> I'd hate to see the entire space tourism industry dealt a fatal blow because inadequate regulation lead to a horrible disaster.
What if the death blow happens before anyone can go up because the regulations limits the industry to huge companies not willing to take any financial risks? That is an even worse tragedy, IMO.
> I'll let you get back to your libertarian utopia.
No sane Libertaian will claim that a Utopia will arise from Libertarian ideals, but that's not the goal. The goal is freedom, and when you put this idealistic bullshit label on us, you do a disservice to your own intelligence.
> Traffic jams, the incidental damage, the injuries and deaths -- those are not really the problem of society,
No, they aren't. They are problems caused by individuals. They affect others, but traffic jams don't just happen for no reason: someone or some people caused it because of their driving.
> I and a bunch of other voters have decided that our common good is served when we stop asshats from doing whatever fool thing pops into their putative minds. Regulation and enforcement are a good idea.
Even if it doesn't affect you or anyone outside of the group of people working on the project/partaking in an activity? Not insinuating anything, just asking.
> So what about those people who die on the 6G rocket? Fuck 'em?
If they knew the risks beforehand and still went, then YES! FUCK THEM! If they are crushed by falling debris, that's different. Random accidents are not a problem of personal responsibility -- except, perhaps, for the people that plotted the trajectory & where the boosters are disengaged from the ship. Of course the company is responsible for that.
I mean, come on! If you work as a coal miner & die in a "faultless" collapse, your family has no right to sue the company that hired you. You knew the risks going in.
So what dictates when the government can stretch the meaning of a law to something it didn't previously encompass? What if they suddenly decided that a "court-ordered warrant" could be ordered on the spot by a police patrolman, since he is acting in the interests of a court? That's a bigger stretch than the clause in question, but I have serious problems with people using laws in ways they were not intended. If there is need for new regulation, make a new law that spells it out. If it is similar to an existing law, you can amend the existing one, but stretching interpretation can make a reckless precedent.
No, perhaps you could come back with a response that is more insightful than a 5-year-old's ranting? I suppose that means I "won" the argument if that's the best you can come up with. Hell, it's not even a good troll!
Geez, the common foreigner rantings are better than that. Call me an Ignorant American, at LEAST! You would still be wrong, but at least there's already a precedent of other ignorant Americans so there's some rationale outside of your grade school level dick jokes. Maybe you are still IN grade school. That would explain a lot.
> The most plausible pressure to show "mature" content so late comes from threats from the FCC
Are you sure that's the most plausible explanation? I think it's because the advertisers tend to be "old farts" who would be put off by the language, and parents who don't know any better than to let their children watch TV without knowing what's on (though I can't blame them COMPLETELY, just mostly) who then complain that CC didn't previously bow to what they should have known the parents' thoughts would be. There are plenty of economic incentives for CCentral to "censor" their language use without involvement from the FCC.
But you are right that I can only guess the truth.
> Ask them if they'd rather show it to all the adults watching at 10PM
Woah, that's the choice of Comedy Central when they air it, not the FCC. CCentral chose that time slot because most people who would want to watch it can manage to stay up that late (or can figure out how to program a VCR/PVR). And yes, I am sure it has to do with certain advertisers not wanting their commercials aired during a movie like that, but none of that has to do with the FCC or censorship (by the government) AFAICT. It's a private company's choice.
> bringing in a lot of foreign workers to rebuild Iraq
Yeah, you said it perfectly: that is probably the most insulting (not to mention, irresponsible) thing that they could do. Oh, other than invading in the first place, that wasn't very nice either.:)
No, I was not the AC, I always use my handle: Karma is for Hindus, I am not Hindu. With that in mind, fuck you.
> hings like "facts" have never gotten in the way of ignorant people like you in the course of spewing out shit, but hey..
Like the fact that I said I didn't care that the info was wrong, and then you attacked me anyway claiming I was trying to do something COMPLETELY contrary to what I said? Smooth.
> What would you prefer for this application, O wise engineer?
If it's not Japanese or European, it's a cancer-causing, baby-killing, Police-State funded conspiracy. If it is JP|EU, then it's a work of art created by people who care about the world.
> I know I'd think twice about driving a vehicle with a preasure bottle full of hydrogen on the road with your average american driver.
That's because you are irrationally paranoid. You do know that you are currently driving a vehicle (presumably) with a pressure bottle full of gasoline, yes? It's not really HIGH-pressure, but it's higher than air pressure. What about cars that run on natural gas? Are those high pressure?
Did you know that there are trucks that carry around those same tanks of hydrogen all the time? It's extremely rare for something to happen to them, and most problems can be avoided pretty easily. Especially if they are specially-designed for the purpose. The only way a normal hydrogen tank will explode is if it is EXTREMELY hot or the neck is broken off -- a well-designed tank will have no neck like a helium tank's. If it does break and there are no sparks, it will just shoot out -- giving the car a push in some direction, probably forward. If there are sparks... well, that's a problem.
Come on, taking extremes doesn't help anyone. He didn't say to stop researching it. But touting it as the future of automobiles is disingenuous at best.
> Without the dependency of oil exactly who would give a shit anymore?
They might get what they wanted, as in no more invading forces for oil. Of course, that also means they don't get the revenue for that oil (yeah, except for plastics use).
> Most factory cruise control will not engage below a set speed, typically 30 MPH.
I've experienced this, but many times you can get around it by setting it to 30 & using the coast function (geez, I am a geek... "button") to lower the speed a bit. Mine just auto-disengaged around 15mph or so, but who needs CC that low speed anyway?
> Another reason for government involvment is when the return is long-term as opposed to short-term
OK, totally off-topic, but that's an important thing to remember when thinking about war as well. It works both ways, though -- PATRIOT Act was rushed, and see where that got us.
Sorry, that sentence just 'clicked' something in me.
> if they don't want me watching it, then why do they send the signal into my yard?
You can watch it if you want... Would be static, I imagine. What's illegal is decoding that encrypted (ha) signal, which is probably (I believe) the basis of ruling on that case.
> The ownus is on you to prove its fake. I will be more than happy to take legal action
The fact that you can't spell onus makes me wonder. It's interesting that there is no record of Rolloffle Rd. in Tarzania, but really, I don't give a fuck if WHOIS info is accurate or not.
> If you or a business leave an object unlocked in the street/the side of the road, without any attempt to notify people that it is yours/prevent them from taking it, you have given up the legal right to claim that people stole it from you.
Yeah, that's how I got my most recent car. Amazing that someone would leave a brand new Porsche on the side of the road with the trash!
Slashdot Mirror
At least that one took some thinking on your part.
> I'd hate to see the entire space tourism industry dealt a fatal blow because inadequate regulation lead to a horrible disaster.
What if the death blow happens before anyone can go up because the regulations limits the industry to huge companies not willing to take any financial risks? That is an even worse tragedy, IMO.
> I'll let you get back to your libertarian utopia.
No sane Libertaian will claim that a Utopia will arise from Libertarian ideals, but that's not the goal. The goal is freedom, and when you put this idealistic bullshit label on us, you do a disservice to your own intelligence.
> Traffic jams, the incidental damage, the injuries and deaths -- those are not really the problem of society,
No, they aren't. They are problems caused by individuals. They affect others, but traffic jams don't just happen for no reason: someone or some people caused it because of their driving.
> I and a bunch of other voters have decided that our common good is served when we stop asshats from doing whatever fool thing pops into their putative minds. Regulation and enforcement are a good idea.
Even if it doesn't affect you or anyone outside of the group of people working on the project/partaking in an activity? Not insinuating anything, just asking.
> So what about those people who die on the 6G rocket? Fuck 'em?
If they knew the risks beforehand and still went, then YES! FUCK THEM! If they are crushed by falling debris, that's different. Random accidents are not a problem of personal responsibility -- except, perhaps, for the people that plotted the trajectory & where the boosters are disengaged from the ship. Of course the company is responsible for that.
I mean, come on! If you work as a coal miner & die in a "faultless" collapse, your family has no right to sue the company that hired you. You knew the risks going in.
So what dictates when the government can stretch the meaning of a law to something it didn't previously encompass? What if they suddenly decided that a "court-ordered warrant" could be ordered on the spot by a police patrolman, since he is acting in the interests of a court? That's a bigger stretch than the clause in question, but I have serious problems with people using laws in ways they were not intended. If there is need for new regulation, make a new law that spells it out. If it is similar to an existing law, you can amend the existing one, but stretching interpretation can make a reckless precedent.
> you think it's a coincidence that, surprise surprise, their "tech news" site posts articles critical of their competitors? Come on, open your eyes.
/. had all these articles with the same slant before OSDN came around sniffing.
Open your eyes to the truth instead of mindless conspiracies.
No, perhaps you could come back with a response that is more insightful than a 5-year-old's ranting? I suppose that means I "won" the argument if that's the best you can come up with. Hell, it's not even a good troll!
Geez, the common foreigner rantings are better than that. Call me an Ignorant American, at LEAST! You would still be wrong, but at least there's already a precedent of other ignorant Americans so there's some rationale outside of your grade school level dick jokes. Maybe you are still IN grade school. That would explain a lot.
> A case of someone butting in to a conversation they don't belong in?
Don't belong? If I don't belong in it, DON'T HOLD IT IN A PUBLIC FUCKING FORUM. Since you DID, everyone belongs in it.
If you ever get accepted to college somehow, I suggest you take a course in logic, you seem to need it.
> The most plausible pressure to show "mature" content so late comes from threats from the FCC
Are you sure that's the most plausible explanation? I think it's because the advertisers tend to be "old farts" who would be put off by the language, and parents who don't know any better than to let their children watch TV without knowing what's on (though I can't blame them COMPLETELY, just mostly) who then complain that CC didn't previously bow to what they should have known the parents' thoughts would be. There are plenty of economic incentives for CCentral to "censor" their language use without involvement from the FCC.
But you are right that I can only guess the truth.
> Ask them if they'd rather show it to all the adults watching at 10PM
Woah, that's the choice of Comedy Central when they air it, not the FCC. CCentral chose that time slot because most people who would want to watch it can manage to stay up that late (or can figure out how to program a VCR/PVR). And yes, I am sure it has to do with certain advertisers not wanting their commercials aired during a movie like that, but none of that has to do with the FCC or censorship (by the government) AFAICT. It's a private company's choice.
> bringing in a lot of foreign workers to rebuild Iraq
:)
Yeah, you said it perfectly: that is probably the most insulting (not to mention, irresponsible) thing that they could do. Oh, other than invading in the first place, that wasn't very nice either.
No, I was not the AC, I always use my handle: Karma is for Hindus, I am not Hindu. With that in mind, fuck you.
> hings like "facts" have never gotten in the way of ignorant people like you in the course of spewing out shit, but hey..
Like the fact that I said I didn't care that the info was wrong, and then you attacked me anyway claiming I was trying to do something COMPLETELY contrary to what I said? Smooth.
> What would you prefer for this application, O wise engineer?
If it's not Japanese or European, it's a cancer-causing, baby-killing, Police-State funded conspiracy. If it is JP|EU, then it's a work of art created by people who care about the world.
> I know I'd think twice about driving a vehicle with a preasure bottle full of hydrogen on the road with your average american driver.
That's because you are irrationally paranoid. You do know that you are currently driving a vehicle (presumably) with a pressure bottle full of gasoline, yes? It's not really HIGH-pressure, but it's higher than air pressure. What about cars that run on natural gas? Are those high pressure?
Did you know that there are trucks that carry around those same tanks of hydrogen all the time? It's extremely rare for something to happen to them, and most problems can be avoided pretty easily. Especially if they are specially-designed for the purpose. The only way a normal hydrogen tank will explode is if it is EXTREMELY hot or the neck is broken off -- a well-designed tank will have no neck like a helium tank's. If it does break and there are no sparks, it will just shoot out -- giving the car a push in some direction, probably forward. If there are sparks... well, that's a problem.
Come on, taking extremes doesn't help anyone. He didn't say to stop researching it. But touting it as the future of automobiles is disingenuous at best.
> Without the dependency of oil exactly who would give a shit anymore?
They might get what they wanted, as in no more invading forces for oil. Of course, that also means they don't get the revenue for that oil (yeah, except for plastics use).
Cocaine.
It was the eighties...
> but i could care less...
Which would have been the case had you not pointed it out at all.
> Most factory cruise control will not engage below a set speed, typically 30 MPH.
I've experienced this, but many times you can get around it by setting it to 30 & using the coast function (geez, I am a geek... "button") to lower the speed a bit. Mine just auto-disengaged around 15mph or so, but who needs CC that low speed anyway?
> Another reason for government involvment is when the return is long-term as opposed to short-term
OK, totally off-topic, but that's an important thing to remember when thinking about war as well. It works both ways, though -- PATRIOT Act was rushed, and see where that got us.
Sorry, that sentence just 'clicked' something in me.
> We support nazi regimes,
Dictatorial: sure. Tyrranical: absolutely. But not Nazi.
> if they don't want me watching it, then why do they send the signal into my yard?
You can watch it if you want... Would be static, I imagine. What's illegal is decoding that encrypted (ha) signal, which is probably (I believe) the basis of ruling on that case.
> The ownus is on you to prove its fake. I will be more than happy to take legal action
The fact that you can't spell onus makes me wonder. It's interesting that there is no record of Rolloffle Rd. in Tarzania, but really, I don't give a fuck if WHOIS info is accurate or not.
> If you or a business leave an object unlocked in the street/the side of the road, without any attempt to notify people that it is yours/prevent them from taking it, you have given up the legal right to claim that people stole it from you.
Yeah, that's how I got my most recent car. Amazing that someone would leave a brand new Porsche on the side of the road with the trash!