Why do you folks think that joyriding and grand theft auto are different statutes? Mens rea in theft is very important and it has to have an intent to deprive. A jury wouldn’t believe your example, but this dude actually DID bring them to the sheriff. You could argue civil tresspass to chattels or some local level minor property charge for unauthorized use if they didn’t think they were depriving someone of their property. But it’s not theft.
Jesus Christ.
There’s no intent to permanently deprive if you literally take something to the authorities for disposition which is a key plank of theft. Not criminal mischief if they’re not damaged either.
Like you can force the market with good industrial policy of subsidies and oversight pretty effectively. See East Asia in general. Problem comes when those you gave power with those actions start directing your government to do stupid things for their benefit and they capture the very oversight that made it work in the first place.
Yeah. Now sometimes they don’t want one because it’s embarrassing to get an indictment and then later get a judge to grant a motion to dismiss with failure to state offense (actions do not match the crime charged) or a motion for judgment of acquittal(the facts in no way present this being the crime even in the best possible light) and then yell at you. That’s part of why the Trump admin has regularly failed to get indictments(the other part is they’d have to directly lie about what happened in some of these cases to even convince a grand jury what happened meets the charge, which might break the seal on the Grand jury and actually get your ass sanctioned by the judge). They want their boss to think they’re doing something but they really don’t want to be shown to be incompetent in open court. But overall it’s much much easier to survive a grand jury than a judge’s probable cause hearing(because the judge will actually ask about exculpatory evidence that should be there), so if you’re going that route it should be a slam dunk.
I hope they were immediately released if you can’t get an indictment. The reason they couldn’t get an indictment is because the prosecutor didn’t really want one. Grand juries only really hear what the prosecutor wants to tell them. That’s why it’s said you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich. If the prosecutor just said “he shot her after an argument” with no exculpatory evidence he would’ve gotten an indictment and that would’ve been okay and cool with the US supreme Court.
Quake and quakeworld predates it by a year and frankly were the shit. Quakeworld team Fortress was 96 even and that’s when things really got popping. Windows 95 was having some good shit shooters. Half life just built on what quake already made awesome. Goldeneye came out in 97 and it looks like a poor stepchild compared to networked over IP quakeworld with full 3d and incredible verticality.
Logistics infrastructure can take a huge hit when trade does, but only if it’s overleveraged. And Amazon ain’t that. Those vampires know what they’re doing.
Depends on what you mean by economy and financial infrastructure but in the West you’re mostly right. Since globally we’re a market economy dependent on trade, you’d still need financial infrastructure no matter what, even if you’re talking about building loans for starting co-ops or whatever. That doesn’t mean you have to allow capital accumulation to run wild. But the West is built around rent seeking and largely increasing asset pricing. Hell if property values go down and people aren’t able to extract rents from the productive economy most Western nations view that as an economic crisis. They’ll quickly sacrifice employment to prevent that. That’s why it’s so attractive to park capital in Western real estate and other nonproductive “capital”. At least until the parasite grows so large that, whoops the economy can’t run anymore. As it stands there’s a homeostatic mechanism that allows this rent seeking to exist while also essentially forcing some of the productive capital to be funded to see enough returns to also grow to a degree. They call this hedging. But even in those cases they’re largely investing in things that create financial moats like AI is proposed to be though extremely expensive infrastructure or through consolidaton and regulatorh capture like what’s happening in US healthcare vs investing in capital that will compete in a commodity market.
It’s almost like the rich themselves aren’t the drivers of the economy but instead it’s the financial infrastructure and the actual producers and they’re dependent on that. Funny idea.
“Vandalizing art” because this bullshit felony charge they’re trying to hit him with is nonsensical so they come up with another nonsensical charge. Dude just removed a piece of 3D printed trash that the city already acknowledged was placed unauthorized. He should send them an invoice for the removal.
To think that two feminist icons would be named Margaret Hamilton
What do you mean? I favor synthetic aviation fuel derived from hydrolysis which is very lossy on energy and would largely kill most current air routes in favor of trains. I think a 40x price increase on fuel is likely, but the actual implementation is proven since it’s essentially plug and play with existing infrastructure. I think the best way to make up for the subsequent loss of profitable air routes is electrified rail. This tech isn’t for getting off oil though, it’s for reducing use at best and if it actually does improve efficiency it would be used along with synthetic fuel.
I haven’t really seen proposals for planes that are full electric beyond just toys for rich people to do short hops but you might be right that battery planes might make sense with future battery tech. I just don’t see anything justifying it right now.
On the subject of energy efficiency though, you’re absolutely right. Synthetic aviation fuel is an order of magnitude more expensive than batteries.
I said I understood why it could potentially be useful in my original post for take off and landing. I’m curious why we keep retreading this after I’ve repeated it in every post I’ve made so far. I’m doubtful the extra weight is worth that one use case compared to just using extra fuel. I think we need to seriously invest in synthetic aviation fuel and price things fairly. Then how this sort of efficiency shakes out will likely be important with that new cost structure incorporated.
You want to know why I don’t believe we’ll get batteries with enough energy density for sustained long haul flight? I was responding to their last sentence. Ya know, acknowledging that batteries more dense than hydrocarbons isn’t really on the radar so for that aspect of things synthetic aviation fuel is pretty much what you gotta accept to go for zero carbon. I had already agreed with them that it’s potentially more efficient in takeoff in my initial post. They just expanded on why. I frankly am perplexed at what you think I’m dismissing since we largely agree.
I don’t think you’ll ever get there for flight personally. Just need to accept synthetic aviation fuel as the only real option for energy density (both volume and weight) and accept certain modalities being absolutely priced out of air transport.
I guess my main issue is you’re now flying around with those takeoff batteries and extra engine components. Is that really ever going to be worth it for anything but those short hop flights this is designed for? And if not why are we even investing in this because those short hop flights frankly need to be eliminated for trains anyway.
Yeah but like, shattering cereals would be appreciative of the habitat. That sorta argument justifies keeping a mutant around for laughs. Or pugs.