Re: Den Of Thieves
And why are they always protected from criminal prosecution for wage theft?
2715 posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
All very good points. An ABC article about the Australian side of the operation included the following statement from the AFP commissioner:
...legal authorities prevented the app from being used covertly for a longer time frame.
There's probably also an element of risk aversion in the decision. If they know a murder is going to occur but don't prevent it, for example, I'll bet serious questions are going to be asked in parliament, especially if it was an innocent bystander.
At some point, the jig has to be up. The criminals will eventually begin to suspect they're being surveilled, as their operations are taken apart and their associates arrested. My expectation is that either that point wasn't far off, and/or LEO decided it had enough information and couldn't let them remain free any longer. A system like this would also have given them an intimate understanding of the criminal networks and which members were the important ones.
No, the controller will detect a high impedance cable and send the appropriate number of elections down it. No more (and usually far fewer) than it can handle.
Have you ever noticed that if you plug your phone and the cable it came with into its 2A charger, it will deliver 2A, but if you throw it on a cheap ebay cable, it will deliver 0.5A? The charge controllers are generally designed to deal with low quality cables with minimal drama.
Brakes, suspension, steering, tyres, heating, cooling, AC, bodywork, trim, interior, safety features, electronics
driveshafts, differentials, axles, ball joints, control arms, linkages, possibly a gearbox
So how many of these parts are permanently (and ultimately terminally) damaged if you fail to replace consumables on a regular basis?
The fact remains ICE cars require servicing every 5,000-15,000 km because of the engine and supporting systems. Most other parts go for far longer than that, some without ever being touched for the life of the vehicle.
...albeit too late to be of any help, and it still wouldn't have saved SN11.
Why are they pushing the envelope (quite literally) in all of the landing manoeuvre tests so far? What would you lose by simulating a landing burn with a target above ground level rather than at it and hoping everything just works? You would still identify the same problems, but have a chance to recover.
No doubt bigger minds than mine have considered this question in detail, but it would be interesting to know why.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021