> Gee, did you guys know that you shouldn't stick a lit cigarette in your eye? > Don't use hot sauce for you 'roids!
OMG, Yoo jus savd I a hole latta hurtin'. Tancs fer the wyse ad vise, frend!
Anyway... I agree. However, isn't that the whole point of slapping a warning label on everything in the store? Like idiots who want Surgeon General warnings all over the front of packs of cigarettes? Like I just hadn't ever noticed them before, being on the side of the box.
BTW, next time you're walking down the street, it might be a good idea to restrain yourself from diving headfirst through a plate-glass storefront window screaming "Allah be praised!" Just a bit of everyday worldly wisdow from a guy who's made "mistakes." (apologies to any Muslims reading)
> What does being a hardware moron have to do with liking Macs?
Ummm... maybe because using a Mac pretty much excludes you from doing any hardware work? I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but given the context of the article, you're jumping a bit too quickly.
That, and it's a joke! He wasn't trying to insult you, as you took it, he was trying to make other people laugh.
The difference is that your company's choice of policies got them where they are, nothing else. If a company is not able to adapt quickly enough, they have only themselves to blame for having too much "business overhead" slowing them down.
> It seems only fair that the other party gets to do the same, even if the odds are in their favor overall.
Except that they are the ones offering a service. If their service no longer makes money, it is their job to stop offering it, not to just stop offering it to select people. That's bull, plain and simple. Just because I'm lucky, they can discriminate and stop me from playing any more? I don't accept that.
> Are you going to argue the point that there's not a correlation between speeding and accidents?
Well, yes I am. The majority of accidents on the road happen at lower speeds inside city limits, usually when someone ignores stop signs or stop lights.
HOWEVER, there is a corrolation between speed and the intensity of the results. So it may be true that speeding puts you at a higher risk of dieing in such an accident, but if you start spinning out of control at 65 or at 80, you're pretty well f'ed either way.
> It was the speed that caused the loss of control.
No, it was the woman driving irresponsibly that caused the lack of control. That irresponsible action took the form of driving faster than she could safely handle.... faster than she could safely handle... She didn't know how to drive responsibly, yes it's here fault. Speed was the result of her choices. She is the one that chose to drive that fast. It's like saying SUVs kill people. No they don't, it's people driving the SUVs that kill people, not the vehicles themselves. (Plz don't take that as a cheap shot on SUVs, I mean quite the opposite)
> The cop (and the law) can't distinguish between who can handle 80 mph down a country road and who can't
Nope, but they can distinguish between who has smashed into someone else and who has gotten to their endpoint safely.
> That is why there are speed limits that apply equally to everyone.
Except for cops themselves. Yeah, they have certain training, but that does not make them awesome drivers. It almost always makes them better than average. If training was the key, NASCAR drivers should be able to go 200 on the freeway, but no, cops are allowed to break the law when it suits their purposes. Of course, if it's flagrant and publicized enough, they might get suspended with pay or something, but that's about it.
> You might think you are a better driver than most
Actually, no. I'm a pretty average driver, and I almost always drive w/in 5mph of the speed limit. Just because I don't do something myself does not mean that I feel that no one should be able to.
> he is going to pull you over and give you a ticket. Good! You deserve it.
And that is our fundamental differing. I believe that laws should be there to punish people who do bad things, not to limit your ability to do things that aren't bad. If I wreck & kill somebody, I deserve to go to jail because I deprived them of life due to my irresponsibility. If I am speeding down a deserted desert highway, I am causing no risk to anyone but, possibly, myself. However, I could still get thrown in jail for going too fast. You can say that a child could run across the street. They can do that while I'm going 45mph, same result.
> you are less likely to be able to stop quickly, and poor handling due to bad roads is amplified.
All of which are taken care of when the driver takes responsibly for his actions. I consider tailgating at 25 MUCH more dangerous than simply driving fast. If you are responsible, you leave a lot of room between you & the person in front of you. If road conditions are bad enough, you shouldn't even drive at the currently-posted speed limit. Don't swerve, especially the assholes who go like mad from lane to lane. That's irresponsible. If there is heavy traffic, of course, don't expect to go flying past people on the median -- THAT is absurd. That is personal responsibility.
> Is there a speed that you think is unsafe?
If the driver can always keep control of the vehicle under the conditions, the vehicle can handle the speed well, the driver is RESPONSIBLE (such as knowing the braking distance for your car at a given speed, if you are going very fast -- but that is part of keeping control), then no. It's all about personal responsibility... My phrase of the day.
> Or is it all about the mad 5k1lz of the driver in your mind?
I wouldn't put it quite so l33tly, but yes, that is basically what it is about.
> I was a witness in a criminal case against a woman who lost control of her car and killed two people, injuring another 4. What was she doing that was so bad?
Not keeping control of her car, or not knowing the road & conditions well enough on the road she was driving. I'm not suggesting everyone go 80MPH around 90 degree turns in the snow, that's lunacy...
> So tell the family that lost their parents speeding didn't harm anyone else. Moron.
The speed was inconsequential. She could have been going the actual speed limit and lost control, THE SAME RESULT WOULD HAVE OCURRED, and she STILL would have been liable for... what? Losing control of her car. IT WASL THE LOSS OF CONTROL THAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT, NOT THE SPEED. And if the family brought it up to me and asked if I thought that the speed was what killed those people, yes, I would correct them.
You call me a moron, yet you haven't even thought about the case you were a witness to? You KNOW it could have been the same result at a lower speed, but instead, you let your emotions take over in place of logic. That is very dangerous.
If the case was as you present to me, I hope that woman went to jail. But don't kid yourself & lie to me in saying that speed was the defining point in the case. It was the lack of control, which is where personal responsibility comes into it.
Sorry about another post, but I accidentally left this out.
> How fast does someone have to be going before you think they are risking harm to others?
About the speed of light, as long as they do so safely (and their vehicle can handle it -- that's something important I left out before -- my car simply will not go 95mph safely, so I don't). By your logic, if speed = risk, you better stay the hell away from airplanes.
If someone can't control a car at 85 on a highway, they have no business being behind the wheel of a car, even doing 35 on a long desolate road.
-----
> You are either trolling or 15. Maybe both.
In response to your statement to that other guy, age does not equal wisdom, and CERTAINLY not intelligence. His statement was very basic and sound in its reasoning. IMO, my statements were as well. Yet you, who seem to claim the high ground *booming announcer voice* "in the name of safety" */voice* have not given either of us any logical reasons why we are wrong. You are simply saying "this is how it is." I show how you may be wrong, and you simply act incredulous and repeat yourself. That isn't doing anyone any good.
Since you brought age into it, just saying "that's how it is" is the cowardly cry of stubborn old men who can't get their way, so they don't want anyone else to either -- not to say you are an old crab, I don't know you.
> How is driving above the speed limit (to the point where you frequently get ticketed) not harming others?
How is driving under the speed limit not harming others? Your logic is completely flawed. The speed is not the issue in your statement, but you are claiming it is. Simply driving faster does NOT increase the RISK of an accident. It is flat-out wrong to say it does. It DOES increase the potential damage when one occurs, but that is not evidence in any way. If that is what you are relying on, you can say that there are fewer fatalities under 20 MPH, so that should be the nationwide speed limit. It just doesn't make any sense.
> Your speeding is not just a pretend crime, you are endangering my life and causing untold harm to the economy.
Bullshit. I am not endangering your life IN ANY WAY by speeding. Cutting someone off, rubbernecking, etc. are what endanger your life, not speed. Speed does NOT kill, driving recklessly does.
And THE ECONOMY? Do you often pull irrelevant things out of your ass? Where the heck does THAT come in? HOW, exactly, is the economy effected in ANY way by me speeding? If anything, I get to work faster so I get a few more dollars of pay to spend in the economy, and my gas mileage goes down, so I'm spending more at the pump -- more tax dollars into "the system."
If the only differenc in my driving is that I go 80 instead of 65, you are really effected in no way whatsoever. The only difference is that you get mad (note: I don't MAKE you mad, you are the only one causing the anger) for some reason, which in this case, would appear to the outsider to be self-righteous -- especially when you present bullshit reasons.
What is the REAL reason you get mad? That if you were to drive that fast you might get a ticket, but when you see someone else going 100mph, there's never a cop around?
> A few large caiber bullets into your vehicle seems quite appropriate.
A few small calibre bullets into your head would cure you of your anger... One well-placed one, even. Hell a pointy stick could do the trick. It seems like you're getting upset for the sake of getting upset.
> That'd be 'timeshifting' the movie, a perfectly legal thing to do.
Not for a public performance. Timeshifting is moving something when you paid a license fee to use it. A public performance is a one-shot deal and does not follow the same rules as a tape or DVD, so no, it isn't a perfectly legal thing to do.
> If you bring a lawsuit against them, you will lose, and because of the frivolousness of your suit, you will be paying their legal fees.
Did you read what the hypothetical case actually was? It regards HIPAA, a federal law. If an ISP gives out or acts on Protected Health Information (ePHI) in an EMail or anything like that, they can be sued, nothing frivolous about it, and it certainly won't be "tossed out." That is a very serious accusation which requires investigating.
> Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it untrue.
Okay, I'll bite. Just because YOU think the problem is the porn and not some natural desire, doesn't make it the problem. Maybe you just don't get enough sex, I don't know. I didn't say you blamed me. The reason I got +1 AND -1 karma is because it's all based in opinion, which I said and you ignored. The +1 because I said something of value. -1 because someone thought I was an ass. I don't post to get karma, it does not matter to me. I wasn't loud, however I was just as opinionated as you were. Don't blame me for being who I am. As soon as two people start discussing anything, there are bound to be disagreements, but please don't call me ignorant just because I disagree with yours.
I HAVE had plenty of addictions, I would probably be called an alcoholic at the moment. I know suffering, whether or not you believe it. I also know that the cause of a lot of my suffering is myself. Yes, some of it is external and I have no control over it, but you CAN control your porn addiction. That's all I have to say on this subject, as I'm sure you don't want to hear any more of it (I don't mean that as an insult).
Slashdot Mirror
> What that the poor sods couldn't go to the loo.
I think he was inferring that people were stealing entire rolls at a time to take home, not that they were using too much for normal use.
D'oh, you are, of course, right.
> Can I sell or give away old versions of my products when I acquire an upgrade?
When you acquire an upgrade. That's not what you were arguing. If you buy a new, FULL version of the software, you can sell your old one.
> Gee, did you guys know that you shouldn't stick a lit cigarette in your eye?
> Don't use hot sauce for you 'roids!
OMG, Yoo jus savd I a hole latta hurtin'. Tancs fer the wyse ad vise, frend!
Anyway... I agree. However, isn't that the whole point of slapping a warning label on everything in the store? Like idiots who want Surgeon General warnings all over the front of packs of cigarettes? Like I just hadn't ever noticed them before, being on the side of the box.
BTW, next time you're walking down the street, it might be a good idea to restrain yourself from diving headfirst through a plate-glass storefront window screaming "Allah be praised!" Just a bit of everyday worldly wisdow from a guy who's made "mistakes." (apologies to any Muslims reading)
> What does being a hardware moron have to do with liking Macs?
Ummm... maybe because using a Mac pretty much excludes you from doing any hardware work? I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but given the context of the article, you're jumping a bit too quickly.
That, and it's a joke! He wasn't trying to insult you, as you took it, he was trying to make other people laugh.
> not everyone is in your situtation.
The difference is that your company's choice of policies got them where they are, nothing else. If a company is not able to adapt quickly enough, they have only themselves to blame for having too much "business overhead" slowing them down.
> Why is the failure of another OS to control the fans correctly Apple's problem?
Because it's a design flaw, or at least a dumb idea.
> The also sell 'spill covers' for keyboards
AKA, "Keyboard Condom"
> Killing mentally disabled, handicaped and uncurable ill people is called euthanasia, and that was "only" one part of the Holocaust.
Hitler thought that being Jewish, Polish, etc. was a disability, so it was euthanasia all around.
> the most grand of all High School sports!!
You played dodgeball in High School? Geez, we were past that in like 6th grade...
> It seems only fair that the other party gets to do the same, even if the odds are in their favor overall.
Except that they are the ones offering a service. If their service no longer makes money, it is their job to stop offering it, not to just stop offering it to select people. That's bull, plain and simple. Just because I'm lucky, they can discriminate and stop me from playing any more? I don't accept that.
> Are you going to argue the point that there's not a correlation between speeding and accidents?
Well, yes I am. The majority of accidents on the road happen at lower speeds inside city limits, usually when someone ignores stop signs or stop lights.
HOWEVER, there is a corrolation between speed and the intensity of the results. So it may be true that speeding puts you at a higher risk of dieing in such an accident, but if you start spinning out of control at 65 or at 80, you're pretty well f'ed either way.
Hehe, yup. Or a semi, or train, or... a brick wall (he did say any accident).
I hope no one actually thought this was flamebait, I said "utter craziness" to be silly, not to call anyone stupid.
> It was the speed that caused the loss of control.
... faster than she could safely handle... She didn't know how to drive responsibly, yes it's here fault. Speed was the result of her choices. She is the one that chose to drive that fast. It's like saying SUVs kill people. No they don't, it's people driving the SUVs that kill people, not the vehicles themselves. (Plz don't take that as a cheap shot on SUVs, I mean quite the opposite)
No, it was the woman driving irresponsibly that caused the lack of control. That irresponsible action took the form of driving faster than she could safely handle.
> The cop (and the law) can't distinguish between who can handle 80 mph down a country road and who can't
Nope, but they can distinguish between who has smashed into someone else and who has gotten to their endpoint safely.
> That is why there are speed limits that apply equally to everyone.
Except for cops themselves. Yeah, they have certain training, but that does not make them awesome drivers. It almost always makes them better than average. If training was the key, NASCAR drivers should be able to go 200 on the freeway, but no, cops are allowed to break the law when it suits their purposes. Of course, if it's flagrant and publicized enough, they might get suspended with pay or something, but that's about it.
> You might think you are a better driver than most
Actually, no. I'm a pretty average driver, and I almost always drive w/in 5mph of the speed limit. Just because I don't do something myself does not mean that I feel that no one should be able to.
> he is going to pull you over and give you a ticket. Good! You deserve it.
And that is our fundamental differing. I believe that laws should be there to punish people who do bad things, not to limit your ability to do things that aren't bad. If I wreck & kill somebody, I deserve to go to jail because I deprived them of life due to my irresponsibility. If I am speeding down a deserted desert highway, I am causing no risk to anyone but, possibly, myself. However, I could still get thrown in jail for going too fast. You can say that a child could run across the street. They can do that while I'm going 45mph, same result.
> you are less likely to be able to stop quickly, and poor handling due to bad roads is amplified.
All of which are taken care of when the driver takes responsibly for his actions. I consider tailgating at 25 MUCH more dangerous than simply driving fast. If you are responsible, you leave a lot of room between you & the person in front of you. If road conditions are bad enough, you shouldn't even drive at the currently-posted speed limit. Don't swerve, especially the assholes who go like mad from lane to lane. That's irresponsible. If there is heavy traffic, of course, don't expect to go flying past people on the median -- THAT is absurd. That is personal responsibility.
> Is there a speed that you think is unsafe?
If the driver can always keep control of the vehicle under the conditions, the vehicle can handle the speed well, the driver is RESPONSIBLE (such as knowing the braking distance for your car at a given speed, if you are going very fast -- but that is part of keeping control), then no. It's all about personal responsibility... My phrase of the day.
> Or is it all about the mad 5k1lz of the driver in your mind?
I wouldn't put it quite so l33tly, but yes, that is basically what it is about.
> I was a witness in a criminal case against a woman who lost control of her car and killed two people, injuring another 4. What was she doing that was so bad?
Not keeping control of her car, or not knowing the road & conditions well enough on the road she was driving. I'm not suggesting everyone go 80MPH around 90 degree turns in the snow, that's lunacy...
> So tell the family that lost their parents speeding didn't harm anyone else. Moron.
The speed was inconsequential. She could have been going the actual speed limit and lost control, THE SAME RESULT WOULD HAVE OCURRED, and she STILL would have been liable for... what? Losing control of her car. IT WASL THE LOSS OF CONTROL THAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT, NOT THE SPEED. And if the family brought it up to me and asked if I thought that the speed was what killed those people, yes, I would correct them.
You call me a moron, yet you haven't even thought about the case you were a witness to? You KNOW it could have been the same result at a lower speed, but instead, you let your emotions take over in place of logic. That is very dangerous.
If the case was as you present to me, I hope that woman went to jail. But don't kid yourself & lie to me in saying that speed was the defining point in the case. It was the lack of control, which is where personal responsibility comes into it.
Sorry about another post, but I accidentally left this out.
> How fast does someone have to be going before you think they are risking harm to others?
About the speed of light, as long as they do so safely (and their vehicle can handle it -- that's something important I left out before -- my car simply will not go 95mph safely, so I don't). By your logic, if speed = risk, you better stay the hell away from airplanes.
If someone can't control a car at 85 on a highway, they have no business being behind the wheel of a car, even doing 35 on a long desolate road.
-----
> You are either trolling or 15. Maybe both.
In response to your statement to that other guy, age does not equal wisdom, and CERTAINLY not intelligence. His statement was very basic and sound in its reasoning. IMO, my statements were as well. Yet you, who seem to claim the high ground *booming announcer voice* "in the name of safety" */voice* have not given either of us any logical reasons why we are wrong. You are simply saying "this is how it is." I show how you may be wrong, and you simply act incredulous and repeat yourself. That isn't doing anyone any good.
Since you brought age into it, just saying "that's how it is" is the cowardly cry of stubborn old men who can't get their way, so they don't want anyone else to either -- not to say you are an old crab, I don't know you.
> How is driving above the speed limit (to the point where you frequently get ticketed) not harming others?
How is driving under the speed limit not harming others? Your logic is completely flawed. The speed is not the issue in your statement, but you are claiming it is. Simply driving faster does NOT increase the RISK of an accident. It is flat-out wrong to say it does. It DOES increase the potential damage when one occurs, but that is not evidence in any way. If that is what you are relying on, you can say that there are fewer fatalities under 20 MPH, so that should be the nationwide speed limit. It just doesn't make any sense.
> Your speeding is not just a pretend crime, you are endangering my life and causing untold harm to the economy.
Bullshit. I am not endangering your life IN ANY WAY by speeding. Cutting someone off, rubbernecking, etc. are what endanger your life, not speed. Speed does NOT kill, driving recklessly does.
And THE ECONOMY? Do you often pull irrelevant things out of your ass? Where the heck does THAT come in? HOW, exactly, is the economy effected in ANY way by me speeding? If anything, I get to work faster so I get a few more dollars of pay to spend in the economy, and my gas mileage goes down, so I'm spending more at the pump -- more tax dollars into "the system."
If the only differenc in my driving is that I go 80 instead of 65, you are really effected in no way whatsoever. The only difference is that you get mad (note: I don't MAKE you mad, you are the only one causing the anger) for some reason, which in this case, would appear to the outsider to be self-righteous -- especially when you present bullshit reasons.
What is the REAL reason you get mad? That if you were to drive that fast you might get a ticket, but when you see someone else going 100mph, there's never a cop around?
> A few large caiber bullets into your vehicle seems quite appropriate.
A few small calibre bullets into your head would cure you of your anger... One well-placed one, even. Hell a pointy stick could do the trick. It seems like you're getting upset for the sake of getting upset.
> That'd be 'timeshifting' the movie, a perfectly legal thing to do.
Not for a public performance. Timeshifting is moving something when you paid a license fee to use it. A public performance is a one-shot deal and does not follow the same rules as a tape or DVD, so no, it isn't a perfectly legal thing to do.
> Your brother should try driving slower. It's a lot less hassle.
Your policemen should stop trying to hassle people who aren't doing anything to harm anyone else.
> Cue "It's not stealing! It's copyright infringement!" arguments...
Yep, because it's fucking true.
> If you bring a lawsuit against them, you will lose, and because of the frivolousness of your suit, you will be paying their legal fees.
Did you read what the hypothetical case actually was? It regards HIPAA, a federal law. If an ISP gives out or acts on Protected Health Information (ePHI) in an EMail or anything like that, they can be sued, nothing frivolous about it, and it certainly won't be "tossed out." That is a very serious accusation which requires investigating.
> Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it untrue.
Okay, I'll bite. Just because YOU think the problem is the porn and not some natural desire, doesn't make it the problem. Maybe you just don't get enough sex, I don't know. I didn't say you blamed me. The reason I got +1 AND -1 karma is because it's all based in opinion, which I said and you ignored. The +1 because I said something of value. -1 because someone thought I was an ass. I don't post to get karma, it does not matter to me. I wasn't loud, however I was just as opinionated as you were. Don't blame me for being who I am. As soon as two people start discussing anything, there are bound to be disagreements, but please don't call me ignorant just because I disagree with yours.
I HAVE had plenty of addictions, I would probably be called an alcoholic at the moment. I know suffering, whether or not you believe it. I also know that the cause of a lot of my suffering is myself. Yes, some of it is external and I have no control over it, but you CAN control your porn addiction. That's all I have to say on this subject, as I'm sure you don't want to hear any more of it (I don't mean that as an insult).