Most people don't seem to have a problem with the radio playing, music or news or talk radio doesn't seem to require attention that is normally focused on the road.
My completely uneducated guess on this one is that listening to the radio requires very little mental bandwidth. If you're listening to music that you hear frequently, your brain isn't doing any processing because you already know the song. For news or talk radio, your brain probably isn't spending the extra processing time needed to commit to memory anything that's said.
In contrast, conversations with other people (whether on the phone or in the car with you) require enough processing for you to be able to respond intelligently, which distracts you from focusing on driving. At least if the other person is in the car with you, they're also able to spot sudden dangers or recognize dangerous situations where it would be better for them to stop talking.
such as mutating plants with radiation and using the deformed plants DNA for a desired characteristic.
You're absolutely right! We should ban all sources of radiation that might affect the DNA of an organism in a way that could result in the appearance of a specific characteristic.
If you cannot afford to own your own home, then chances are you are STILL not going to be able to afford even their $35K base model when it releases in a year or two.
Sure, $35K might seem "average" these days for new car pricing, but only to those who somehow enjoy a $500/month car payment, or enjoy being (fl)leased by other creative loans.
Depends on where you live. There are a few cities in the US where you could have $35K available to pay cash for the car, but $35K isn't enough for a down payment on a house.
Well, plenty of other characters basically thought that Hari Seldon was God, so sure, why not.
As I was writing it, though, it did occur to me that all of the predictions made in the books of prophets were pretty much just an imprecise version of psychohistory.
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will. So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
Where in the Old Testament does it say that God is omniscient regarding future human actions?
Alternatively, one explanation is that God knows humans so well that God can predict their actions with a very high degree of accuracy. Humans also have this ability, since a lot of people know how their spouse or children will react to certain situations.
So I'm fine with the "no smoking" at gov/public sites, but they shouldn't be able to tell a private restaurant owner that he/she has to ban smoking at their establishment.
When you allow members of the general public to walk in and patronize your business (i.e. you aren't a members-only club), your establishment is no longer entirely private. It's been that way in the United States for decades.
Well sure, you can always lie about whether or not you have something that the judge tells you to hand over. You better hope the judge doesn't find out, though.
Yeah, it really makes me wonder why she was registered as a Democrat. How many other policies of the Democratic party did she support? Was it few enough that a couple of Republican nutjobs coming to her defense was enough to make her change her affiliation?
All of those things, however, are considered "essential services" and are never affected by government "shutdowns". It's why politicians can use government shutdowns for political grandstanding - it's only a small percentage of the federal government that's actually affected.
No, agility involves taking a large, seemingly intractable thing and breaking it down into parts small enough for the brain of the average programmer.
Back before the Second Comin- I mean, invention of the Agile methodology- we called that functional decomposition, and it was assumed that you pretty much always did it.
I can come up with a couple guesses, though I don't know if either of these have ever been stated by a judge.
1. The body of someone that you murder is not considered something you own or something that's in your possession, so you can't be compelled to produce it. It's also obviously not a document, so it wouldn't go through the same process as producing documents would anyway. I'm generally more familiar with civil litigation than criminal trials, though, so I don't know exactly what differences there might be.
2. You wouldn't have to reveal where you buried some documents, you would only have to produce them. If a judge orders you to hand over your email, you either have to hand it over or you have to explain why you can't. If you say that you can't hand it over because the only copy is on a hard drive buried in the desert, the judge probably won't care about the details (i.e. that you buried it in the desert), they'll only care that you purposefully destroyed evidence.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that a court would still consider that to be in your position/control. If you did in such a way that the documents can't be retrieved, you would probably be subject to being charged with destruction of evidence.
In general, judges don't like it when people try to play games like that.
A key is "what you have", whereas a fingerprint is "who you are". You can't claim the 5th on either of those. You can however claim the 5th on "what you know" which is what a password is. However if you, for example, write down the password somewhere, that can be considered a "what you have" and wouldn't be protected by the 5th.
A somewhat opposing argument is that the documents (email, text messages, photographs, etc.) fall under "what you have", and that a court can compel you to produce those documents. Of course, there are ways to get all of the data off of a phone without turning over the user's password (forcing the user to change the password to one supplied by the prosecutor is the easiest thing that comes to mind), and one would think that this would be acceptable to the prosecution.
The commentators are supposed to be professionals and plugging products is part of their profession. Do they fuck up the "Brought to you by Dodge: Take a stand against ordinary." plugs? No.
That's because, despite the jokes everyone here will make, the announcers aren't illiterate. They have no problem doing the sponsorships when it's on a piece of paper in front of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people don't seem to have a problem with the radio playing, music or news or talk radio doesn't seem to require attention that is normally focused on the road.
My completely uneducated guess on this one is that listening to the radio requires very little mental bandwidth. If you're listening to music that you hear frequently, your brain isn't doing any processing because you already know the song. For news or talk radio, your brain probably isn't spending the extra processing time needed to commit to memory anything that's said.
In contrast, conversations with other people (whether on the phone or in the car with you) require enough processing for you to be able to respond intelligently, which distracts you from focusing on driving. At least if the other person is in the car with you, they're also able to spot sudden dangers or recognize dangerous situations where it would be better for them to stop talking.
such as mutating plants with radiation and using the deformed plants DNA for a desired characteristic.
You're absolutely right! We should ban all sources of radiation that might affect the DNA of an organism in a way that could result in the appearance of a specific characteristic.
If you drink that much Jolt Cola, the shaking should keep your hands warm long after you're dead.
If you cannot afford to own your own home, then chances are you are STILL not going to be able to afford even their $35K base model when it releases in a year or two.
Sure, $35K might seem "average" these days for new car pricing, but only to those who somehow enjoy a $500/month car payment, or enjoy being (fl)leased by other creative loans.
Depends on where you live. There are a few cities in the US where you could have $35K available to pay cash for the car, but $35K isn't enough for a down payment on a house.
Well, plenty of other characters basically thought that Hari Seldon was God, so sure, why not.
As I was writing it, though, it did occur to me that all of the predictions made in the books of prophets were pretty much just an imprecise version of psychohistory.
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will. So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
Where in the Old Testament does it say that God is omniscient regarding future human actions?
Alternatively, one explanation is that God knows humans so well that God can predict their actions with a very high degree of accuracy. Humans also have this ability, since a lot of people know how their spouse or children will react to certain situations.
Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
You should ask the ancient Greeks and Romans that question. They had gods putting body parts in young women all the time.
2) Do either of them properly open those f*cking .DOCX files?
Nothing properly opens DOCX files, including most versions of Microsoft Office.
That's what I thought, too, considering it was only within the past few years that she became a born-again evangelical.
So I'm fine with the "no smoking" at gov/public sites, but they shouldn't be able to tell a private restaurant owner that he/she has to ban smoking at their establishment.
When you allow members of the general public to walk in and patronize your business (i.e. you aren't a members-only club), your establishment is no longer entirely private. It's been that way in the United States for decades.
Well sure, you can always lie about whether or not you have something that the judge tells you to hand over. You better hope the judge doesn't find out, though.
How did such obvious complete horseshit get modded up as Insightful?
/me looks up at your User ID
Er, you must be new here?
Yeah, it really makes me wonder why she was registered as a Democrat. How many other policies of the Democratic party did she support? Was it few enough that a couple of Republican nutjobs coming to her defense was enough to make her change her affiliation?
Damn, beat me to it.
All of those things, however, are considered "essential services" and are never affected by government "shutdowns". It's why politicians can use government shutdowns for political grandstanding - it's only a small percentage of the federal government that's actually affected.
Wasn't her son the only one of the assistants in the office who continued to refuse to sign marriage licenses?
No, 10 is not a negative number in binary, just like 99 is not a negative number in decimal. You're thinking of twos-complement signed integers.
Can't we just take the IP blocks from Africa and give to the nations that will actually USE them?
And that would be enough for how long?
No, agility involves taking a large, seemingly intractable thing and breaking it down into parts small enough for the brain of the average programmer.
Back before the Second Comin- I mean, invention of the Agile methodology- we called that functional decomposition, and it was assumed that you pretty much always did it.
I can come up with a couple guesses, though I don't know if either of these have ever been stated by a judge.
1. The body of someone that you murder is not considered something you own or something that's in your possession, so you can't be compelled to produce it. It's also obviously not a document, so it wouldn't go through the same process as producing documents would anyway. I'm generally more familiar with civil litigation than criminal trials, though, so I don't know exactly what differences there might be.
2. You wouldn't have to reveal where you buried some documents, you would only have to produce them. If a judge orders you to hand over your email, you either have to hand it over or you have to explain why you can't. If you say that you can't hand it over because the only copy is on a hard drive buried in the desert, the judge probably won't care about the details (i.e. that you buried it in the desert), they'll only care that you purposefully destroyed evidence.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that a court would still consider that to be in your position/control. If you did in such a way that the documents can't be retrieved, you would probably be subject to being charged with destruction of evidence.
In general, judges don't like it when people try to play games like that.
A key is "what you have", whereas a fingerprint is "who you are". You can't claim the 5th on either of those. You can however claim the 5th on "what you know" which is what a password is. However if you, for example, write down the password somewhere, that can be considered a "what you have" and wouldn't be protected by the 5th.
A somewhat opposing argument is that the documents (email, text messages, photographs, etc.) fall under "what you have", and that a court can compel you to produce those documents. Of course, there are ways to get all of the data off of a phone without turning over the user's password (forcing the user to change the password to one supplied by the prosecutor is the easiest thing that comes to mind), and one would think that this would be acceptable to the prosecution.
Yeah, I was confused about what Nintendo was supposed to learn from a really old database system.
Like how "Centrino" was a CPU in some people's minds.
Wow, have you actually met both of them?
The commentators are supposed to be professionals and plugging products is part of their profession. Do they fuck up the "Brought to you by Dodge: Take a stand against ordinary." plugs? No.
That's because, despite the jokes everyone here will make, the announcers aren't illiterate. They have no problem doing the sponsorships when it's on a piece of paper in front of them.