If we estimate only perfect performance, then we fail to acknowledge that we live in an imperfect world. Spills are normal consequences of oil operations. It's not whether or not they *should* happen, but rather how often they *do* happen that matters.
Oh, forgot to mention that this law is basically unenforceable, which makes it a bad law. If my neighbor is flying a drone, and I presume that he's behaving lawfully (as I should) and not filming me, then there's no justification to get a warrant to see if he actually was recording me. OTOH, if his use of a drone is itself a reasonable suspicion, then no one can use drones, period. (Or planes, or satellites, or telescopes.)
First, I'm almost positive that Arizona can't regulate use of its airspace, including the reasons for use.
Second, this seems like a bad idea. The problem is not drones, it's a lack of comprehensive privacy protection. With well-defined expectations for privacy, it won't matter how those expectations are violated or what technology is used to do it. Address privacy, and the rest will follow naturally. (And good luck expecting privacy in outdoor spaces.)
If you want to convince me, you'll have to start by using words appropriately, facts in lieu of vagaries, and avoid drawing parallels between twitter posters and slaves.
Every woman I know well enough to tell me whether she has been raped has been raped.
By the best numbers we have, 17% of women have been raped, so the most likely interpretation of your data is that you either have a thing for women who have been raped, or your sample size is too small.
Also, sexual assault is a human rights issue, not a women's rights issue, and it does it a disservice to classify it otherwise -- specifically it allows men to discount it as not their problem: http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Incidentally, I would be just as offended if someone broke my ribs as if they forced me to have sex with them, and I think sentences should be commensurate with actual damages rather than morality. Of course, sentences have almost nothing to do with actual damages for any crime, so I'm not holding my breath.
Which is not surprising, considering sites like Jezebel routinely use disparaging remarks against men in the headlines and content of their articles, like calling someone who wants equality for men a "jackass" and a "shitnugget." http://jezebel.com/jackass-sui...
I'm not saying that they are in any way responsible for people posting porn GIFs, or posting misogynistic comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. I *am* saying that Jezebel needs to take a very close look in the mirror and lead by example. No civil rights effort has ever succeeded by villainizing the other side, and equality should mean equality, not superiority or an attempt to collectively punish a group of people based on a few bad actors.
I'll admit that men have many advantages over women in America. We are not a minority -- we are, in fact, a majority, and thus can exert more political influence. Under 30, we are better educated, earn more, have more health benefits, options, and social programs. We live longer. We're excluded from compulsory military service. We are more likely to pass along our genes. We get courted by women who try to impress us, please us, and pamper us. If we're not impressed, we can obtain the genetic material of a more suitable mate for a nominal fee without having to deal with that whole "relationship" thing. We prevail in custody cases under a presumption that we're better parents. We are but 30% of the homeless population. We are sentenced more leniently for the same crimes, and more likely to receive warnings for speeding. When we make bad decisions, it's an accident -- everyone knows we have good intentions. We are almost never charged with sexual assault, let alone convicted, and we receive more support when we're the victims. We can use our sexuality to our advantage. Women are often our fiercest advocates, and protect us unfailingly against external threats. Women provide for us.
Imagine the outcry if any of that were true.
I'm fine with sites regulating trolls. I'm less fine with government curtailing freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive it may be.
It's actually relatively common for custom software to experience feature and scope creep. The source of creep is split between design by committee and leadership changes. When new leadership comes in, the vision almost always changes, and when new stakeholders are added, they pollute the water with their own special interests.
It's arguably the role of developers (or at least business analysts) to push back against ridiculous requirements, and some do, but they're not properly incentivized, since they work for the contractor. BAs should be working for the government, not the contractors. Ideally, one person with software development design and management experience and a clear vision should be in charge of the project. Unfortunately, it's almost always someone with more generalized management experience who doesn't know the difference between HTML and CSS, and comes up with new "great ideas" on the fly.
At any rate, the problem isn't limited to government software -- I've seen the same thing in commercial business software, especially "customizable" software. I'm looking at you, mortgage and scientific industries. We get a little more upset because we fund government software through taxes -- we feel like it's our money -- but we honestly fund almost all poorly designed software, even if it's rolled into our mortgages. It's just less transparent.
NOVA is okay, but they don't seem to produce new episodes frequently, or even on any sort of regular schedule. And since the topics run the gamut from history to current events, and biology to technology, it's hit or miss whether any one particular episode will be of interest to the viewer. With some exceptions, it's usually one episode per topic, so there's limited information presented on any one subject. According to Wikipedia, many of the episodes are rebranded as BBC Horizons (or vice versa), so flipping the channel won't necessarily help there.
A sociopathic boss would look for the best way to alienate his viewers and murder his employees. You're probably thinking of psychopaths.
I don't/didn't have a problem with Deadliest Catch. It's definitely jumped the shark (to stick with the theme of this "article"), having long outlived the point where one can get a better appreciation for the industry, but I still enjoy it enough to watch if it's on. I could do without the explosion of reality shows that followed in it's wake though.
Shark Week definitely jumped itself last year with Megalodon, and that seems to be the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. I will admit that I'm glad to see less muddying the waters with "sharks aren't dangerous, 'mkay" nonsense though. Nobody would assert that a lion mistook a human for a gazelle, but apologists insist that sharks just get confused when they attack people. The fact is that sharks eat protein, humans are a source of protein, and sharks don't mind eating us.
As for the History Channel, it started its descent long before 2005. In the 90s, it was facetiously called the Hitler Channel, as easily half of its programming was dedicated to WWII in Europe. You could've made a drinking game out of it -- if you wanted to be three sheets to the wind. It seemed like the addition of conspiracy shows was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the X-Files at the time, but that's just my perception.
How many nautical phrases was that, me hearties? Arrr!
We already have freedom of movement, which is enshrined in the Constitution, as interpreted by case law.
What we don't have is freedom of anonymous movement.
So you're telling me that if I want to protect my privacy now, I either have to stop looking straight up while I'm walking around? How the hell am I supposed to see where I'm not going?!? And what am I supposed to do if I accidentally make eye contact with someone???
Dear God, why didn't we think of this sooner? It seems like great inventions are always like that -- so obvious that they're hiding in plain sight. It's like the paperclip, or One Click Payments! Obviously this got the old mental juices flowing, so here are some other things that I'm pretty sure can kill tumors:
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected. -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
