It's simple. 2 or more of us are stuck in a tree with a hungry predator down below. We can wait and die of thirst of I (or a few of us) could help the unpopular girl 'accidentally' fall out of the tree. Once the predator has carted off it's meal, we can make a run for it.
But but... I like digital watches!
" The fact that we have found 1 fossil that probably died from a fall out of a tree doesn't mean that these people necessarily lived in trees or did things we don't do now-a-days"
No... but their upper body structure suggests they were built for climbing and spent at least part of their time in trees. Much more so than modern humans who may "climb some 30 meters up in the canopy to gather honey from wild bees" or "build their homes in tall trees".
I think you are spot on in that we cant say Lucy's folks were tree-dwelling exclusively, though.
Review this comment by another user to the same comment you replied to:
Notice how he wasn't brow-beating the poster? He provided a very insightful that hopefully raised the overall "enlightenment" here.
You basically puffed up your chest and made this more about you being better than the original poster.
From UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY, (1946):
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land."
Who is 83? The woman in TFA is 65. The only place I saw "83"mentioned was the distance....
I believe the 83 was just the reference to the Supreme Court case (UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...) that recognized property rights could extend at least 83 feet into the air. Because a landowner near a new airport successfully sued the government to claim that the flight path over their home constituted a "taking" that required compensation.
So the use of airspace over someone's home up to 83 feet could certainly be considered a trespass under state law at least up to 83 feet under Supreme Court precedent.
Shoving. Shoving is the answer, obviously.
I have never heard of it happening
Just google. You know google, right? Immediate results include operations like Arthur Anderson
robocopy source destination
xj is the default for most modes, but more likely better safe than sorry.
Don't get your destination and source backwards with
Voting is no longer safe, we are obviously going to have to suspend elections until we are 100% sure the computers are trustworthy!
Really though, people should suspend the secret ballot if there are legitimate widespread issues with vote tampering. The secret ballot is less important than the ability to maintain the integrity of the election itself. Sure that opens some people up to voter intimidation, but you have to trust that enough people are going to vote in their best interests to overwhelm any voter intimidation.
If you are trying to boot strap a civil society using democratically elected institutions then you have a chicken and egg problem of having a representative trustworthy government to manage a free and fair election in an ethical way in the first place. The answer is to ditch the secret ballot.
Paper based forms with optical scanners seems to work out best these days. Then you can get quick results on election night from the optical scanner results and you just need to have real people manually count the ballots later in order to confirm the automated results.
Easier said than done, but it is very important that elections have verifiable results based on the physical ballots and not just a computer spitting out some result.
A Van Diagram shows the intersection of boxes and cars.
Cool. Now do the same thing 6 more times, without resurfacing.
If he can do it for two months straight around the clock without snapping, my money would be on him doing two years too if he had to/wanted to. Elizabeth Fritzl did 24 years trapped in a cell in the basement, eventually no matter how bad the situation is it eventually just is. Same goes for people with severe disabilities and such, if I ended up in a wheelchair I'd get very depressed right away. But if I live through that first phase I don't see myself saying I've lived a year in a wheelchair but a year and a day is too much. I'd either have found a reason to live - or not - long before that.
What matters is the intent, mens rea, the will to steal, and the intent to permanently deprave the rightful owner of his use of the item. This is critical. Without, you could become a thief without even wanting to steal anything, by mistake and accident, and I hope we can agree that this is not the intent of the law!
Unfortunately, we seem to have picked up a bunch of laws where mens rea isn't taken into account. Try looking up mala prohibita. It's far from an ideal situation, but it is the situation as it stands today.
"Pull the wool over your own eyes!" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs