You consider having exact laws a bad thing? I'd rather have the laws I have to live under as exact as possible, with no wiggle room in which a corrupt police officer or judge (not the entire law enforcement or judiciary, talking about smaller levels of corruption here) has room to manoeuvre to get you no matter what.
The problem with the notion that you should follow the spirit of the law, and not just the letter, means that you now have two very different sets of rules to follow - one which is laid out word for word and any ambiguity can be argued objectively according to that wording, and the other which is entirely fuzzy and subject to change on a whim depending on who it is that is being held to it.
Problem is, that post is in reality nothing more than the account of someone who has shown that he doesn't want to be identified simply denying some-ones attempt to identify him - there's no guarantee he isn't simply lying because he wants to remain unidentified.
This has been a long known fact,
Some of this was known back in the '60s and '70s. But the federal government decided to suppress it. In particular: Any drug with side-effects that were pleasant was considered a threat to the status quo of governance - a way for productive people to achieve happiness without driving industrial profit and/or part of a Communist conspiracy to rot the "Free World"'s moral fiber.
There was a period where researchers would only get new grants if the conclusions of their studies stated that the drugs - psychedelics, marijhuana, etc. - were useless for medical purposes and/or dangerous. (The papers in Science, for instance, were often pathetically hilarious. The reduced data said one thing, while the conclusion said the opposite.)
Meanwhile the government (notably with such things as the FBI's COINTELPRO program) smeared those (formerly highly respected scientists) who had been proponents of finding uses for them (especially those who had tried to use them to augment intelligence and experimented on themselves - often with bizarre results). The most prominent of these was Timothy Leary, though there were a number of others.
Somewher in there the drugs were added to various "schedules" and banned from medical use.
After a couple years of this, with any actual benefits buried in the noise, the government declared that it was "settled science" that there were no useful treatments using these drugs and stopped issuing new permits for their use in new research projects. (It's very much like research into global warming: You can't convince people on either side because the research is suspect due to the government becoming involved and pushing its horse in the race.)
Then the government declared acts related to banned-drug trafficing, possession, and use to be "serious" crimes and imposed passed mandatory minimum sentences - recreating the scenario of alcohol prohibition, funding organized crime, filling up the prisons, and lining corrupt police personell's pockets with graft money. Then it passed RICO and created the same financial incentive structure that fueled the Spanish Inquisition - driving ever-increasing anti-drug activity and blocking attempts to repeal drug bans.
And that's where it stood for decades. Negligible work on uses for the chemicals - either by organized research or private self-medication (with drugs of uncertain content and quality).
So while Moore's Law drove the computes from giant cabnets filling floors of office buildings to chips in everything under the sun, work on a nimber of categories of drugs stagnated.
The canabinoids of Marijuana, alone, have a number of apparent (but not adequately researhed) benefits:
- They appear to be a specific treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which, itself, seems to be a result of undermeidcation for pain - also driven by the "drug war").
- Canabinoids (including at least one which does not produce a substantial "high") also appear to be a successful treatment for a debilitating form of childhood epilepsy.
- Parkinson's disease eventually kills, not directly through loss of dopamine, but by the body's attempt to compensate for it by fouling up a system that uses the recently discovered endocanabinoids as neurotransmitters. (These are the chemicals that THC and its relatives mimic, much as opioids mimic endorphins.) This ends up with loss of memory and loss of appetite, and the victim starves herself to death. Canabinoids may help alleviate this and/or prolong life, (if only by reducing the tendency to self-starvation by inducing "the munchies").
- Canabinoids have been claimed to arrest the progress of several cancers, including a brain cancer.d
- Canabinoids have long been used for reducing the nausea of chemotherapy, easing self-starvation in cancer patients. (Similarly with side-effects of anti-AIDS drug coctails.)
I could go on.
But "more research is needed" to determine which (if any) of these effects are real, turn them into practical treatments, and deploy them. And it's not going to happen smoothly and rapidly with the government continuing to interfere.
However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.
"Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.
"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.
Hell, the issue would have happened if there were no gotos in use, and instead both statements were method calls - the unintended method call would still have happened.
Someone better tell Airbus that their 59ft panels on the A350XWB are somehow shorter than Wal-Marts 53ft panels...
I'd really like to be able to install something on the lines leaving my breaker panel that acts like a firewall and blocks any kind of network communication over powerline.
1. Get some electrical-noise suppression ferrite toroids and some ceramic capacitors at your local electronics store. (.005 microfarad at a minimum of 600V would be good for the caps. 1000V or higher on cap used for 240V circuits.)
2. In your fusebox connect a cap from each breaker's hot output to the nearest ground bus, keeping the wires as short as possible. (You want them downstream of the breaker so they blow the breaker, rather than start a fire, in the very unlikely chance that one fails shorted.) On 220v loads hook the cap between the two hot wires (red and black in the US).
The cap wires are too small to carry the current in case of a short, so get some tiny 1A pigtail fuses and wire them in series on the hot side (either side in the 240V both-are-hot case). Put plastic insulation rated at least 600V over (at least) the hot side wires and the fuse. (You can get such insulation, of adequate voltage and temperature ratings, by stripping the insulation from a spare piece of electrical wiring.)
3. In your fusebox disconnect the circuits, one by one, both hot and neutral. On each run the hot and neutral lines through a ferrite toroid core in opposite directions and reconnect the . For a 220V circuit run the two hot lines through the ferrite core, again in opposite directions, and ignore the Neutral. If you have multiple loads on a breaker, you can use separate toroids on each load or a single one on from two to all of them: Run the hot wires all one way through the toroid and the neutral (or red-hot on 240V) the other way.
This puts inductance in series with the signal and capacitance shunting it, forming a low pass filter. The low-frequency power will get through just fine and the high frequency networking signals will get stopped.
Putting cores on the main feeds also works, and takes fewer cores. You can also put one on each of the hot wires, separately, rather than using one with the wires crossed through it. You can get big ones that are split, intended to be clamped over a computer signal cable to prevent it from acting like an antenna, which you can clamp onto the wires without unhooking them.
Don't bother putting the two haves of the circuit through the core in the SAME direction, as you would with the signals in a cable or power cord if you clamped a core around the whole thing. This keeps the common-mode (both wires go positive or negative together) from propagating past the core, but the differential mode (one goes positive while the other goes negative), which is what power line networking uses, goes right through.
Note that putting this stuff in your fusebox may be against code, and void your fire insurance. The capacitor wiring may also be problematic for creating hazards if not done properly (insulated with "spaghetti tubing" on at least the hot side, hot side cut short, a little fuse (1A or so) in series, etc.).
"THE" billion dollar hacker club? Seems to me there are several of those.
Two instances just from the public record: First there's the Homebrew Computer Club, founded in '73, which includes a number of leading lights in the Silicon Valley part of the industry, including Jobs and Woz. (Apple alone has WhatsApp beat by a factor of neary 25, as of today's close.) Then there's the (invitation-only) Hackers Conference, Founded by in '84, whose membership may not have as high a percentage of people who made billions in high tech, but does have more than one just among those whose membership is publicly known.
I could go on for a while, and I'm SURE I don't know anywhere near all such organizations.
NYC [treats] electric bikes [as] illegal [... No] (lights, signals, VIN numbers, etc).
But this box DOES have lights, as the ilustration clearly shows. Looks like it has signals, too, though that's not clear. (There are rear-facing lights, too.)
As another has already pointed out, it's designed so you have to start up manually before the motor will cut in, to make it escape the definition of a motor vehicle.
Yep, 3D printing, were the per unit price is likely 10x more than other techniques
That goes well with the one-grand-plus pricetag for a device that should be selling for a couple hundred bux or less in mass production.
If this catches on I expect to see an injection-molded version closer to the price I mentioned. Either this guy will go to that as he ramps up or the Chinese/Koreans/whatever will have a knockoff out in a few months after it catches on.
Whatsamatter, fattie, can't pedal for more than 5 minutes without having a coronary?
I expected more math literacy on Slashdot. Silly me.
12 to 20 miles at a top speed of 16 MPH is an hour (+-25%).
That's up and down the steep hills of San Francisco, of course, in all sorts of weather. Do you want to try it - twice a day, to and from work in rush hour traffic? (Didn't think so.)
The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.
If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...
And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.
That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.
Except your assertions are where the oversimplification occurs, as there is ample prior examples of an entity splitting into multiple smaller entities and separating debt obligations in the process. There is absolutely no scope for Scotland simply walking away from UK debt obligations without their own share - if they did that, they lose significant amounts in assets that would otherwise be transferred north of the border.
One example would be the £28Billion that Scottish banks are required to deposit in holding at the Bank of England (a requirement for the Scottish banks to be able to print and distribute their own currency) - walk away from the debt obligations and that wont be transferred back.
Osborne had to guarantee the debt, as any doubt surrounding it would have repercussions on the UKs credit rating internationally and the UK government cannot allow that to happen.
I'd also love for you to show me this international law which your comment so heavily relies on, because this is an internal issue between the UK and Scotland - external entities can label Scotland whatever they want, but ultimately its the agreement that the UK and Scotland comes to which dictates Scotlands ongoing debt obligations.
Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.
You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.