because in the entire history of the planet, there will always have to have been at least one species who was a) the most intelligent at the time and b) the most intelligent to have developed up to that point.
I think you mean or, it is possible for a species to go extinct that satisfied both a) and b), leaving the second place finisher to satisfy a), but not b).
If one's body chemistry were such that blood were the only useful nourishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
So, maybe.
there is no such thing as "keeping up with the flow of traffic." when it is in excess of the posted legal speed limit
Actually that varies by state. The California law explicitly states "Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits". https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...
Shopping on the Internet is quick and convenient, and international. Using a credit card, charges appear as if you had made a purchase from wherever their merchant account lists as their address. In general, your location (as provided by your IP address) is not taken into account. This has already caused me problems with an overzealous bank that doesn't believe I would be shopping in Germany or Japan. Now if they can see that I'm obviously still in the US (via my cellphone), well then.
using Emacs or vi.
Don't Mode Me In
In this context more and less are not numbers, they are functions. Specifically times means multiplication, and more/less means that the base number (ten) has been taken to the 1 or -1 power.
Also to say that anything has unambiguous logical meaning in a natural language is usually incorrect.
Speaking of name changing, what if you're on the no-fly list and then you go change your name? Does the no-fly list get updated with your new name? I can't imagine so.
Change your name with whom? If you change your name with a government that has your name on a no-fly list, then I would think they would keep it up-to-date.
I'm actually curious where you got the information from. The linked articles from Wikipedia don't mention specific materials, with the exception of one. That material is specifically C.H3.N.H3.Pb.I.Cl2 (starting from C.H3.N.H3.I and Pb.Cl2), which falls within your broader categorization.
<offtopic>Why is Slashdot using a font where it is easy to confuse I and l?</offtopic>
If you're stranded 100 miles from the nearest charging station, it means you didn't pay attention to the fact that your car wasn't fully charged before you drove off AND you didn't pay attention to the dwindling charge as you drove. This isn't a Tesla failure.
We do not know if the car was fully charged or not.
Also, I could be mistaken, but I believe the Tesla only reports the expected range not the charge level.
This is incorrect. The right against physical coercion is separate from the right to refuse to answer questions.
The right to refuse to answer questions also includes a right not to be physically coerced.
As I said in the original article, the proof of this is that if you are a third-party witness, you cannot refuse to answer questions about a crime about which you may have been a witness (but are not a suspect).
Unless you would incriminate yourself (key word) by answering. It doesn't even have to be for the same crime, you can refuse to answer any question as long as it would incriminate you.
But, obviously, you still can't be beaten up by the police. Because that right is separate from the Fifth Amendment.
You are assuming mutual exclusivity when there is none. Laws overlap. There are laws which prevent police from beating people, which apply to everyone; but, the Fifth Amendment also prevents physical coercion, which isn't necessarily redundant.
Cash isn't that anonymous either. Each has a serial number and, if someone was sufficiently motivated (as in, create laws for businesses to scan all bills), could track each bill from printing to removal from circulation. The thing is, governments don't really care enough about completely enforcing the law and eradicating criminal behavior because it provides a continual bogeyman.
Why they're picking on Bitcoin? Because it is not created by governments and, given a choice between government currency and private currency,
You're post seems anti-government up to this point, but you suddenly make a point against Bitcoins.
no rational person would ever select the one that can be created out of thin air at will by unaccountable sociopaths. Such will be the justification for laws banning it.
So, bitcoin will be banned because it is made out of thin air by unaccountable sociopaths; it's not terrible as justifications go. Not where I thought you were going at the start. Not the conclusion I would have drawn, since I think there are more mom & pop (non-sociopathic) miners than not out there.
The US federal government is constitutionally restricted from anything that can't be interpreted as an income tax (so my VAT suggestion fails as well). The US constitution is fairly short, but mentions twice that any taxes collected by the federal government must be given to the states (proportion to population). Income taxes are specifically exempted from that requirement by the 16th amendment, but it remains for any other tax.
Only direct taxes must be apportioned. Indirect taxes (things like tariffs, income tax, VAT) are allowed under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The Fuller court did cause some complexity when they ruled that some income tax (specifically that derived from property) was a direct tax (previous understanding was that it was indirect). The 16th Amendment specifically patches the issue created by the Pollock case.
Requiring someone to answer a question is not the same as requiring them to self-incriminate.
History disagrees with you. Answers are never taken on face value. Questions are rephrased and repeated so that you may think you are saying one thing, but the testimony is taken a completely different way. If you are compelled to answer once, you are compelled to answer an arbitrary number of times.
If I'm innocent, then requiring me to answer the question just requires me to say, "I'm innocent." Requiring me to self-incriminate would mean forcing me to say, "I'm guilty."
If the questions is "are you guilty or innocent", and nothing more material, the Fifth Amendment doesn't protect against this. Every trial begins with the question of "how do you plea". To this question you (or your representative) are compelled to answer.
But that's what I'm saying -- you could, perfectly logically, have a middle ground between "You have the right to refuse to answer any question asked by the police" and "You have to answer any question asked by the police". You could just say, instead, "You have to answer any question about information you might have regarding the specific crime they're investigating, but you don't have to answer anything else that's irrelevant, and the burden of proof is on the police to show that something is relevant."
The standard would become "if the police ask the question it must be legitimate, otherwise why would they ask it", which is effectively the same as having no middle ground. Any challenge would necessarily have to happen post fact and would be difficult to prove.
In other words, make the rule the same as it is for third-party witnesses now: you can't be coerced into a giving a *particular* answer (and, obviously, can't be tortured or anything else like that), but you do have to answer questions about the actual crime. (And if the state thinks you're lying, they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt just like any other crime, of course.)
Third party witnesses can only be compelled to speak with a subpoena (in a court of law), otherwise retaining a right to remain silent. In court the attorneys and judge act as checks against each other so that improper questions can be dismissed (although it is not the person being questioned's decision on what is proper). So as for questioning by the police (as opposed to the courts), third-party witnesses have the same rights as a suspect.
As for why the dissimilarity, the Fifth Amendment was reactionary, and remains as a protection against a corrupt court (the most recent example being McCarthyism). Because third-party witnesses are generally not harmed by their testimony (unless they self-incriminate, and they can invoke the Fifth Amendment to prevent that), they were overlooked in protection.
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
