The Japanese would like you to believe that. When in fact, Japan is just a breakaway province of the Korean Empire that has been trying to take over the whole Empire.
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but archeological evidence indicates that the main Japanese ethnic group is descended from Koreans who invaded Japan and displaced the ancestors of the Ainu (over simplification).
There are two reasons that Gorbachev's reforms failed. The first is because he fully intended to remain as head of government for most of the rest of his life (his intention was to reform the economic structure without making significant changes. other than personel, to the government). The second was that he failed to introduce rule of law (he, and certain other government officials, would remain above the law).
I happen to think that there is a market for cheap, "underpowered" netbooks. I may be mistaken but I believe that people would be willing to buy netbooks that are underpowered by today's standards if they were cheap. There are two problems. The first is that the retailers and manufacturers don't want to make just 5% (or whatever the margin is on standard laptops) of $150-$250, they want to make 5% of $400-$700. The second is that as soon as a manufacturer starts to sell a significant number of "underpowered" netbooks at the price point and margin, some other manufacturer undercuts their margin and sells a more powerful netbook for just a few dollars more. Instead of doing what I think would chase those manufacturers who don't want to sell at the netbook price range out of the market (which is to slice margins on the "underpowered" netbook and lower prices), most manufacturers introduce a performance competitive product at the slightly higher price point (a price point which keeps rising until it is the same as the cheap end of ordinary laptops).
If I was in that market, I would sell a small (7-9 inch) netbook at around $200. It would be the most powerful components I could sell at that price point with a razor thin margin. I would not upgrade the components on it (unless more powerful components became cheaper than the ones I originally used) until I could sell it at the margin I really wanted at $100. At that point I would introduce a new, more powerful model at the $200 price point with the same original razor thin margin.
The thing is the market for netbooks is cheap (less than $250). The market for tablets is a similar price point to cheap laptops ($350-$700). The problem is that the manufacturers want to sell netbooks in the cheap laptop price range. At that price point there just isn't much of a market.
Big corporations don't deal with EULAs, they get licenses that their legal department negotiated with the vendor. Those licenses are written in language that has pretty much had its meaning clearly defined by case law. The GPL (especially GPLv3) has clauses that have yet to be clarified by the courts, so corporate lawyers are not yet sure what they mean. This is further complicated by the fact that the corporate lawyers don't quite know what the motivations of the copyright owners of a particular piece of software are for the clauses in the license (largely because that motivation varies from developer to developer), while they can talk to the corporate lawyers to come to an understanding of what the motivation is behind various license clauses in proprietary software.
I believe that GPLv3 was a mistake. It pushes too far too soon and has caused companies that were just starting to become comfortable with GPL code to worry about where the promoters of the GPL were going with the license.
I think watchdogs should have the authority to bite,...
So, in other words, you think that unelected bureaucrats should have the authority to take whatever action they think is necessary to fulfill whatever task they think that they have been given (by whoever it is that you think gives it to them). And people wonder why democracy does not work better in this country.
OK, a couple of points about your post. The NAD is not a government agency. They are a body set up by the advertising industry. In this particular case, I suspect that courts would accept this rule as representing truth in advertising. Making an ad about how your cosmetic can improve the appearance of a particular feature and then using computer enhancement to make that feature look better is already arguably false advertising and now the agency set up by the advertising industry to self-regulate has said that it is false advertising.
Second, the FCC is not a watchdog. It is an Administrative Agency of the Federal Government that was created by Congress to fulfill certain legislatively prescribed functions. The court ruled that the network neutrality rule was not within any of those functions. The court asked the FCC to cite the legislative basis for the rule and the FCC was unable to provide a reference to any part of any legislation that gave them the authority to do so. The FCC is not some agency that magically happens to have the authority to regulate any aspect of communication that they so choose. The FCC is an agency that has been given authority to regulate certain, specific aspects of communication by Congress. If Congress has not passed a law giving the FCC the authority to enact a particular regulation, they do not have the authority to enact it. Even if Congress does pass such a law, Congress must have the Constitutional authority to enact such a regulation before they can give it to the FCC.
This was the passing of a brilliant man, but why is it an article on slashdot? I am unaware of anything Christopher Hitchens wrote that was directly related to any of the subjects that slashdot usually covers.
The thing is, if the police were to enforce that law and write a significant number of tickets for it, it would cause people to be less inattentive, even if people challenged every such ticket and won.
The problem is that our social basis for accepting that drunk driving is dangerous is based on "drunk driving" being defined as.10 BAC. Here is the progression. Americans in general start using automobiles with significant frequency. After several years, it is noticed that driving under the influence is a significant danger. Laws are passed outlawing driving while intoxicated with no specific statement of what constitutes "intoxicated". In the late 30s, two groups do a study of alcohol related accidents and BAC is set to 0.10. In the mid-1970s, a movement arises to get the government and society to take drunk driving seriously. An organization is founded to promote this agenda (MADD). It accomplishes its objective by getting most Americans to accept the idea that driving under the influence is evil and irresponsible. The organization now needs a new objective to justify its continued fund raising. It targets reducing the legal limit to a BAC of.02. The leaders of the organization recognize that this would not be acceptable to most people, so they set an interim target of.08 BAC. Building on the good will they had acquired from their initial efforts, they get most people to accept this change, but no one has done a cost benefit analysis on this change.
To this day, there is little evidence that lowering the BAC limit has significantly changed the problem of drunk driving accidents that injure or kill, since most people involved in a drunk driving accident where serious injury or death occurs is well over even the old limit of.10 BAC.
Actually, that is a good suggestion. I would modify it slightly. If you get a ticket or are in an accident you need to retake the driver test. Probably whether or not you need to retest should depend on the nature of the ticket.
You are correct that sometimes you cannot see what is happening in front of the vehicle in front of you. However, whenever you can see what is happening in front of the vehicle in front of you, you should be paying attention to it. In the case of this accident, the bus driver of the first bus most certainly could see the truck in front of the 19 year old they are blaming for this accident and should have reacted to it braking.
Your answer does not actually answer his question, because he was really asking, "How does me hitting the car in front of me cause the car behind me to hit me?" If the car behind me was unable to stop in time when I hit the car in front of me, how was it going to stop in time if I stopped inches short of hitting the car in front of me? In the latter case, the car behind me has even less distance to stop.
I don't think it is necessary to make it more difficult to get your license. However, it might be a good idea to require people to retest every 5 years. The primary purpose of the retest is not so much to take driving privileges away from people as it is to refresh people's knowledge of safe driving techniques.
Both the sumary and the article that it links to say that the FCC passed a law. Well, I think this illustrates a problem we have in this country. The FCC can NOT pass a law, only Congress can pass a law. The fact that so many people think that an unelected bureaucracy can pass a law says a lot about why people think that democracy in this country is not working. Of course, the fact that a regulation created by an unelected bureaucracy can so easily be mistaken for a law says a lot about why democracy in this country IS broken.
Have you listened to what some of the "environmentalists" are proposing? Have you noticed how every time some energy source starts to show promise of allowing economic prosperity to continue, one or another of the "environmentalism" groups starts to object to it on the basis of some new environmental concern?
The key difference is that they would not be able to convict the person solely on the basis of the fact that a car they owned, that they claim was stolen, was used by the murderer. It is unlikely they would even take the person to court if that is all they had.
No, the argument is, a murderer used many cars during his escape, just because one of those cars belonged to this guy, does not mean that this guy is the murderer, or an accomplice to the murderer.
The difference is between "You're not allowed to do this and if you try the government will use force to stop you," and "You're allowed to do this, but if it is defamatory and untrue, you will be punished."
Yes, but that was before it started to promise to reduce the odds that the amount of recoverable oil would drop to the level that we would have to return to the stone age without government intervention. This new development (that fracking will make a large enough amount of fossil fules available to keep our civilization running into the next century) means that if the enviro-whackos are going to get their wish to return us to the stone age, the government will need to intervene.
The thing you don't understand, if I don't know someone well enough to know that they have an unusually high tolerance (and how to tell if they are drunk), I would not allow them to drive me home. It has been at least 20 years since someone I would trust to drive me when I thought I was too drunk to drive has been able to fool me into thinking they were sober when they were shitfaced (and I know several people with very high alcohol tolerances).
It isn't. Suing you for libel does not infringe on your freedom of speech. It just requires you to pay if you say something libelous. Libel laws do not prevent you from "speaking", they just punish you if what you "say" is untrue and derogatory. That is why I told you to feel free to put up those libelous posters. It is your Constitutional right to do so. Just understand that defaming my character is an actionable behavior that I will take action in court to prevent. Of course, if you prefer, we could go back to the remedy that the Framers preferred and have a duel.
Slashdot Mirror
The Japanese would like you to believe that. When in fact, Japan is just a breakaway province of the Korean Empire that has been trying to take over the whole Empire.
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but archeological evidence indicates that the main Japanese ethnic group is descended from Koreans who invaded Japan and displaced the ancestors of the Ainu (over simplification).
There are two reasons that Gorbachev's reforms failed. The first is because he fully intended to remain as head of government for most of the rest of his life (his intention was to reform the economic structure without making significant changes. other than personel, to the government). The second was that he failed to introduce rule of law (he, and certain other government officials, would remain above the law).
I happen to think that there is a market for cheap, "underpowered" netbooks. I may be mistaken but I believe that people would be willing to buy netbooks that are underpowered by today's standards if they were cheap. There are two problems. The first is that the retailers and manufacturers don't want to make just 5% (or whatever the margin is on standard laptops) of $150-$250, they want to make 5% of $400-$700. The second is that as soon as a manufacturer starts to sell a significant number of "underpowered" netbooks at the price point and margin, some other manufacturer undercuts their margin and sells a more powerful netbook for just a few dollars more. Instead of doing what I think would chase those manufacturers who don't want to sell at the netbook price range out of the market (which is to slice margins on the "underpowered" netbook and lower prices), most manufacturers introduce a performance competitive product at the slightly higher price point (a price point which keeps rising until it is the same as the cheap end of ordinary laptops).
If I was in that market, I would sell a small (7-9 inch) netbook at around $200. It would be the most powerful components I could sell at that price point with a razor thin margin. I would not upgrade the components on it (unless more powerful components became cheaper than the ones I originally used) until I could sell it at the margin I really wanted at $100. At that point I would introduce a new, more powerful model at the $200 price point with the same original razor thin margin.
The thing is the market for netbooks is cheap (less than $250). The market for tablets is a similar price point to cheap laptops ($350-$700). The problem is that the manufacturers want to sell netbooks in the cheap laptop price range. At that price point there just isn't much of a market.
Big corporations don't deal with EULAs, they get licenses that their legal department negotiated with the vendor. Those licenses are written in language that has pretty much had its meaning clearly defined by case law. The GPL (especially GPLv3) has clauses that have yet to be clarified by the courts, so corporate lawyers are not yet sure what they mean. This is further complicated by the fact that the corporate lawyers don't quite know what the motivations of the copyright owners of a particular piece of software are for the clauses in the license (largely because that motivation varies from developer to developer), while they can talk to the corporate lawyers to come to an understanding of what the motivation is behind various license clauses in proprietary software.
I believe that GPLv3 was a mistake. It pushes too far too soon and has caused companies that were just starting to become comfortable with GPL code to worry about where the promoters of the GPL were going with the license.
I think watchdogs should have the authority to bite,...
So, in other words, you think that unelected bureaucrats should have the authority to take whatever action they think is necessary to fulfill whatever task they think that they have been given (by whoever it is that you think gives it to them). And people wonder why democracy does not work better in this country.
OK, a couple of points about your post. The NAD is not a government agency. They are a body set up by the advertising industry. In this particular case, I suspect that courts would accept this rule as representing truth in advertising. Making an ad about how your cosmetic can improve the appearance of a particular feature and then using computer enhancement to make that feature look better is already arguably false advertising and now the agency set up by the advertising industry to self-regulate has said that it is false advertising.
Second, the FCC is not a watchdog. It is an Administrative Agency of the Federal Government that was created by Congress to fulfill certain legislatively prescribed functions. The court ruled that the network neutrality rule was not within any of those functions. The court asked the FCC to cite the legislative basis for the rule and the FCC was unable to provide a reference to any part of any legislation that gave them the authority to do so. The FCC is not some agency that magically happens to have the authority to regulate any aspect of communication that they so choose. The FCC is an agency that has been given authority to regulate certain, specific aspects of communication by Congress. If Congress has not passed a law giving the FCC the authority to enact a particular regulation, they do not have the authority to enact it. Even if Congress does pass such a law, Congress must have the Constitutional authority to enact such a regulation before they can give it to the FCC.
This was the passing of a brilliant man, but why is it an article on slashdot? I am unaware of anything Christopher Hitchens wrote that was directly related to any of the subjects that slashdot usually covers.
The problem with those are that they are less discriminating, you may get someone other than the asshole you are targeting.
The thing is, if the police were to enforce that law and write a significant number of tickets for it, it would cause people to be less inattentive, even if people challenged every such ticket and won.
The problem is that our social basis for accepting that drunk driving is dangerous is based on "drunk driving" being defined as .10 BAC. Here is the progression. Americans in general start using automobiles with significant frequency. After several years, it is noticed that driving under the influence is a significant danger. Laws are passed outlawing driving while intoxicated with no specific statement of what constitutes "intoxicated". In the late 30s, two groups do a study of alcohol related accidents and BAC is set to 0.10. In the mid-1970s, a movement arises to get the government and society to take drunk driving seriously. An organization is founded to promote this agenda (MADD). It accomplishes its objective by getting most Americans to accept the idea that driving under the influence is evil and irresponsible. The organization now needs a new objective to justify its continued fund raising. It targets reducing the legal limit to a BAC of .02. The leaders of the organization recognize that this would not be acceptable to most people, so they set an interim target of .08 BAC. Building on the good will they had acquired from their initial efforts, they get most people to accept this change, but no one has done a cost benefit analysis on this change. .10 BAC.
To this day, there is little evidence that lowering the BAC limit has significantly changed the problem of drunk driving accidents that injure or kill, since most people involved in a drunk driving accident where serious injury or death occurs is well over even the old limit of
Actually, that is a good suggestion. I would modify it slightly. If you get a ticket or are in an accident you need to retake the driver test. Probably whether or not you need to retest should depend on the nature of the ticket.
You are correct that sometimes you cannot see what is happening in front of the vehicle in front of you. However, whenever you can see what is happening in front of the vehicle in front of you, you should be paying attention to it. In the case of this accident, the bus driver of the first bus most certainly could see the truck in front of the 19 year old they are blaming for this accident and should have reacted to it braking.
Your answer does not actually answer his question, because he was really asking, "How does me hitting the car in front of me cause the car behind me to hit me?" If the car behind me was unable to stop in time when I hit the car in front of me, how was it going to stop in time if I stopped inches short of hitting the car in front of me? In the latter case, the car behind me has even less distance to stop.
I don't think it is necessary to make it more difficult to get your license. However, it might be a good idea to require people to retest every 5 years. The primary purpose of the retest is not so much to take driving privileges away from people as it is to refresh people's knowledge of safe driving techniques.
All of the studies show that there is no significant difference between driving using a hand-held cellphone and driving using a hands-free cellphone.
Both the sumary and the article that it links to say that the FCC passed a law. Well, I think this illustrates a problem we have in this country. The FCC can NOT pass a law, only Congress can pass a law. The fact that so many people think that an unelected bureaucracy can pass a law says a lot about why people think that democracy in this country is not working. Of course, the fact that a regulation created by an unelected bureaucracy can so easily be mistaken for a law says a lot about why democracy in this country IS broken.
Have you listened to what some of the "environmentalists" are proposing? Have you noticed how every time some energy source starts to show promise of allowing economic prosperity to continue, one or another of the "environmentalism" groups starts to object to it on the basis of some new environmental concern?
Sorry, I never listen to Rand Paul or his father.
The key difference is that they would not be able to convict the person solely on the basis of the fact that a car they owned, that they claim was stolen, was used by the murderer. It is unlikely they would even take the person to court if that is all they had.
No, the argument is, a murderer used many cars during his escape, just because one of those cars belonged to this guy, does not mean that this guy is the murderer, or an accomplice to the murderer.
The difference is between "You're not allowed to do this and if you try the government will use force to stop you," and "You're allowed to do this, but if it is defamatory and untrue, you will be punished."
Yes, but that was before it started to promise to reduce the odds that the amount of recoverable oil would drop to the level that we would have to return to the stone age without government intervention. This new development (that fracking will make a large enough amount of fossil fules available to keep our civilization running into the next century) means that if the enviro-whackos are going to get their wish to return us to the stone age, the government will need to intervene.
The thing you don't understand, if I don't know someone well enough to know that they have an unusually high tolerance (and how to tell if they are drunk), I would not allow them to drive me home. It has been at least 20 years since someone I would trust to drive me when I thought I was too drunk to drive has been able to fool me into thinking they were sober when they were shitfaced (and I know several people with very high alcohol tolerances).
It isn't. Suing you for libel does not infringe on your freedom of speech. It just requires you to pay if you say something libelous. Libel laws do not prevent you from "speaking", they just punish you if what you "say" is untrue and derogatory. That is why I told you to feel free to put up those libelous posters. It is your Constitutional right to do so. Just understand that defaming my character is an actionable behavior that I will take action in court to prevent. Of course, if you prefer, we could go back to the remedy that the Framers preferred and have a duel.