But he wasn't even a suspect before this. The spotlight was only on Reiser.
Now the reasonable doubt card becomes a much more powerful tool for the prosecution.
Perhaps the killer didn't accurately predict how his confession would affect the case -- your suggestion seems plausible at a glance, but what you don't account for is that the jury will think exactly what you've thought as well; that that would be an excellent ploy to frame Reiser. That will only enhance their doubt. Also, the fact that the ex-lover killed 8 people will make him come across as a sociopath to the jury... further arousing their suspicions of his motives/secrets.
I don't see how this is anything but good for Reiser.
Sorry, I meant to say, "age 10 years biologically at a high fraction of lightspeed," the literature that I read indicated that the time dilation occurred at all speeds, but increased significantly at speeds "approaching the speed of light."
You could find such a table online, probably, and look up exactly what the time dilation would be at 0.6X lightspeed.
It's more than just the perception of the light; recall the experiment in which the clock inexplicably lost time -- this was after the flight had ended, and it was "behind" clocks that didn't fly.
A textbook I read claimed that it was theoretically possible to travel for an extended period of time at lightspeed, and then return to earth in the distant "future," far younger (in earth years) than you would have been had you stayed on earth -- potentially, for example, giving birth to children, and then returning to find that they are older than you.
The catch is that you perceive events in your frame of reference not at the accelerated rate, but at the rate that you would perceive them if you were standing still. So, you could leave Earth, age 10 years biologically at lightspeed, and then return to Earth a "century" later, though you would have only experienced what felt like 10 years.
In any case, the literature suggests that there's something more to it than that, so I'd suggest reading some of it if you're interested.
Well, aside from going really, really, really fast, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, as speeds approach the speed of light, time is "dilated" between the points. That is, discrete events (such as the ticking of a clock, and theoretically, the decay of a cell -- I don't know if that has been especially verified), will appear to occur more slowly when they are observed at speeds near the speed of light (relative to you -- if I fly by you at the speed of light while you remain still, discrete events at your point will appear slower to me, while events at my point will appear slower to you. Confused yet? I've never quite gotten my head around it).
The theory was supported by an experiment in which a highly precise clock was flown quickly around the world in a jet, and "When the plane returned, the clock that took the plane ride was slower by exactly the amount Einstein's equations predicted" Quoted from
How will the officer be able to prove that he "slipped up?" If an officer starts to search your car after a "slip-up" on your part, just continue to tell the officer "You do not have my permission to search my vehicle." If there are other people around, say it loudly, so that they will be able to hear you (and corroborate your "I didn't give him permission" story).
in which laptops still refreshed the display 60 times per second or so, even if they didn't need to, so you could pick up on that radiation or something for the phreaking
You could rig a device that would just take a snapshot of the screen whenever it received input, so while you might not see their screen while they aren't manipulating it, you still get to see what they've done so it doesn't really matter, eh?
Declaring that the cause of the shooting is violence in video games, less than 24 hours after the shooting occurs, without actually knowing or observing any of the facts, is horrible scientific process. It's less scientifically robust than Creationism, for God's Sake.
It's not like these people didn't go to college. They understand (or ought to) the philosophy of science -- the "scientific method."
Do they just forget about it entirely when it's convenient? Maybe they both know that their target audience doesn't know beans about scientific method.
Dr. Phil, especially, makes a mockery of his field... no legitimate psychological researcher would pretentiously claim to know the cause of a shooting immediately after it happened. They would wait to observe the facts and conduct research before making conclusions.
At the very least, games for children should be relatively harmless, with no realistic violence.
This isn't actually such a good thing, if all we show them is "unrealistic violence," it might make them more likely to downplay the consequences of violence... lot's of "T" rated games show gun violence that isn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor_(video _game)">terribly graphic, but games that show characters actually screaming in horror while looking at their own intenstines after being shot are rated "M" -- so what you get are a bunch of kids who don't know what real violence looks like, and don't understand how horrific a gunshot wound is.
It's important that we're very direct and realistic in how we explain violence to our children. It's imperative that you talk to your children about violence and make them understand it at a young age, before they are exposed to a lot of violent media
As long as they are equipped to deal with it, then it won't be a problem. But totally sheltering them from the realities of violence is a bad idea.
"After being threatened with fines from Brazil, Google has agreed to hand over personal information regarding criminal activities stored on Orkut's servers."
You mean that you're in China, reading an article on the internet that's critical of the Chinese government, and interacting with people outside of your internet-bubble? Americans, even, like myself?
I hope the secret police aren't knocking your door down already.
No one is going to be tortured by the EU, in Microsoft's case they're just trying to maintain competition in the marketplace. The Chinese gov't has much more "sinister" goals.
There's no double standard here. Those two examples are very different cases. Basic human rights aren't being threatened in one of them, and that's why it's seen differently... it doesn't depend on who you are, it depends on what's at stake, what the goals of the "foreign laws and courts" are.
I worry about our brothers and sisters in China who aren't allowed to say what they think, kept silent by the gov't that tries to suppress all dissent and keep them from contacting us... hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you were writing this/. post in a Chinese gov't building as part of a Stalin-esque propaganda mill -- give the message that "everything is alright" to the outside world while the suffering populace is bullied into silence.
The U.S. isn't the picture of morality, I'd love to change plenty of things here, but at least here I'll never be sent to prison for criticising an elected official.
School usually gets out around 2 or 3 in the afternoon, can't they take his depo. at 4pm?
Of course they can, they're just trying to intimidate the accused.
Their entire strategy here is to make it appear as though anyone downloading any music, anywhere, can get sandbagged out of left field by the RIAA. They want to scare you into not downloading by harassing schoolchildren with baseless gestapo legal tactics.
Making it public, though, is more likely to attract the attention of more hackers, especially foreign ones.
I mean, how does the average hacker go about contacting the average morally dubious third world Presidential candidate, to arrange for payment to rig the election?
That's not exactly the sort of thing you can solicit for on craigslist.
I would agree that it's dangerous, and that they shouldn't be allowed to flaunt red lights if there's not a compelling reason to (like, someone is being victimized at the scene of a crime they are responding to), but I bet if you went out and empirically gathered data on how often a police officer running a red light leads to a collision, you'd find that, for an overwhelming majority of the time, no one is hurt.
Most officers, when about to blow through a red light on a call, slow down right before crossing the intersection to look both ways, and to give oncoming motorists a chance to see them and stop.
I see them doing this all the time on the road next to the gas station I work at.
Slashdot Mirror
30 million is nothing to the government, considering that it invested less than that on roads the whole last year.
I don't get it. It isn't a lot of money, because they spent less than that on roads?
How many brazilians even have cars, anyway? Roads probably aren't a huge priority there.
Your analysis is lacking.
Are you sure you're not biting off more than you can chew there?
But he wasn't even a suspect before this. The spotlight was only on Reiser.
Now the reasonable doubt card becomes a much more powerful tool for the prosecution.
Perhaps the killer didn't accurately predict how his confession would affect the case -- your suggestion seems plausible at a glance, but what you don't account for is that the jury will think exactly what you've thought as well; that that would be an excellent ploy to frame Reiser. That will only enhance their doubt. Also, the fact that the ex-lover killed 8 people will make him come across as a sociopath to the jury ... further arousing their suspicions of his motives/secrets.
I don't see how this is anything but good for Reiser.
"Accused Spouse Killer Hans Reiser Has Confessed to Killing Eight People Unrelated to The Case! Read all about it!"
age 10 years biologically at lightspeed
Sorry, I meant to say, "age 10 years biologically at a high fraction of lightspeed," the literature that I read indicated that the time dilation occurred at all speeds, but increased significantly at speeds "approaching the speed of light."
You could find such a table online, probably, and look up exactly what the time dilation would be at 0.6X lightspeed.
It's more than just the perception of the light; recall the experiment in which the clock inexplicably lost time -- this was after the flight had ended, and it was "behind" clocks that didn't fly.
A textbook I read claimed that it was theoretically possible to travel for an extended period of time at lightspeed, and then return to earth in the distant "future," far younger (in earth years) than you would have been had you stayed on earth -- potentially, for example, giving birth to children, and then returning to find that they are older than you.
The catch is that you perceive events in your frame of reference not at the accelerated rate, but at the rate that you would perceive them if you were standing still. So, you could leave Earth, age 10 years biologically at lightspeed, and then return to Earth a "century" later, though you would have only experienced what felt like 10 years.
In any case, the literature suggests that there's something more to it than that, so I'd suggest reading some of it if you're interested.
What happens at .6?
Well, aside from going really, really, really fast, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, as speeds approach the speed of light, time is "dilated" between the points. That is, discrete events (such as the ticking of a clock, and theoretically, the decay of a cell -- I don't know if that has been especially verified), will appear to occur more slowly when they are observed at speeds near the speed of light (relative to you -- if I fly by you at the speed of light while you remain still, discrete events at your point will appear slower to me, while events at my point will appear slower to you. Confused yet? I've never quite gotten my head around it).
The theory was supported by an experiment in which a highly precise clock was flown quickly around the world in a jet, and "When the plane returned, the clock that took the plane ride was slower by exactly the amount Einstein's equations predicted" Quoted from
He died there in a car crash after 2.5 years.
Was it an accident, or was he attacked? Or are you even sure?
all the driver has to do is slip up once
How will the officer be able to prove that he "slipped up?" If an officer starts to search your car after a "slip-up" on your part, just continue to tell the officer "You do not have my permission to search my vehicle." If there are other people around, say it loudly, so that they will be able to hear you (and corroborate your "I didn't give him permission" story).
Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
This self-contradiction is so concise, it's remarkable.
Hopefully my kids end up making fun of your kids for believing in Santa Claus.
in which laptops still refreshed the display 60 times per second or so, even if they didn't need to, so you could pick up on that radiation or something for the phreaking
You could rig a device that would just take a snapshot of the screen whenever it received input, so while you might not see their screen while they aren't manipulating it, you still get to see what they've done so it doesn't really matter, eh?
Declaring that the cause of the shooting is violence in video games, less than 24 hours after the shooting occurs, without actually knowing or observing any of the facts, is horrible scientific process. It's less scientifically robust than Creationism, for God's Sake.
It's not like these people didn't go to college. They understand (or ought to) the philosophy of science -- the "scientific method."
Do they just forget about it entirely when it's convenient? Maybe they both know that their target audience doesn't know beans about scientific method.
Dr. Phil, especially, makes a mockery of his field ... no legitimate psychological researcher would pretentiously claim to know the cause of a shooting immediately after it happened. They would wait to observe the facts and conduct research before making conclusions.
I hate these guys.
At the very least, games for children should be relatively harmless, with no realistic violence.
This isn't actually such a good thing, if all we show them is "unrealistic violence," it might make them more likely to downplay the consequences of violence ... lot's of "T" rated games show gun violence that isn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor_(video _game)">terribly graphic, but games that show characters actually screaming in horror while looking at their own intenstines after being shot are rated "M" -- so what you get are a bunch of kids who don't know what real violence looks like, and don't understand how horrific a gunshot wound is.
It's important that we're very direct and realistic in how we explain violence to our children. It's imperative that you talk to your children about violence and make them understand it at a young age, before they are exposed to a lot of violent media
As long as they are equipped to deal with it, then it won't be a problem. But totally sheltering them from the realities of violence is a bad idea.
They just haven't been asked to yet.
Not true.
"After being threatened with fines from Brazil, Google has agreed to hand over personal information regarding criminal activities stored on Orkut's servers."
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
You mean that you're in China, reading an article on the internet that's critical of the Chinese government, and interacting with people outside of your internet-bubble? Americans, even, like myself?
I hope the secret police aren't knocking your door down already.
No one is going to be tortured by the EU, in Microsoft's case they're just trying to maintain competition in the marketplace. The Chinese gov't has much more "sinister" goals.
There's no double standard here. Those two examples are very different cases. Basic human rights aren't being threatened in one of them, and that's why it's seen differently ... it doesn't depend on who you are, it depends on what's at stake, what the goals of the "foreign laws and courts" are.
I worry about our brothers and sisters in China who aren't allowed to say what they think, kept silent by the gov't that tries to suppress all dissent and keep them from contacting us ... hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you were writing this /. post in a Chinese gov't building as part of a Stalin-esque propaganda mill -- give the message that "everything is alright" to the outside world while the suffering populace is bullied into silence.
The U.S. isn't the picture of morality, I'd love to change plenty of things here, but at least here I'll never be sent to prison for criticising an elected official.
School usually gets out around 2 or 3 in the afternoon, can't they take his depo. at 4pm?
Of course they can, they're just trying to intimidate the accused.
Their entire strategy here is to make it appear as though anyone downloading any music, anywhere, can get sandbagged out of left field by the RIAA. They want to scare you into not downloading by harassing schoolchildren with baseless gestapo legal tactics.
I think there is something to see here. This is great security policy -- inviting people to test the security of systems.
The U.S. gov't is too worried about it's appearance to invite criticism. It's like an insecure high school girl.
Making it public, though, is more likely to attract the attention of more hackers, especially foreign ones.
I mean, how does the average hacker go about contacting the average morally dubious third world Presidential candidate, to arrange for payment to rig the election?
That's not exactly the sort of thing you can solicit for on craigslist.
"Prior species of human that are now distinct"
This would go against the OP's suggestion that we haven't been evolving.
"Human evolution slowed once we were able to adapt our tools"
Have we even been using tools for a long enough period of time for the species to actually experience evolution?
Have any animals that don't use tools evolved noticeably in that period of time?
H2O.
Television producers would make more money on bittorrent.
I would agree that it's dangerous, and that they shouldn't be allowed to flaunt red lights if there's not a compelling reason to (like, someone is being victimized at the scene of a crime they are responding to), but I bet if you went out and empirically gathered data on how often a police officer running a red light leads to a collision, you'd find that, for an overwhelming majority of the time, no one is hurt.
Most officers, when about to blow through a red light on a call, slow down right before crossing the intersection to look both ways, and to give oncoming motorists a chance to see them and stop.
I see them doing this all the time on the road next to the gas station I work at.