Well, if you thought that someone with.28 BAC was more sober than you when you were at.085, you are absolutely correct. I would go so far as to say that I would prefer if you never drive when you have any alcohol in your system, because it clearly significantly distorts your judgement (either that or your judgement is rather poor to begin with). Anyone I would let drive me home because I am too drunk to drive is someone I know well enough to know if they are legal to drive (or at least close).
To clarify,.28 BAC is "shitfaced drunk",.08 BAC is buzzed. I do not drive buzzed, but think the legal limit should still be.10 BAC. I am a firm believer that if you do not feel like you are competent to drive (whether from alcohol, lack of sleep or some other effect), you should choose to not drive. This does not mean that just because someone feels like they are safe to drive that they should/are as alcohol (and many other substances) distort one's judgement so as to make it harder to make that determination. That is why when I will be driving after drinking I keep careful track of how much alcohol I consume so that I know if I am below the legal limit (just because I feel fine to drive, I know full well does not meant that I am fine to drive). I, also, don't drive if I feel buzzed even if my calculations say I am legal (I have a decent tolerance, but certain drinks, in certain circumstances, give me a stronger buzz than the amount of alcohol would suggest likely).
No, juries are do not determine law. What you are getting at is jury nullification, which is the idea that the jury can find that the law should not apply in this case (or perhaps any case, but they don't get to actually determine that relative to other cases).
I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing.
Actually, I think the judge should have held him in contempt of court. I would have even had no problem with the judge ruling that the man should delete the blog on the basis of the fact that he used it in a way that was clearly in violation of the intent of the restraining order by promoting it to the woman's contacts using aliases. Although I think the ideal way to deal with it would have been to give him a short jail sentence for contempt of court with the option to avoid that by deleting the blog (and not reconstructing it later). If he chose to serve the contempt of court sentence, he could keep the blog up, but the judge could have ordered him to never promtoe it using an alias and to never promote it (or anything similar) to any of the woman's contacts.
At this point, he could face prosecution for libel. You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from harrassment. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.
I believe that if the judgement had said that the order was because the blog and the man's actions subsequent to creating it were a clear violation of the spirit of the restraining order and that on the basis of that held the man in contempt of court. Then gave the man the option of serving jail time for contempt of court or delete the blog (with the understanding that if he restored the blog the jail time would ensue) Followed by an order not to promote the blog (or anything like it) to the woman's contacts.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders.
This is not true, there is a small but significant number of criminals who are in prison on life sentences who commit additional violent crimes while in prison. The number of criminals on death row who do so is much smaller (largely because they are generally kept separate from the general population).
When I worked near where the trains ran, I used public transportation and I loved it. But where I live now and where I work are not practical to run public transportation and never will be.
The problem is that if you are going to ban talking on the cellphone based on the studies, you need to ban all talking on the cellphone because the studies show that hands-free is not significantly less distracting than hand held.
When you're on the phone you're less aware of your surroundings than if you were shitfaced drunk (again, look at the studies).
All of the studies I have seen compare talking on the cell phone to having a blood alcohol level of.08. A BAC of.08 is NOT "shitfaced drunk." I am not convinced that there was any good reason to drop the legal limit from 0.10. The excuse for lowering it was the continued occurrence of repeat offenders for DUI, yet most repeat DUIs are for people with a BAC much higher than 0.10. The same is true of most serious accidents involving drunk driving. So, when they tell me that talking on a cellphone is comparable to having a BAC of.08, I am not impressed with it being all that dangerous.
The problem is that when they compare talking on a cell phone they are comparing it to barely drunk,.08 BAC. Most people when they think of drunk driving, think about the guy who drives drunk who can barely walk. I am not convinced that.08 should be illegal.
And this is the problem, those who favor the expansion of government power have distorted the issues so that the divide is between those who want to "conservatively" expand government power and those who want to "liberally" expand government power. Just as in the 50s, those who favored government control of the economy said that the political spectrum extended from the Communists (who wanted to seize all means of production and have bureaucrats run it) on the left to the Fascists (who wanted to let "capitalists" own the means of production, as long as they ran it the way the bureaucrats told them to) on the right.
This leaves out the majority of people who believe that the government should have strictly limited powers and people should be allowed to make thier own decisions about what to buy and where to work.
Lamar Smith believes the government is the source of good in this world. The OP appears to share my view that the only thing the government is good for is to punish evil and that when people start to view the government as a source of good, they encourage it to become a source of evil.
Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit?
If you are not a citizen of their meta-country (the EU), they do. The only reason you think they don't is because you don't realize that they consider your country to be part of theirs. Germany is a state in the EU the same way that California is a state in the USA.
Given the freedom to act, people will take resources for their own personal benefit, even if it harms everyone as a whole.
And what about putting those people in government changes that? You believe that left to their own devices people will behave irresponsibly, yet, somehow, those same people when given the power to tell other people what to do will use that power for the best interest of everybody. Explain to me how that works.
I was specifically replying to a post that said that people were going to continue having lots of kids. That is demonstrably not true. Nowhere in my post did I say that meant that there was not a need to address environmental issues.
That being said, if you would prefer to live in a world with 1 billion people and a life expectancy of 38.5 years, you are welcome to that view. Personally, I do not have the hubris to believe that mankind is capable of destroying the planet. I believe that the most efficient way to improve the state of the planet is to give people the freedom to act as they choose and to encourage the rule of law to apply to all. This combination will improve the lot of life of more people than any other system and as people's lot in life improves, they will choose to take better care of the planet. I believe that any system that attempts to force people to take better care of the planet will actually result in greater destruction of the environment in the long run.
and that they're going to keep having lots of kids...
The evidence suggests that such is not the case. When people get rich (by the standard I am talking about here there are no poor Americans or poor members of the EU), they tend to have significantly fewer kids to the point that populations tend to shrink. Additionally, evidence is that fertility is going down among all human populations. Current knowledge suggests that this is not a result of reduced ability to be fertile, but the result of the choice to have fewer children.
Perhaps they should have taught you reading comprehension. The OP did not say that the MBA program taught outsouce everything (I'm not even sure that he was referring to an MBA program, it appears to have been an IT management training program--at what level appears ambiguous). The OP said that the IT management training program he was part of taught a whole bunch of stuff such as outsourcing, best of breed, vendor support as primary skills and that actual IT skills as not terribly important (nice to have for an IT manager, but dispensable).
I have seen this in many areas, not just IT. The idea that management does not have to have any of the skills needed to do the jobs subordinate to them is very prevalent. While a manager does not need the skills to sub in for all of their subordinates (although it does help), they should be able to do the job of a significant number of their subordinates. Otherwise, they will have trouble recognizing the relative value of different staff members contributions.
The story you linked to does NOT say that they are not cattle rustlers. It merely refers to the allegedly rustled cattle as "stray cattle". Additionally, the LA Times story that it links to indicates that the missing cattle that the sheriff had a search warrant to look for were indeed on the property (the wording of the story implies that they were in among the Brossart's cattle, but I may be reading too much into that).
The fact that they are members of the "Sovereign Citizens" movement does not preclude them also being cattle rustlers. I am uncomfortable with this kind of usage of UAVs, but if we really want to debate this issue let's stick to the facts. That being said, how do we know that the cattle rustling story was not made up as an excuse to harass these individuals who had taken a political position that is unpopular with government authorities. More important, while this case appears to be a legitimate action on the part of the government (leaving aside the questionable use of the drones), if we do not question their action here, how long until there is a case where their actions in going after someone like this can't be justified. There was a case a couple of years ago where a federal agent befriended a guy who did small scale gambling with friends. Over time, the federal agent encouraged the man to make ever larger bets. In time, the dollar amount became large enough for the man to be considered a bookie. At this point the federal agent set up a SWAT team raid of the man's house. During the raid, one of the officers shot and killed the man. Despite intense pressure from federal agents, they were unable to find anyone who thought of the man as a bookie, besides the federal agent who set it all up, nor were they able to find anyone else who made bets with the man on the same scale as the federal agent had (which bets were the basis for the whole case against the man).
Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.
Well, since I don't see the companies in question employing competent writers, directors or actors, I don't see how the cost of such has any impact on those who might attempt to compete with them.
Yes, I am aware that I can put quicklaunch back. I just don't use Win 7 enough yet to do so. But how many versions down the road until MS eliminates that?
In XP (and Vista) I have a Quicklaunch section of my taskbar for those apps I often open when I have something obscuring the desktop and then I have the taskbar itself showing me what is actually open. In Windows 7, Quicklaunch was merged into the taskbar, so certain apps are indistinguishable if they are open or just a quicklaunch icon. Additionally, in XP if I have multiple windows of an app open and there is room on the taskbar, they show as separate instances. In Win 7, they show as a single instance and I have to pick them out when I hover the mouse over them.
I would agree with that summation. Although, I believe there are times when the government gets to the point where people need to be reminded of this power. I believe that we are in one of those times because government overreach is such that enforcement of many laws has become, for all intents and purposes, arbitrary.
Re:yes but you dont need an ocean to have life
on
Is the Earth Special?
·
· Score: 1
No, it is merely one element of the "special earth" argument.The "special earth" argument is that there are a combination of factors that make earth especially suitable for life. The argument goes on to claim that each of these factors is somewhat improbable to occur (not to the point that we would expect them to not occur, just to the point that they would not be everywhere we looked). Finally, the argument goes that having all of these factors occur in one location (earth) is highly improbable (to the point that planets that have all of these factors would be rare, how rare is unknown).
Personally, I do not think we know enough about the universe to know how likely most of these factors are (too small of a sample size). Water is one of the few factors that we have a pretty good idea how unique it is. For life to exist it is probable that some chemical that is primarily liquid at the temperature range of the location that shares many properties with water (not primarily the liquid-solid phase interaction) is necessary (as I said, our sample size is small, so this may prove to be incorrect, but it currently appears that way).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you thought that someone with .28 BAC was more sober than you when you were at .085, you are absolutely correct. I would go so far as to say that I would prefer if you never drive when you have any alcohol in your system, because it clearly significantly distorts your judgement (either that or your judgement is rather poor to begin with). Anyone I would let drive me home because I am too drunk to drive is someone I know well enough to know if they are legal to drive (or at least close). .28 BAC is "shitfaced drunk", .08 BAC is buzzed. I do not drive buzzed, but think the legal limit should still be .10 BAC. I am a firm believer that if you do not feel like you are competent to drive (whether from alcohol, lack of sleep or some other effect), you should choose to not drive. This does not mean that just because someone feels like they are safe to drive that they should/are as alcohol (and many other substances) distort one's judgement so as to make it harder to make that determination. That is why when I will be driving after drinking I keep careful track of how much alcohol I consume so that I know if I am below the legal limit (just because I feel fine to drive, I know full well does not meant that I am fine to drive). I, also, don't drive if I feel buzzed even if my calculations say I am legal (I have a decent tolerance, but certain drinks, in certain circumstances, give me a stronger buzz than the amount of alcohol would suggest likely).
To clarify,
Feel free. Of course, I will sue you for libel.
No, juries are do not determine law. What you are getting at is jury nullification, which is the idea that the jury can find that the law should not apply in this case (or perhaps any case, but they don't get to actually determine that relative to other cases).
I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing.
Actually, I think the judge should have held him in contempt of court. I would have even had no problem with the judge ruling that the man should delete the blog on the basis of the fact that he used it in a way that was clearly in violation of the intent of the restraining order by promoting it to the woman's contacts using aliases. Although I think the ideal way to deal with it would have been to give him a short jail sentence for contempt of court with the option to avoid that by deleting the blog (and not reconstructing it later). If he chose to serve the contempt of court sentence, he could keep the blog up, but the judge could have ordered him to never promtoe it using an alias and to never promote it (or anything similar) to any of the woman's contacts.
At this point, he could face prosecution for libel. You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from harrassment. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.
I believe that if the judgement had said that the order was because the blog and the man's actions subsequent to creating it were a clear violation of the spirit of the restraining order and that on the basis of that held the man in contempt of court. Then gave the man the option of serving jail time for contempt of court or delete the blog (with the understanding that if he restored the blog the jail time would ensue) Followed by an order not to promote the blog (or anything like it) to the woman's contacts.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders.
This is not true, there is a small but significant number of criminals who are in prison on life sentences who commit additional violent crimes while in prison. The number of criminals on death row who do so is much smaller (largely because they are generally kept separate from the general population).
When I worked near where the trains ran, I used public transportation and I loved it. But where I live now and where I work are not practical to run public transportation and never will be.
Just get us self-driving cars already so that this and a number of related problems go away.
By related problems I assume you mean the possibility that the government won't keep track of everywhere you go.
The problem is that if you are going to ban talking on the cellphone based on the studies, you need to ban all talking on the cellphone because the studies show that hands-free is not significantly less distracting than hand held.
When you're on the phone you're less aware of your surroundings than if you were shitfaced drunk (again, look at the studies).
All of the studies I have seen compare talking on the cell phone to having a blood alcohol level of .08. A BAC of .08 is NOT "shitfaced drunk." I am not convinced that there was any good reason to drop the legal limit from 0.10. The excuse for lowering it was the continued occurrence of repeat offenders for DUI, yet most repeat DUIs are for people with a BAC much higher than 0.10. The same is true of most serious accidents involving drunk driving. So, when they tell me that talking on a cellphone is comparable to having a BAC of .08, I am not impressed with it being all that dangerous.
The problem is that when they compare talking on a cell phone they are comparing it to barely drunk, .08 BAC. Most people when they think of drunk driving, think about the guy who drives drunk who can barely walk. I am not convinced that .08 should be illegal.
You are funny. You want to give the government the power to regulate every aspect of everyone's life and don't see how that would be abused.
And this is the problem, those who favor the expansion of government power have distorted the issues so that the divide is between those who want to "conservatively" expand government power and those who want to "liberally" expand government power. Just as in the 50s, those who favored government control of the economy said that the political spectrum extended from the Communists (who wanted to seize all means of production and have bureaucrats run it) on the left to the Fascists (who wanted to let "capitalists" own the means of production, as long as they ran it the way the bureaucrats told them to) on the right.
This leaves out the majority of people who believe that the government should have strictly limited powers and people should be allowed to make thier own decisions about what to buy and where to work.
Lamar Smith believes the government is the source of good in this world. The OP appears to share my view that the only thing the government is good for is to punish evil and that when people start to view the government as a source of good, they encourage it to become a source of evil.
Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit?
If you are not a citizen of their meta-country (the EU), they do. The only reason you think they don't is because you don't realize that they consider your country to be part of theirs. Germany is a state in the EU the same way that California is a state in the USA.
Given the freedom to act, people will take resources for their own personal benefit, even if it harms everyone as a whole.
And what about putting those people in government changes that? You believe that left to their own devices people will behave irresponsibly, yet, somehow, those same people when given the power to tell other people what to do will use that power for the best interest of everybody. Explain to me how that works.
I was specifically replying to a post that said that people were going to continue having lots of kids. That is demonstrably not true. Nowhere in my post did I say that meant that there was not a need to address environmental issues.
That being said, if you would prefer to live in a world with 1 billion people and a life expectancy of 38.5 years, you are welcome to that view. Personally, I do not have the hubris to believe that mankind is capable of destroying the planet. I believe that the most efficient way to improve the state of the planet is to give people the freedom to act as they choose and to encourage the rule of law to apply to all. This combination will improve the lot of life of more people than any other system and as people's lot in life improves, they will choose to take better care of the planet. I believe that any system that attempts to force people to take better care of the planet will actually result in greater destruction of the environment in the long run.
and that they're going to keep having lots of kids...
The evidence suggests that such is not the case. When people get rich (by the standard I am talking about here there are no poor Americans or poor members of the EU), they tend to have significantly fewer kids to the point that populations tend to shrink. Additionally, evidence is that fertility is going down among all human populations. Current knowledge suggests that this is not a result of reduced ability to be fertile, but the result of the choice to have fewer children.
Perhaps they should have taught you reading comprehension. The OP did not say that the MBA program taught outsouce everything (I'm not even sure that he was referring to an MBA program, it appears to have been an IT management training program--at what level appears ambiguous). The OP said that the IT management training program he was part of taught a whole bunch of stuff such as outsourcing, best of breed, vendor support as primary skills and that actual IT skills as not terribly important (nice to have for an IT manager, but dispensable).
I have seen this in many areas, not just IT. The idea that management does not have to have any of the skills needed to do the jobs subordinate to them is very prevalent. While a manager does not need the skills to sub in for all of their subordinates (although it does help), they should be able to do the job of a significant number of their subordinates. Otherwise, they will have trouble recognizing the relative value of different staff members contributions.
The story you linked to does NOT say that they are not cattle rustlers. It merely refers to the allegedly rustled cattle as "stray cattle". Additionally, the LA Times story that it links to indicates that the missing cattle that the sheriff had a search warrant to look for were indeed on the property (the wording of the story implies that they were in among the Brossart's cattle, but I may be reading too much into that).
The fact that they are members of the "Sovereign Citizens" movement does not preclude them also being cattle rustlers. I am uncomfortable with this kind of usage of UAVs, but if we really want to debate this issue let's stick to the facts. That being said, how do we know that the cattle rustling story was not made up as an excuse to harass these individuals who had taken a political position that is unpopular with government authorities. More important, while this case appears to be a legitimate action on the part of the government (leaving aside the questionable use of the drones), if we do not question their action here, how long until there is a case where their actions in going after someone like this can't be justified. There was a case a couple of years ago where a federal agent befriended a guy who did small scale gambling with friends. Over time, the federal agent encouraged the man to make ever larger bets. In time, the dollar amount became large enough for the man to be considered a bookie. At this point the federal agent set up a SWAT team raid of the man's house. During the raid, one of the officers shot and killed the man. Despite intense pressure from federal agents, they were unable to find anyone who thought of the man as a bookie, besides the federal agent who set it all up, nor were they able to find anyone else who made bets with the man on the same scale as the federal agent had (which bets were the basis for the whole case against the man).
No, no the OP really meant "immanent".
Immanent: taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it.
Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.
Well, since I don't see the companies in question employing competent writers, directors or actors, I don't see how the cost of such has any impact on those who might attempt to compete with them.
Yes, I am aware that I can put quicklaunch back. I just don't use Win 7 enough yet to do so. But how many versions down the road until MS eliminates that?
In XP (and Vista) I have a Quicklaunch section of my taskbar for those apps I often open when I have something obscuring the desktop and then I have the taskbar itself showing me what is actually open. In Windows 7, Quicklaunch was merged into the taskbar, so certain apps are indistinguishable if they are open or just a quicklaunch icon. Additionally, in XP if I have multiple windows of an app open and there is room on the taskbar, they show as separate instances. In Win 7, they show as a single instance and I have to pick them out when I hover the mouse over them.
I would agree with that summation. Although, I believe there are times when the government gets to the point where people need to be reminded of this power. I believe that we are in one of those times because government overreach is such that enforcement of many laws has become, for all intents and purposes, arbitrary.
No, it is merely one element of the "special earth" argument.The "special earth" argument is that there are a combination of factors that make earth especially suitable for life. The argument goes on to claim that each of these factors is somewhat improbable to occur (not to the point that we would expect them to not occur, just to the point that they would not be everywhere we looked). Finally, the argument goes that having all of these factors occur in one location (earth) is highly improbable (to the point that planets that have all of these factors would be rare, how rare is unknown).
Personally, I do not think we know enough about the universe to know how likely most of these factors are (too small of a sample size). Water is one of the few factors that we have a pretty good idea how unique it is. For life to exist it is probable that some chemical that is primarily liquid at the temperature range of the location that shares many properties with water (not primarily the liquid-solid phase interaction) is necessary (as I said, our sample size is small, so this may prove to be incorrect, but it currently appears that way).