> They aren't called "Arabic numerals" for quaintness.
Actually, they are. Literally.
"It should be noted that the Arabic numerals were neither invented by nor used by the Arabs. They were developed in India by the Hindus around 600 A.D"
It will use thrusters to maintain orbit, because the gravity is indeed insufficient:
"Rosetta will have to continue to fire its thrusters every few days to maintain a hyberbolic orbit at 100km above the rotating rock. "
You are correct. The gravity is insufficient. So I looked it up.
They will basically "drive" the probe around the comet, firing thrusters as needed. After a bit, they will "drive" it onto the surface, then:
"As Philae touches down on the comet, two harpoons will anchor it to the surface; the self-adjusting landing gear will ensure that it stays upright, even on a slope, and then the lander's feet will drill into the ground to secure it to the comet’s surface in the low gravity environment. Philae carries 9 scientific instruments, including a drill to sample subsurface material." ( http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit... )
> And thats the catch no one seems to be talking about. An influenced chain of evidence can break entire cases simply because the police cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was not tampered with/planted.
Google provided probable cause for a warrant. That's all that's required from the Google evidence. From that warrant, they found stuff on his tablet and phone. THAT's what's going to nail him to the wall. NOT the Google evidence.
Pollution occurs wherever there is life.
> Netflix's primary focus should be on getting their streaming catalog to match their DVD catalog.
In which case the streaming service would cost at least $50/month.
People expect FAR too much from what is an $8/month streaming service. The DVD service is cheap because you can only get a handful of DVDs at a time, but with streaming, you could watch 24/7... 12 movies a day, 360 movies a month.
The way to look at Netflix streaming is, as if it were a channel, not an archive. With a channel, you look at the channel, and decide if you want to watch what the channel is offering. If you take Netflix streaming to be some kind of archive, you'll end up trying to search for random movies which will leave you a raging mess, as is seen so often when discussing the service.
What are calld "Arabic" numbers are more properly called "Hindu-Arabic" "Hindu-Arabic" numerals were invented by Hindu mathematicians in India thus called "Indian numerals" by Persian mathematician Khowarizmi. They were later called "Arabic" numerals by Europeans, because they were introduced in the West by Arabized Berbers of North Africa.
> So at the least, the game rachets up a notch.
At the worst, adblock's days are numbered.
Next up: adblockers which don't actually block the ad... they'll play it in a sandbox or some such... the user just won't see it.
When has there ever been a culture, in the history of the earth, that dispensed fair trials to the masses. Ever.
What made the United States experiment unique was not that it gave the average person justice. It's that it gave the average person a CHANCE at justice.
Go ahead, yuk it up, get all sarcastic and bitter, spell it "Amerika" and all. That chance at justice is something that 99.99999 percent of the people who have walked the face of planet never had.
Dangerous to your trim, maybe. Dangerous to your life? Not so much.
It is not speed, but difference in speed, which is dangerous to your life. I fear the one coming up behind me at a difference of 50+ MPH MUCH more than the one next to me doing a couple MPH different. Yeah, the guy next to me may take out my mirror or scuff my door, but the guy behind me may kill me.
> The first sentence of TFA and TFS says "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip."
Adorable.
> I haven't read the decision myself
Perhaps you should.
> so I could be wrong,
You are.
> but that's what it says here.
Adorable.
Allow me. From the decision
Syllabus
A California Highway Patrol officer stopped the pickup truck occupied by petitioners because it matched the description of a vehicle that a 911 caller had recently reported as having run her off the road. As he and a second officer approached the truck, they smelled marijuana. They searched the truck's bed, found 30 pounds of marijuana, and arrested petitioners. Petitioners moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment. Their motion was denied, and they pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.
Held: The traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck's driver was intoxicated. Pp. 3-11
> Does this seem like yet another easily fabricated excuse the police can use to search your property?
Uh... no. No search is involved or permitted solely based on an anonymous tip... just pulling someone over. This falls under the "reasonable suspicion" standard for pulling someone over. They pulled me over for "accelerating too fast out of an intersection" at about the time the bars were closing... that was reasonable suspicion that I was drinking and driving and all they needed to pull me over even though there IS no crime for "accelerating too fast".
The "reasonable suspicion" standard is MUCH lower than "probable cause" which is required for a search. They still can't search you based on an anonymous tip... just pull you over and ask you questions, which you can of course refuse to answer.
People discussing this issue would do well to bone up on the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause". People misuse the terms all the time... they are very different, and anyone who interacts with, or may interact with the police, should know what the terms mean.
The United States was founded on a conspiracy. Literally.
That the people are being conditioned to automatically consider anything labeled a "conspiracy" automatically laughable says a lot about the degeneration of the U.S.
It is only through hindsight that we can say that a desire to ferret out communist subversives was "irrational". At this time during the cold war, considering that there actually WERE subversives and attempts to subvert the USA's government, a desire and hunting for such subversives was a very understandable and reasonable concern. Protecting itself and it's integrity is a proper role for government and there were valid concerns.
What made McCarthyism bad not the hunt for subversives per se, it was tossing out the constitution in the hunt for subversives.
"Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them,"
Yes, it is different. On a phone conversation, you can only hear one side of the conversation. Our minds tend to try to fill in the blanks and attempt to make sense of the conversation, which does not occur when you can hear both sides of a conversation.
So yes, phone conversations ARE more annoying than "in person" conversations.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
