Given that historically anything that is owned by everybody (i.e. by nobody) tends to fall apart from abuse and neglect, if we are going to develop Moon (a long shot but whatever, the guy is thinking long term) the best model is one where many people OWN small parcels of it and are free to do with them as they please. Sort of like the way US was developed, not by a grand government plan but by dividing it up between individual with a stake in making it work.
They better get it perfect the first time cause this thing will be impossible to maintain for anybody else and possibly for the original developers too. Forget it, there is no practical use for it, it's just a hobby (not that that's a bad thing).
As far as I know a contract can be invalidated if a party was drunk. If there is evidence that the other party knew they were drunk and deliberately took advantage of it, or if they were involuntarily intoxicated or drugged then it is usually automatically invalidated. Otherwise, the court will look at just how drunk they were and if judged to be mentally incompetent at the time of signing, will invalidate the contract. So, if you want a contract to stick, don't let the other person be drunk while signing it, or at least leave any evidence of it.
Drunk driving prohibition is a more ambiguous case because when you are drunk, you are not being yourself. The same reason a contract somebody convinced you to sign while you are completely plastered would be unenforceable in court. It still illustrates how those kinds of laws are wrong because of a completely different way different people react to alcohol. One person can indeed be impaired from driving after a half glass of wine (legal in most places) and another person can be perfectly fine even while (slightly) over the legal limit. And yet the safe driver is punished extremely severely while the unsafe driver is perfectly legal. We should be punishing reckless driving, not trying to individually ban everything that could possibly cause it because we will never get to the end of the list while in the meantime encouraging local governments to setup things like sobriety checkpoints which rarely catch drunk drivers but still generate revenue with a bunch of fines for dumb things like broken lights etc
You are proving my point by mentioning a type of behavior which is not specifically prohibited by law, the way texting is, even though it is likely more dangerous. Why not? How about shaving, or eating, more likely examples, still not specifically banned?
Driving without due care and attention (or whatever its called) is already illegal so a special mention of texting imho is a particularly ridiculous case of social engineering by busybodies with nothing better to do.
Of course possession of shoulder-fired grenade launcher as well as brandishing any kind of a weapon is illegal in most jurisdictions but that's a separate issue.
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
In many countries poor people not only eat healthier food but also tastier than most people here. It's amazing what you can make with a little bit of rice or pasta and some vegetables and spices for virtually no money if you know how to prepare it. In the US poor people will eat garbage fast food daily in their comfy sofa in front of a big screen TV and complain that they are fat because they are poor.
Funny how the definition of socialism changed over the years. First it was social ownership of everything with no private property. Then it was central planning of the industry with some made up price system that never worked like the various schemes Soviet Union came up with (usually followed by a famine). Then it was the "third way" of countries like Yugoslavia (at the time it was briefly prosperous before the collapse) with a mix of state owned industry and some small scale private enterprise. Now it's basically a capitalist economy like Sweden with a slightly higher taxes than in the US and more welfare spending. Pretty soon you guys will finally be driven all the way to the right and call laissez-faire capitalism "socialism".
The US has a higher incarceration rate due to harsher sentences, not necessarily due to higher crime rate. Overall crime rate in UK and Germany (far better comparison to the US than Sweden) are higher than in the US. US has lower burglary and robbery rates than Australia or Canada. Take 20 worst gangland ghettos out of the equation and US compares favorably to most major developed countries in any crime statistic. Whatever the reasons for the harsh sentences (in particular for drug use), which is the true reason for the US record incarceration rate, they are not obviously related to welfare state which was the actual point of my post.
So the point of your joke is that the US high prison inmate rate per capita is the result of excessive reliance on private enterprise and not enough government regulation and welfare state?
There are countries far more socialist than Sweden that have a prison and murder rate per capita far higher than the US. Venezuela is as socialist as it gets outside Cuba and North Korea and the government controls far more of the economy for the "benefit" of the poor and yet its murder rate is more than 10 times higher than the US.
There are factors outside economic/political system that affect the crime rate. US excessive "war on drugs" as well as much higher use of drugs that in Sweden is one, the violent culture of gangs in inner cities (also related to drugs) etc. Also, I would guess that the % of Swedish people living in the US who are in prison is comparable to the % of Swedish people living in Sweden who are in prison, but I shouldn't say that since true statistics are often racist.
The 'fucking summary' is wrong, though. Iranian oil makes up a very tiny fraction of US imports.
It is not about how much US imports from Iran. It's the ability to shut down Iranian oil imports without having an effect on global oil prices, because US is now able to make up the difference. Just trying to be clear on what TFA 'claims', since, not being an oil industry expert, I have no clue whether it is true or not.
And you are fucking up my air due to breathing. Does that mean that your breathing is my business to regulate? No. There has to be a real, measurable harm (as in dollar amount) before I can claim something like that. Where is your real measurable harm from him burning wood? Perhaps you live right next to 100 houses all burning wood and your air is polluted as hell but that's still a local problem, for you and your local government and courts to deal with, not something EPA should regulate nationally.
"Liberals" in the US political spectrum tend to lean towards a powerful and intrusive state, something they have in common with fascists. I agree that it's an abuse of language. Poor libertarians had to make up a word to distinguish themselves from "liberals".
Funny joke but the reality is that if you provide incentives for companies to reduce their full time workforce (like Obamacare) don't be surprised when they do that.
You'd have to compare all the models, not just Tesla compared to the average of all other cars. If one brand of cars happen to catch fires all the time, Tesla could be the second worst and still come out better than average.
No, lets defend our pet products in a knee-jerk fashion even before the evidence is in. When Toyota's had problems I didn't see an article on/. saying there are 30 million Toyotas on the road and only a few of them happen to randomly accelerate and crash and burn their occupants, so it's not such a big deal.
Build with what? There are plenty of people who live in shacks made of simple materials because having a roof over their head is better than saving up for 1000 years at their rate of income for a house built according to western standards.
Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease?
No. We should educate people to look at the damn label and decide for themselves. Most of the food industry have already reduced or completely eliminated trans fats purely voluntarily as a result of consumers being more educated and the pressure from consumer groups. If the government needs to pass laws to protect people from themselves then who are they representing?
Slashdot Mirror
Given that historically anything that is owned by everybody (i.e. by nobody) tends to fall apart from abuse and neglect, if we are going to develop Moon (a long shot but whatever, the guy is thinking long term) the best model is one where many people OWN small parcels of it and are free to do with them as they please. Sort of like the way US was developed, not by a grand government plan but by dividing it up between individual with a stake in making it work.
They better get it perfect the first time cause this thing will be impossible to maintain for anybody else and possibly for the original developers too. Forget it, there is no practical use for it, it's just a hobby (not that that's a bad thing).
There are plenty of cars like that on sale in Europe. In the US there just isn't enough demand for a car with a 1.0 liter 65 hp engine.
As far as I know a contract can be invalidated if a party was drunk.
If there is evidence that the other party knew they were drunk and deliberately took advantage of it, or if they were involuntarily intoxicated or drugged then it is usually automatically invalidated. Otherwise, the court will look at just how drunk they were and if judged to be mentally incompetent at the time of signing, will invalidate the contract. So, if you want a contract to stick, don't let the other person be drunk while signing it, or at least leave any evidence of it.
Drunk driving prohibition is a more ambiguous case because when you are drunk, you are not being yourself. The same reason a contract somebody convinced you to sign while you are completely plastered would be unenforceable in court. It still illustrates how those kinds of laws are wrong because of a completely different way different people react to alcohol. One person can indeed be impaired from driving after a half glass of wine (legal in most places) and another person can be perfectly fine even while (slightly) over the legal limit. And yet the safe driver is punished extremely severely while the unsafe driver is perfectly legal. We should be punishing reckless driving, not trying to individually ban everything that could possibly cause it because we will never get to the end of the list while in the meantime encouraging local governments to setup things like sobriety checkpoints which rarely catch drunk drivers but still generate revenue with a bunch of fines for dumb things like broken lights etc
You are proving my point by mentioning a type of behavior which is not specifically prohibited by law, the way texting is, even though it is likely more dangerous. Why not? How about shaving, or eating, more likely examples, still not specifically banned?
Driving without due care and attention (or whatever its called) is already illegal so a special mention of texting imho is a particularly ridiculous case of social engineering by busybodies with nothing better to do.
Of course possession of shoulder-fired grenade launcher as well as brandishing any kind of a weapon is illegal in most jurisdictions but that's a separate issue.
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
In many countries poor people not only eat healthier food but also tastier than most people here. It's amazing what you can make with a little bit of rice or pasta and some vegetables and spices for virtually no money if you know how to prepare it. In the US poor people will eat garbage fast food daily in their comfy sofa in front of a big screen TV and complain that they are fat because they are poor.
Funny how the definition of socialism changed over the years. First it was social ownership of everything with no private property. Then it was central planning of the industry with some made up price system that never worked like the various schemes Soviet Union came up with (usually followed by a famine). Then it was the "third way" of countries like Yugoslavia (at the time it was briefly prosperous before the collapse) with a mix of state owned industry and some small scale private enterprise. Now it's basically a capitalist economy like Sweden with a slightly higher taxes than in the US and more welfare spending. Pretty soon you guys will finally be driven all the way to the right and call laissez-faire capitalism "socialism".
Obviously we are talking per capita crime rate.
The US has a higher incarceration rate due to harsher sentences, not necessarily due to higher crime rate. Overall crime rate in UK and Germany (far better comparison to the US than Sweden) are higher than in the US. US has lower burglary and robbery rates than Australia or Canada. Take 20 worst gangland ghettos out of the equation and US compares favorably to most major developed countries in any crime statistic. Whatever the reasons for the harsh sentences (in particular for drug use), which is the true reason for the US record incarceration rate, they are not obviously related to welfare state which was the actual point of my post.
So the point of your joke is that the US high prison inmate rate per capita is the result of excessive reliance on private enterprise and not enough government regulation and welfare state?
There are countries far more socialist than Sweden that have a prison and murder rate per capita far higher than the US. Venezuela is as socialist as it gets outside Cuba and North Korea and the government controls far more of the economy for the "benefit" of the poor and yet its murder rate is more than 10 times higher than the US.
There are factors outside economic/political system that affect the crime rate. US excessive "war on drugs" as well as much higher use of drugs that in Sweden is one, the violent culture of gangs in inner cities (also related to drugs) etc. Also, I would guess that the % of Swedish people living in the US who are in prison is comparable to the % of Swedish people living in Sweden who are in prison, but I shouldn't say that since true statistics are often racist.
Consider whether, if fifty years, you will be proud of or ashamed of your behavior today.
He's 80 years old, you insensitive clod.
The 'fucking summary' is wrong, though. Iranian oil makes up a very tiny fraction of US imports.
It is not about how much US imports from Iran. It's the ability to shut down Iranian oil imports without having an effect on global oil prices, because US is now able to make up the difference. Just trying to be clear on what TFA 'claims', since, not being an oil industry expert, I have no clue whether it is true or not.
And you are fucking up my air due to breathing. Does that mean that your breathing is my business to regulate? No. There has to be a real, measurable harm (as in dollar amount) before I can claim something like that. Where is your real measurable harm from him burning wood? Perhaps you live right next to 100 houses all burning wood and your air is polluted as hell but that's still a local problem, for you and your local government and courts to deal with, not something EPA should regulate nationally.
"Liberals" in the US political spectrum tend to lean towards a powerful and intrusive state, something they have in common with fascists. I agree that it's an abuse of language. Poor libertarians had to make up a word to distinguish themselves from "liberals".
Since they said they "do no evil" we can all trust them completely. If it was another company I'd be worried.
Also, using a soccer team to do their performance reviews is pretty dumb.
Slashdot's.
Funny joke but the reality is that if you provide incentives for companies to reduce their full time workforce (like Obamacare) don't be surprised when they do that.
You'd have to compare all the models, not just Tesla compared to the average of all other cars. If one brand of cars happen to catch fires all the time, Tesla could be the second worst and still come out better than average.
No, lets defend our pet products in a knee-jerk fashion even before the evidence is in. When Toyota's had problems I didn't see an article on /. saying there are 30 million Toyotas on the road and only a few of them happen to randomly accelerate and crash and burn their occupants, so it's not such a big deal.
Build with what? There are plenty of people who live in shacks made of simple materials because having a roof over their head is better than saving up for 1000 years at their rate of income for a house built according to western standards.
It happens all the time. Kids are suspended from school for making a "gun" with their fingers, playing with a plastic see-through water pistol, or having any item that looks like a gun or has picture of a gun on it, even if it's barely bigger than a quarter ( http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/29/tiny-toy-gun-key-chain-cause-of-students-suspension-84337 ). Even saying the word gun in the contest of Hello Kitty "bubble gun" gets a 5 year old girl suspended for 10 days ( http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended ). Its not about kids safety, it's about stigmatizing guns and gun owners.
Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease?
No. We should educate people to look at the damn label and decide for themselves. Most of the food industry have already reduced or completely eliminated trans fats purely voluntarily as a result of consumers being more educated and the pressure from consumer groups. If the government needs to pass laws to protect people from themselves then who are they representing?