namely: .357 Magnum, and Joseph Frank Cajar was previously convicted of a felony, namely: Menacing, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S. 18-3-206(1)(2)(a)(1), on July 12, 2000 and/or Sex Assault, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S. 18--3-403(1)(a)(D), on May 20, 1998 and/or Theft, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S 18-4-401(1)(2)(c) on September 1,1994; in violation of section 18-12-108(1), C.R.S."
From LexisNexis, C.R.S. (Colorado Revised Statutes) section 18-12-108(1) states:
"(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender if the person knowingly possesses, uses, or carries upon his or her person a firearm as described in section 18-1-901 (3) (h) or any other weapon that is subject to the provisions of this article subsequent to the person's conviction for a felony, or subsequent to the person's conviction for attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony, under Colorado or any other state's law or under federal law.
C.R.S. 18-12-108"
To forestall the Second Amendment argument, I note that the page from which I copied that statue says "Constitutionality of section upheld. People v. Marques, 179 Colo. 86, 498 P.2d 929 (1972).", "The felon with a gun statute is not unconstitutional. People v. Bergstrom, 190 Colo. 105, 544 P.2d 396 (1975).", "This section is legitimate and constitutional means of accomplishing the general assembly's obvious purpose. People v. Tenorio, 197 Colo. 137, 590 P.2d 952 (1979).", "Because the right to bear arms is not absolute, nor is this section vague or overbroad. People v. Taylor, 190 Colo. 144, 544 P.2d 392 (1975).", "The right to bear arms is not absolute as that right is limited to the defense of one's home, person, and property. People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977).", and "Balancing of rights. The conflicting rights of the individual's right to bear arms and the state's right, indeed its duty under its inherent police power, to make reasonable regulations for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the people prohibits granting an absolute right to bear arms under all situations. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975)."
He HAD a backup hard drive. When he found that the hard drive had failed, he tried to access the files on Megaupload. In how many places should he have kept his data, and how much more should he have spent purchasing the hardware or subscribing to a storage service in the case that both his local hard drive and the cloud account where he stored his data were rendered inaccessible?
The customer knows what they want.
The device filters out the movement caused by the surgeon's own heartbeat, among other benefits.
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.
Can be disabled or removed ... for now. As soon as this politician needs to run for re-election, he'll toughen his stance and find some data to cherry-pick to support his position that this software should be mandatory and should only be able to be disabled by paying a fee to the government. Meanwhile by the time a kid is 8 or 9 they'll probably be savvy enough with technology to bypass or uninstall the software.
Did you ask your current boss to ask your former boss to remove you from the list? If so, and your former boss refused, I would have hoped your current boss would escalate the issue to your former boss's boss. Kick it up the management chain.
Others have called out how this will impact politicians and law enforcement. On a slightly different note, how many voice actors have recorded twenty minutes of dialog in the past? How many of their contracts give them control over how the movie studios use those recordings or mandate that the studios give them royalties for using "remixed" versions of their voices?
For example why pay (a bunch of money to) Mark Hamill to provide the voice for a new animated version of the Joker when you can use this tool to put Hamill's words in Joker's mouth by paying (a lot less) money to Adobe?
And if the tool becomes good enough, why not "find" a "lost" Freddie Mercury (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) recording that he never sang? It may sound exactly like Mercury, but the recording industry will argue that it's different enough that they don't owe Mercury's estate (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) anything.
could very well end democracy.
I'd argue that the forces that created the possibility of a Trump/Sanders presidency are more dangerous than those candidates individually. As such, a vote for Hillary is probably worse in the long term. At least Trump would be such a disaster that it would force change. Trump might not be back next time, but someone adept at harnessing pent-up frustration and anger sure will be.
You're assuming that there would BE a next time if Trump became President. I'm not certain that is a valid assumption
Given his reaction to criticism during this campaign, what would he do if China, Russia, or North Korea insulted him? I think there would be a very real possibility that Trump would order some action (either a deliberate diplomatic insult or an accidental faux pas or some good old fashioned saber rattling) in defense of his bruised ego that would escalate the situation to the point where a war of words would transition to a war of bullets or an economic battle. And if his Secretary of State tried to calm things down, I wouldn't be surprised if he told him or her "You're fired!"
When Trump is the 500 pound gorilla in the room, he's fully willing and able to throw his weight around. But when you put two or more gorillas in a room, if they become antagonistic towards one another it's probably not going to end well for one or all of the gorillas.
Bubble wrap is a mature (and fun) technology used for safeguarding fragile objects from damage suffered by falling to the ground. Wrapping a lander in balloons is just a generalization of that technology ;)
and:
If we can't (or don't want to contribute the resources to) repair or replace bridges that are structurally deficient, I submit we don't have the resources to install roadside sensors.
"Morales" is usually someone's name, like Miles Morales (originally the Marvel Comics character Ultimate Spider-Man.)
"Morals" are codes of conduct or ethics.
The woman who had pledged to donate to the college fund for the son of your late PR consultant in exchange for the chance to punch you in the face reneged on the deal. How much would we have to raise in funding to let one of the current world boxing champions take that shot?
If all it takes is that "the general public demanded for him to be punished for his actions" then I demand that Colonel Fawaz Al-Mayman be punished for his actions, along with every member of the police that arrested Abu Sin. Who's with me?
Think it'll work? *crickets*
Fourteen different ways to determine language popularity weren't enough -- we need a Fifteenth to Rule Them All.
And when enough people in that "safe" state vote for a third-party candidate, suddenly the state isn't quite so "safe" any longer. Remember Brexit?
Right now the app allows users to catch 151 different Pokemon. The Wikipedia page states there are 721 Pokemon available in all the different games. If they need to give the app's popularity a little boost, they'll release some of the 570 others. "Gotta catch 'em all", right?
Think back to the last end user license agreement you agreed that you had read and whose terms you promised to satisfy. How confident are you that if I quizzed you on it, you could answer the questions? You can agree to obey or defend a document without reading it, understanding it, or intending to obey or defend it.