A house built in 1953 is by no means 'ancient' or necessarily run down. One of my friends has a house (in a city) built in 1850. It is not 'ancient' (it is old) and it is certainly not run down.
If you are going to pretend to be a constituitional scholar, you should probably at least learn the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here's a hint: the Constitution does not say anything is inalienable.
If someone is looking at you like that, I can think of two reasons. Either you are trying to call attention to yourself, or anger. Since people who try to call attention to themselves seldom complain when attention is paid, I am going with anger. So what is it about your driving that is causing multiple people to be angry? Do you approach the intersection too fast, giving the impression you are not going to stop? Do you appear that you are going to pull out in front of someone whether it is safe or not? Do you appear to be doing something unrelated to driving? Have you missed a signal that they are letting you out? Are you stopped too far into the roadway?
The post you responded to with your claim that pumping the brakes was a horrible idea was about how ordinary drivers driving ordinary cars were taught to stop in SLICK conditions. Why is your response about a performance car (good steering feedback, stiff suspension) with an experienced driver stopping in DRY conditions?
And the reality is, contrary to your assertion, is that braking on a slick surface gives you almost no feedback until you notice the car is starting to change directions, by which point it may be too late. You certainly can not tell that a single wheel has locked up. This is why, in slick conditions, pumping the brakes is the CORRECT thing to do. You can not tell if one or two wheels have locked until it is too late, so rapidly pump the brakes so even if they have locked up they get rolling again.
Again, the point of pumping the brakes and ABS is not to shorten stopping distance, it is to enable you to maintain control of the vehicle. Increased stopping distance is easily compensated for by leaving more room and driving slower in slick conditions.
Completely wrong on both. Paying attention to other drivers is an important part of paying attention to traffic conditions, as any defensive driving course will tell you. To use your example, if you pull out of a driveway 'a bit', YOU are my most immediate threat. Until I make eye contact with you I have no idea what the hell you are going to do or even if you have seen me. This is one of the reasons why playing with your damn phone is stupid even at a stop - you are unnecessarily distracting other drivers.
As for being able to tell if someone is playing with their phone, that is also extremely easy to detect by anyone who is actually paying attention to driving. Two of the biggest giveaways are: unable to hold a steady speed, and unable to maintain lane without drifting and correcting. You see either of those, you know you either have a drunk or phone idiot. And in either case, YOUR safety involves noticing that fact.
Nice strawman, take long to construct? In case you didn't know, there are actual problems associated with poor nutrition, which is why we have mandatory nutritiion information. And there are actual problems with some ingredients, such as allergies and sensitivities, which is why the ingredients are listed.
But there are an awful lot of things that 'people want to know' that are NOT mandatory. These are not mandatory because there are no known health issues associated with them. This includes things like: is the food kosher or halal (or gasp! tref), was this cow fed with corn or grass, exactly what breed of pig was this, whether the tomato was harvested by immigrants, whether the sprouts were fertilized only with unicorn poop, etc. GMO belongs firmly in this second category.
What ABS does is similar to a person pumping the brakes. It automatically changes the pressure in your car's brake lines to maintain maximum brake performance just short of locking up the wheels. ABS does this very rapidly with electronics.
So what if not all non-GMO food is labeled? Nothing is stopping the manufacturers from labeling it as such. If enough people cared about non-GMO then there would be a significant economic benefit to labeling.
Are you seriously suggesting the US should change its labeling laws to please FORIEGN anti-GMO nuts? No thanks.
I would back off my claims of FUD if one of the antis would ever give a reason that did not involve FUD. Every one of their reasons is some sort of restatement of 'They could be dangerous, but we don't have any way of knowing'. If you can find anything other than Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in that statement please let us know what it is.
ABS has NEVER been about stopping distance. ABS is about keeping control of the vehicle while stopping, ie not getting into a skid or slide.
When I learned to drive (long before ABS was popular), a whole lot of the training was on how to stop in slick conditions. Step 1: do not stomp on the brakes. Step 2: PUMP the brakes quickly so the wheels don't lock up and send you into a skid. Step 3: When step 2 fails, get off the brakes and steer into the direction of the skid to try and recover from it.
Note that if step 1 and 2 are properly followed your stopping DISTANCE is increased.
For the first 20 years or so of driving I used those three steps, including step 3 way more often than I would like (never had an accident though). Since I have a car with ABS, never had to use those steps, because the ABS is taking care of steps 1 and 2, and since it does it far better than I did step 3 hasn't been required.
Yes, there are contrived situations where a person could do better than ABS, but on the whole ABS is much better.
No, you do NOT need a law. There are labels RIGHT NOW, with no law, that explicitly state either non GMO or Organic. Use your brain for a change and make the giant leap that everything NOT so labeled is GMO. Is that really so hard?
Again, the push for labels is NOT so people who want to eat only non GMO foods can do that (they can already do that if they are capable of thought), it is to spread FUD. The anti GMO nuts think if they get the labeling it will scare everyone off of GMO (why would they have to label it if it wasn't bad), and farmers will stop using GMO like they did in Europe. And Europe spends TWICE as much on food as a percentage of income than the US does. And THAT is the reason your 'doesn't cost you anything' line is bullshit.
Again, you can't say that ANYTHING has 'no problems'. So why single out GMO as requiring labeling? Do you think that the organic sprouts you buy today have the exact same genome as those which you bought last year, or that next year will be the same as this year? If so, you are an idiot. If not, then why don't THOSE genetic differences require a label?
In this case you say that we don't know there aren't any problems with the modification, so it must be labeled. That means you must think there is a chance that the modification makes the food dangerous. But what if that modification happened naturally? What if it happened through organic methods like radio or chemical mutagenesis? Now it is suddenly safe? Maybe we should just print the exact genome of EVERYTHING on the label so geniuses like you can make sure they are safe.
As for 'rights' - nobody is trying to FORCE anyone to do anything except you. That is the right you don't have. As for why I care - it is because I have an interest in keeping my food costs as low as possible.
Except that you don't know there is no problem with ANYTHING. Therefore that is an impossible request. And, as I pointed out, you CAN buy stuff that explicitly marked non GMO, so if you are so paranoid about it eat only that stuff or stuff labeled organic. Nobody is forcing you to eat anything.
Mandatory labels should only be required in cases where there is an actual known problem with something. Voluntary labels can be used right now. In fact, one of the things I had for dinner had a little 'non GMO' label on it. The only reason the anti GMO nuts want mandatory labels is so they can use them to spread FUD.
There is no 'pricetag' on the lifetime of a person. People get paid not for existing, but for what they do or have. Zuckerberg created a company. Many people thought their lives would be improved if they owned a piece of that company, so they each VOLUNTARILY paid him a relatively small amount for a piece. In the process, he became rich. There was no value judgement on the value of Zuckerberg's or anyone else's life. They wanted what he had, so he sold it to them.
Prodigy was a joint venture between IBM and Sears, in 1984. One of the things you could do with it was online shopping. In 1988 it hosted what is considered the first eCommerce company in the US, PC Flowers.
What a crock. Everyone has their own reasons for doing whatever they do. Some people do good things to please another person, some do them because they believe in an afterlife, some do them for their own egos, some do them to look good. Who the fuck cares what the motivation is? Important things are being done, and people's lives are better for it.
Then there are people like the author, and you, who try to build up their own pitiful egos by tearing down others. The only difference in the two approaches is that the philanthropist actually accomplishes something positive for others, and you don't.
A favorite target of the 'inequity' crowd seems to be Walmart. And why not, after all their average employee makes about $15K/year, while the CEO makes $26M. Until you do math, that is. There are 2.2M employees. Paying the CEO the same as everyone else, assuming you could find someone to do the job, would result in an extra $10 PER YEAR for each employee. Man, that is sure going to make their lives better.
I agree with most of what you said, but think you unfairly slammed Make A Wish. $58M is about 1% of what the NIH alone spends on cancer research every year. Is an extra 1% really going to make that big of a difference? People and businesses who donate to Make A Wish know they are not funding research, they think they are making some poor dying kid happy for a little while. What is wrong with that? And if you are going to criticize how people choose to spend their money, there are FAR bigger targets. For instance, how much was spent last year to get the latest shiny smart phone, or on video games, music, movies, and sporting events.
The judge understands perfectly well, it is you and many other posters who do not understand. This is happening pretrial. The only things in play now are matters of law.
The DMCA says that if you notify subscribers when you are notified of claimed infringement, and if after repeated notifications you cut them off, then you can not be sued for facilitating infringement. Cox claims they get this protection, but they admit they did not do the above, as you yourself stated. Therefore, as a matter of law, they don't get the protection.
So what does that all mean? Well, first of all it does not mean that the judge is biased or has made an error. It does not mean that the judge has sided with anyone. It does not mean that Cox has lost the case. And it certainly doesn't mean that the judge doesn't understand. What it does mean is that there is an actual dispute as to the facts of the case, and disputes of facts are to resolved by juries, not judges. It very well may be that when a jury hears the case they decide that BMG was in fact unreasonable, and therefore they lose the suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Lead solder was banned from residential plumbing on June 19, 1986.
Lead solder was used on copper pipes in most homes until 1980. Many cities (including the one I live in) have solid lead pipes as water mains.
A house built in 1953 is by no means 'ancient' or necessarily run down. One of my friends has a house (in a city) built in 1850. It is not 'ancient' (it is old) and it is certainly not run down.
If you are going to pretend to be a constituitional scholar, you should probably at least learn the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here's a hint: the Constitution does not say anything is inalienable.
Why would the three companies have to compete with each other? There are other very large companies in those businesses.
If someone is looking at you like that, I can think of two reasons. Either you are trying to call attention to yourself, or anger. Since people who try to call attention to themselves seldom complain when attention is paid, I am going with anger. So what is it about your driving that is causing multiple people to be angry? Do you approach the intersection too fast, giving the impression you are not going to stop? Do you appear that you are going to pull out in front of someone whether it is safe or not? Do you appear to be doing something unrelated to driving? Have you missed a signal that they are letting you out? Are you stopped too far into the roadway?
The post you responded to with your claim that pumping the brakes was a horrible idea was about how ordinary drivers driving ordinary cars were taught to stop in SLICK conditions. Why is your response about a performance car (good steering feedback, stiff suspension) with an experienced driver stopping in DRY conditions?
And the reality is, contrary to your assertion, is that braking on a slick surface gives you almost no feedback until you notice the car is starting to change directions, by which point it may be too late. You certainly can not tell that a single wheel has locked up. This is why, in slick conditions, pumping the brakes is the CORRECT thing to do. You can not tell if one or two wheels have locked until it is too late, so rapidly pump the brakes so even if they have locked up they get rolling again.
Again, the point of pumping the brakes and ABS is not to shorten stopping distance, it is to enable you to maintain control of the vehicle. Increased stopping distance is easily compensated for by leaving more room and driving slower in slick conditions.
Completely wrong on both. Paying attention to other drivers is an important part of paying attention to traffic conditions, as any defensive driving course will tell you. To use your example, if you pull out of a driveway 'a bit', YOU are my most immediate threat. Until I make eye contact with you I have no idea what the hell you are going to do or even if you have seen me. This is one of the reasons why playing with your damn phone is stupid even at a stop - you are unnecessarily distracting other drivers.
As for being able to tell if someone is playing with their phone, that is also extremely easy to detect by anyone who is actually paying attention to driving. Two of the biggest giveaways are: unable to hold a steady speed, and unable to maintain lane without drifting and correcting. You see either of those, you know you either have a drunk or phone idiot. And in either case, YOUR safety involves noticing that fact.
Nice strawman, take long to construct? In case you didn't know, there are actual problems associated with poor nutrition, which is why we have mandatory nutritiion information. And there are actual problems with some ingredients, such as allergies and sensitivities, which is why the ingredients are listed.
But there are an awful lot of things that 'people want to know' that are NOT mandatory. These are not mandatory because there are no known health issues associated with them. This includes things like: is the food kosher or halal (or gasp! tref), was this cow fed with corn or grass, exactly what breed of pig was this, whether the tomato was harvested by immigrants, whether the sprouts were fertilized only with unicorn poop, etc. GMO belongs firmly in this second category.
'Apply pressure then let off...'. Hmm, seems like a heard that somewhere else with a different name. Now what was it? Oh, yeah, PUMPING THE BRAKES.
Pumping the brakes has never meant 'stomp on then completely release the brakes'. It means to modulate the pressure so as to prevent lockup.
Here is what the NHTSA says ABS is:
What ABS does is similar to a person pumping the brakes. It automatically changes the pressure in your car's brake lines to maintain maximum brake performance just short of locking up the wheels. ABS does this very rapidly with electronics.
Emphasis mine.
So what if not all non-GMO food is labeled? Nothing is stopping the manufacturers from labeling it as such. If enough people cared about non-GMO then there would be a significant economic benefit to labeling.
Are you seriously suggesting the US should change its labeling laws to please FORIEGN anti-GMO nuts? No thanks.
I would back off my claims of FUD if one of the antis would ever give a reason that did not involve FUD. Every one of their reasons is some sort of restatement of 'They could be dangerous, but we don't have any way of knowing'. If you can find anything other than Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in that statement please let us know what it is.
ABS has NEVER been about stopping distance. ABS is about keeping control of the vehicle while stopping, ie not getting into a skid or slide.
When I learned to drive (long before ABS was popular), a whole lot of the training was on how to stop in slick conditions. Step 1: do not stomp on the brakes. Step 2: PUMP the brakes quickly so the wheels don't lock up and send you into a skid. Step 3: When step 2 fails, get off the brakes and steer into the direction of the skid to try and recover from it.
Note that if step 1 and 2 are properly followed your stopping DISTANCE is increased.
For the first 20 years or so of driving I used those three steps, including step 3 way more often than I would like (never had an accident though). Since I have a car with ABS, never had to use those steps, because the ABS is taking care of steps 1 and 2, and since it does it far better than I did step 3 hasn't been required.
Yes, there are contrived situations where a person could do better than ABS, but on the whole ABS is much better.
No, you do NOT need a law. There are labels RIGHT NOW, with no law, that explicitly state either non GMO or Organic. Use your brain for a change and make the giant leap that everything NOT so labeled is GMO. Is that really so hard?
Again, the push for labels is NOT so people who want to eat only non GMO foods can do that (they can already do that if they are capable of thought), it is to spread FUD. The anti GMO nuts think if they get the labeling it will scare everyone off of GMO (why would they have to label it if it wasn't bad), and farmers will stop using GMO like they did in Europe. And Europe spends TWICE as much on food as a percentage of income than the US does. And THAT is the reason your 'doesn't cost you anything' line is bullshit.
Again, you can't say that ANYTHING has 'no problems'. So why single out GMO as requiring labeling? Do you think that the organic sprouts you buy today have the exact same genome as those which you bought last year, or that next year will be the same as this year? If so, you are an idiot. If not, then why don't THOSE genetic differences require a label?
In this case you say that we don't know there aren't any problems with the modification, so it must be labeled. That means you must think there is a chance that the modification makes the food dangerous. But what if that modification happened naturally? What if it happened through organic methods like radio or chemical mutagenesis? Now it is suddenly safe? Maybe we should just print the exact genome of EVERYTHING on the label so geniuses like you can make sure they are safe.
As for 'rights' - nobody is trying to FORCE anyone to do anything except you. That is the right you don't have. As for why I care - it is because I have an interest in keeping my food costs as low as possible.
Except that you don't know there is no problem with ANYTHING. Therefore that is an impossible request. And, as I pointed out, you CAN buy stuff that explicitly marked non GMO, so if you are so paranoid about it eat only that stuff or stuff labeled organic. Nobody is forcing you to eat anything.
Mandatory labels should only be required in cases where there is an actual known problem with something. Voluntary labels can be used right now. In fact, one of the things I had for dinner had a little 'non GMO' label on it. The only reason the anti GMO nuts want mandatory labels is so they can use them to spread FUD.
Uh, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constituttion. That is where guns (well, 'arms') are mentioned.
Completely false. Let's see any reputable source backing that up. In actuallity, less than 5% of their money comes from the firearms industry.
There is no 'pricetag' on the lifetime of a person. People get paid not for existing, but for what they do or have. Zuckerberg created a company. Many people thought their lives would be improved if they owned a piece of that company, so they each VOLUNTARILY paid him a relatively small amount for a piece. In the process, he became rich. There was no value judgement on the value of Zuckerberg's or anyone else's life. They wanted what he had, so he sold it to them.
No, it doesn't. Charitable giving is a deduction, not a credit. Deductions reduce your total, not earned, income.
Prodigy was a joint venture between IBM and Sears, in 1984. One of the things you could do with it was online shopping. In 1988 it hosted what is considered the first eCommerce company in the US, PC Flowers.
What a crock. Everyone has their own reasons for doing whatever they do. Some people do good things to please another person, some do them because they believe in an afterlife, some do them for their own egos, some do them to look good. Who the fuck cares what the motivation is? Important things are being done, and people's lives are better for it.
Then there are people like the author, and you, who try to build up their own pitiful egos by tearing down others. The only difference in the two approaches is that the philanthropist actually accomplishes something positive for others, and you don't.
A favorite target of the 'inequity' crowd seems to be Walmart. And why not, after all their average employee makes about $15K/year, while the CEO makes $26M. Until you do math, that is. There are 2.2M employees. Paying the CEO the same as everyone else, assuming you could find someone to do the job, would result in an extra $10 PER YEAR for each employee. Man, that is sure going to make their lives better.
I agree with most of what you said, but think you unfairly slammed Make A Wish. $58M is about 1% of what the NIH alone spends on cancer research every year. Is an extra 1% really going to make that big of a difference? People and businesses who donate to Make A Wish know they are not funding research, they think they are making some poor dying kid happy for a little while. What is wrong with that? And if you are going to criticize how people choose to spend their money, there are FAR bigger targets. For instance, how much was spent last year to get the latest shiny smart phone, or on video games, music, movies, and sporting events.
The judge understands perfectly well, it is you and many other posters who do not understand. This is happening pretrial. The only things in play now are matters of law.
The DMCA says that if you notify subscribers when you are notified of claimed infringement, and if after repeated notifications you cut them off, then you can not be sued for facilitating infringement. Cox claims they get this protection, but they admit they did not do the above, as you yourself stated. Therefore, as a matter of law, they don't get the protection.
So what does that all mean? Well, first of all it does not mean that the judge is biased or has made an error. It does not mean that the judge has sided with anyone. It does not mean that Cox has lost the case. And it certainly doesn't mean that the judge doesn't understand. What it does mean is that there is an actual dispute as to the facts of the case, and disputes of facts are to resolved by juries, not judges. It very well may be that when a jury hears the case they decide that BMG was in fact unreasonable, and therefore they lose the suit.