Any light bulb and mirror can create momentum, with no propellant expended. SF writers have known for a long time that, in principle, electromagnetic effects like powerful lasers can create thrust.
By expelling photons, which are then acting as a propellant.
--
JimFive
Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The defendant is supposed to be given the benefit of every doubt.
No. The standard is reasonable doubt, not every doubt.
--
JimFive
Did he even need a pilot's license? The article doesn't seem to mention anything about licenses, and the 'copter looks like it *might* full under the weight limit to be classified as an ultralight, which does not need a license to operate
I could be wrong, but I think that only applies in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. In most places airspace is Class G within some distance (700 ft?) above ground level but around airports and in other areas airspace is controlled all the way to the ground. I suspect that the capitol (if not all of D.C.) is controlled all the way down.
--
JimFive
I think they set up a fund that grows interest at something like 3% a year, and invest a dollar. By the time they're ready to be reanimated, each of them will have accumulated enough interest to be richer than Google.
That math clearly doesn't work out. At 3% a year an investment doubles in 24 years. So in 96 years that dollar doubles 4 times to become $16. To get to $1 million you need to double at least 20 times which will take 480 years. But really you never get to $1 million because you have to keep the lights on.
--
JimFive
I am questioning if Google is abusing or is in a position of dominance. A large market share is not a monopoly position.
The allegations are that Google is abusing its position in one market (search) to give itself an advantage in other markets, specifically online Shopping, by promoting sites on its own Google Shopping platform over other sites, and doing so without indicating to the consumer that Google has an interest in those sites. So, Google has a financial interest in people buying from certain retailers and is using its search engine to push consumers toward those retailers without disclosing that interest. This is giving Google Shopping a significant advantage over competitors, not because it has earned that advantage, but because Google Search has a 90% share of that market. This is, arguably, anti-competitive, even without a 100% monopoly position.
If this goes to court the EU would have to show that all of the above is true.
--
JimFive
propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics". It was an attempt to say that you can't use a giant megaphone to express those opinions within a certain time before an election. Did it succeed? The Supreme Court said, "No".
Is money corrupting the political process? Is there a way to stop it? Reasonable people can disagree about those things.
Do you think that laws against libel and slander violate the first amendment? What about a law requiring that political ads not be misleading? What about a law requiring that using someone's name in an ad requires the permission of the named? What about a law requiring that any factual statements in an ad or speech be given a reputable source (and what would reputable mean)? What about a law saying that all donors must be disclosed?
By the way, it wasn't Citizen's United ruled that money is speech, it was Buckley v. Valeo(1976)
That's not how the burden of proof works in the American judicial system. Not collecting evidence (i.e., the camera was turned off) is light years away from the destruction of evidence (i.e., deleting footage after its shot)
Turning off a camera can be treated in the same way as destruction of evidence if that is how the law is written. There's nothing magic about it, if evidence should (In this case "is required to") exist and doesn't then we presume that the evidence goes against the person that should have it.
You're going to automatically side against the LEO because the camera was disabled?
Yes. They can turn the camera back on if they are interacting with the public.
--
JimFive
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
