their are still supposedly modern countries that ban teaching or evolution and insist on teaching their kids at school creationism
Well at least they still teach the difference between "their" and "there."
So where does the liability lie when these things fall out of the sky, or collide with helicopters, planes, trains or automobiles? How will they "innovative" around that?
Where does the liability lie when a UPS truck backs over a baby stroller, or a FedEx delivery person loses control of a handtruck full of boxes and breaks someone's ankle? Where's the liability when an aircraft flown by DHL crashes short of the airport and burns a row of houses to the ground?
You make it sound like small plastic/foam flying wings with four battery-powered motors are the first dangerous thing that business has ever considered operating, and that there's no such thing as the liability insurance industry. Which means you're clueless about the real world, or just trolling. Or both.
Because everyone knows they just wouldn't work in our current world, let alone the laws that would prevent its flight.
But we have laws, passed by the legislature, that mandate the FAA publish new rules specifically covering the integration of this sort of thing into the NAS by 2015. The Obama administration has said, though, that they won't comply with the law, and are taking every opportunity to hinder this sort of thing. There's a reason that outfits like Google are now spending money, hiring, and testing in other countries: because those countries are less hostile to ventures like this.
There's absolutely NO reason in the world why the tests that Google is doing in Oz couldn't be done with farmers just like those in the article, but living instead in rural Iowa or Ohio or California. But no, the administration keeps releasing increasingly bizarre, increasingly punitive, increasingly job-killing "interpretation" of the 2012 law, with spin that runs exactly counter to the plain language and intent of congress. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for chasing ever more innovation and growth out of the country.
but if Grandma's money gets stolen because her paypal account is hacked, then don't expect her to get any help
But if Grandma has her checking or retirement account with Morgan/Chase, she's being helped right now, by the agency you say won't help her.
How many times will we hear a claim of "Russia invaded the Ukraine" and have that proven false before people ignore it completely?
So, just out of curiosity, what do you get out of spinning your particular flavor of nonsense? Who benefits from you trying to convince people that - despite what they can see with their own eyes - Russia didn't just annex Crimea? That columns of Russian armor with their insignia painted over didn't just roll across the border into southeast Ukraine? Your contention has to be that those events didn't actually happen, despite untold thousands of witnesses pointing out the exact opposite. So, what's your point? What you're saying is so blatantly false and disingenuous on the face of it that - unless you are actually delusional - even you have to know it, even as you type it. So I'm genuinely curious. Are you getting paid to push propaganda, even as you say that propaganda is bad? Or are you just basically a low-grade troll that assumes his audience is utterly uninformed?
What is the other 1% that powers the sun?
Rich people.
but the actual neutrino's observed then (and until now) were high energy electron neutrinos
I don't know why these observations are being thought of as a big deal. Why go to all the trouble of building some big underground Italian detector when we can see, right here, that passing neutrinos hit the
If cops couldn't let thousands of people off per day on minor things, those minor things would cease to be illegal and our legal code would finally have some semblance of sanity.
You're right. If a cop sees you step outside the crosswalk at an intersection, he should have NO choice but to cite you for jaywalking, and generate all of the paperwork and costs involved, whether or not the reason you stepped out of the cross walk was to avoid walking through a big puddle of hydraulic fluid that was just spilled by a trash truck. It's situations like that where a cop's body cam might very well record such an infraction, and in the name of ridding society of any potentially abused judgement calls, we should use that technology to make sure that everyone involved toes the line, literally and figuratively. We can't have judgement calls! Your judgement call that we shouldn't is good enough for me.
It seems to indicate that the poor, defenseless disenfranchised police officers are the victims in all of this
No, the victims are the residents and business owners in a trashed place like Ferguson where a bunch of idiots decided that wrecking the place is the right reaction to events like that lovable big lug, Mike Brown, being shot for no reason whatsoever. We know it was for no reason because thoroughly reliable witnesses (like, the guy who was within him when Lovable Big Mike, the 6'-4" 300-pound Gentle Giant was intimidating a retail clerk) said so, and the witness who said he was "shot in the back, execution style" said so. Except both witnesses are full of crap, and they know it. The cop who got his face mashed by this giant guy would indeed have had an easier time of it if Lovable Giant Mike's altercation with the cop inside the cruiser had been recorded. But more importantly, there's a chance that a lot of people's businesses wouldn't have been wrecked by people who came in from out of town specifically to trash the place and steal stuff with the tacit blessings of guys like Al Sharpton.
Oregon paid Oracle about $240.3 million for a system that never worked, the suit said.... seeking $200 million in damages.
I don't know why the hell they went with Oracle.
I'd have taken the job for $201 million dollars.
-
that the Republicans forced Obama to sign
Hilarious.
No "fact checking" will ever be allowed on many subjects, such as "Auschwitz", where even total myths are allowed to remain as though they were "facts". References are only made to other myth-supporting documents to support the articles. Anything that fails to support the myth is deleted.
You will instantly and consistently get shut down on Wikipedia.
The reason for that is that you are a Truth Crusader. It doesn't matter if you are Right or Wrong. Wikipedia shuts down Truth Crusaders on EITHER sides of any issue by simply declaring that Wikipedia is not a place to debate, or resolve, matters of Truth. Wikipedia pages are not filled with "Truth", Wikipedia content accurately reflects the content of "Verifiable Reliable Sources". If "Reliable Sources" consistently state something which happens to be false then Wikipedia is going to ACCURATELY report that that is what Reliable Sources say.
(Some might comment on the contradiction of "Reliable Sources" which contain false information. The world is an imperfect place, and no one can expect perfection in anything. The definition of "Reliable Source" is a set of criteria that establish a broad class of sources as reasonably reliable in general, independent of the fallibility of any particular source on a particular thing. So yes, a Reliable Source can be wrong, and Wikipedia will accurately reflect that wrong information up until the point when other Reliable Sources correct that information.)
If you want to wage a Truth Crusade exposing the "myths about Auschwitz", then Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Wikipedia does not and will not lead on that subject, nor will it lead on any other subject. Wikipedia follows. Wikipedia follows Reliable Sources. If and when you convince Reliable Sources to expose myths about Auschwitz, Wikipedia will gladly update to accurately report what those Reliable Sources say.
-
Make credibility a visible metric assignable by the deletionists or anyone else. Articles don't need to be deleted for lack of credibility. It works the same here on SlashDot with scores. Give users the choice of seeing only highly-credible articles if they want.
That sounded like an interesting idea.... for about 30 seconds.
Then I realized that it wouldn't solve anything, it wouldn't improve anything. It would just make things worse. Much worse. People would just start waging war over credibility. When it comes to notability, simple, you dig up three reliable sources on a subject and BAM, YOU WIN! Fight over. Inviting fights over credibility would be a never ending flamefest disaster.
-
Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.
