No, they don't. Other examples of reckless endangerment and negligence would include buzzing the pedestrians on your motorcycle or in your car, or walking by while swinging a baseball bat carelessly. Or throwing rocks into the crowd. The FAA has nothing to do with any of those equivalently negligent actions.
Theromes do exist but always with a defined set of starting axioms and therefore a theorome when applied to the physical world becomes a theory.
Theorems and theories are two different things. You're quite right, that proving a theorem requires a well-defined set of axioms; the natural world, unfortunately, doesn't provide us with such axioms*, which is why we have to use theories to describe it.
*Well, maybe. "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" argues that maybe there is some axiomatic Truth at the basis of reality. But if so, we have no idea what it is yet, and anyone who tells you they know is lying.
This isn't a very good analogy, unless you're going to constrain it to Free/open-source software.
In proprietary software, there's new versions every now and then, which both remove useful features and add new feature of questionable value, not because people found flaws or bugs, or because people really needed some new features, but rather because the company behind the software wanted to make more money by selling customers something they already had, and the people writing the software needed to justify their jobs. So we get crap like Windows 8/Metro. We get newer software which has new bugs which weren't present in the older versions, which run slower, which do less, which are uglier and have worse user interfaces.
It's not confined to proprietary software either. Just look at Gnome3. People were perfectly happy with Gnome2, but they had to toss that out and create something totally new and different (and incompatible) just because they wanted to, maybe because they had nothing better to do with their time, maybe because they wanted to justify their existence.
Your statements work for lower-level open-source projects like the Linux kernel, the Linux init systems (some people didn't think sysvinit had the features they needed, so they created upstart; some other people thought that was buggy and not architected right, so they created systemd, etc.). But for user-facing things, there's frequently completely different (and not so utilitarian) dynamics at work.
Ah, I see you've recently discovered a Philosophy 101 list of logical fallacies. Come back when you learn enough to understand what the bullet points actually mean.
you'll frequently hear claims that the science is settled
No, you don't. Science is, by definition, always ready to accept a better theory. Nothing is settled. It's just that there are, at this moment, no better theories to explain observations.
Very true. You do, however, frequently hear claims along the lines of "Warmists say it's all 'settled science!' Stupid warmists, nothing is ever settled in science!" This article does an excellent job of addressing that particular straw man.
I dunno, I always get a big belly laugh whenever I log into something and see that horrible 1980s B&W X11 desktop, complete with ugly 'X' cursor.
Try flying on a Virgin America plane with the LCD screen inflight entertainment systems in the seat-backs. They'll often mass-reboot the things before or after a flight, briefly revealing that retro-fantastic, monochrome stippled background with 'X' cursor...
Is it petty of me to wish that people who accuse their political opponents of being Nazis, Communists, etc., could live for a little while in the world of their paranoid fantasies? If they survived the experience, a month in the actual USSR under Stalin, for example, might give them much more perspective.
Claiming that a topic is "settled" is, typically, a tactic to shut a viewpoint down as no longer being a live option the community will consider in its collective deliberations.
And claiming that the other side is claiming "the topic is settled" is almost always a strawman.
One could argue that it's a thin veil over the military victor's (the North's) version of history.
Nice job of concealing your ideological looniness until the end of the post.
The easiest way to reduce demand is to just tax fuel - don't add $1 in taxes, add $5 in taxes phased in over 10 years.
I'm not looking to stop driving my car?!?!?
I'm wanting gas to be back to about $2/gal...I don't drive SUV's either, I love sports cars.
But I'm not interested in anything (taxes like you mention) to make my gas more $$$. Most people are not either...
You just proposed adding 1 dollar in fuel taxes over the next 4 years, how will that not make the price of fuel rise? Large shifts in consumer behavior don't happen overnight, and a dollar is probably not much of an increase to entice people to give up their large cars are move to more fuel efficient cars or EV's.
I was posting to say originally that we could increase the regulations in the US, to keep our fuels harvested here from going onto the open market, and keep more for us and keep our prices low.
You didn't say anything about regulations to keep "our" oil in this country - if demand decreases in this country, why do you think the fuel would stay in this country? Crude is valuable enough that it's worth literally shipping it to the other side of the planet to get a better price, if fuel prices decrease in the USA, there's plenty of global demand.
And after you "move our new vehicles over to none-oil, " why do you think that fuel will remain cheap? It will become a specialty fuel used only by car enthusiasts such as yourself. USA refining capacity will decline and you'll lose the economies of scale that make fuel as cheap as it is now (cheaper than bottled water).
I'm not against research for electric or other types of vehicles, but they aren't gonna be viable any time soon, so I want to enjoy my combustion engine for the rest of my lifetime at previously low, affordable levels.
EV's are already viable for most people for their daily needs.
"Authenticated" copies of legal documents (and a will and death certificate are legal documents) are considered to have the same... how we say in english? Legal Power?
Send them by snail mail (together with any legal document copy that states you have right over the matter), with proof of delivery (so you can prove they received it).and they *SHOULD* grant you the access you requested - otherwise, they're stalling you and are subject to legal penalties.
Of course, this is applicable to "normal", "real life" things. By some reason, people things that anything "virtual" is beyond the present legislation - even when present legislation money and contracts are involved. Go figure it out.
Right, and at the moment the will isn't authenticated (that's the 'expensive' step involving the court that the family is complaining about). It's not always strictly necessary to do it, but in certain cases like this (or a locked safe, or a family that is challenging the will etc) it is required. That is all Apple is asking for here along with certification that the iPad involved did belong to the dead person.
Now assume that I inherit my father's estate and I add a stolen safe into the
possessions, also made by SafeCo. What happens if they unlock that for me
without a court order?
If it's a stolen safe, it's not yours. (I assume it's not your late father's since if you inherit it it would be yours). So it's registered with someone other than you or your late father's. So SafeCo don't need a court order to know not to unlock it.
Now assume that you inherit your father's estate and one of those possessions is an ipad, made by Apple. Now it's up to Apple to unlock your ipad, since they have your father's details on file, so you have a right to it.
No need for a court order either way, just common sense.
This is exactly what Apple are asking for is this case - proof of ownership, and the standard legal verification of the will. Like I said in other threads, this is a pretty standard part of UK law involving wills and the transfer of property. It's just making waves because it's Apple and the first "edge case" to make news since they made their Apple ID reset procedure much more secure.
Taxing things to change behavior does not work, because one thing government likes as much as power is MONEY. Once they have succeeded in reducing demand through taxes, the revenue will go down and they'll cry that some other tax (probably the income tax) will have to go up to make up the "shortfall".
But if the behavior is changed so much that other taxes are needed to make up the shortfall, then it sounds like it worked.
If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works (or rather, doesn't work) with respect to the internet.
In my mid-40s, and having been active online since my teens, I understand that using a pseudonym is no guarantee of privacy.
Well, there was a place called "Palestine" and what do you think you would call someone from this place?
The Bible refers to it at least four times, as "Palestine" or "Palestina" depending upon your translation of choice.
I would think a believer would be more well-versed on the Good Book.
1. I don;t know anything about the case you speak of
2. Providing a death certificate and a will is more than proof needed in this case. There was no one to be protected.
2) No it isn't. A court needs to validate the will, which is what is being asked for here. A will can be acted on with a simple executor in most cases, but in areas where third parties get involved (unlocking safes, transferring assets between banks, etc) the will is required to be officially ruled on by the court to ensure that a) it is the only will that will be legally in effect (in case the woman wrote more than one), and that b) she is the actual owner of the iPad and it's not a stolen one that they're trying to pass off as hers.