'Single lane' roundabouts are not the problem, and the rules for those are the same here. The problem is multi-lane roundabouts, and the rules for those a stupid, and that is the problem. The multi-lane rules are: if you will be getting off at the first exit (ie a right-hand turn), start in the right lane, stay in the right lane, and exit from the right lane. If you will be getting off AFTER the second exit (ie, a left-hand turn), start in the left lane, stay in the left lane, and directly exit from the left lane. But, if you are getting off at the second exit (ie straight though), then you can start in either lane, stay in that lane, and exit from that lane. That means you may be crossing the first exit, while someone on the inside lane is trying to exit there.
According to the rules, YOU are the one who doesn't know how to use a roundabout.
When approaching the roundabout, you should be in the left-hand lane to make a left-hand turn:
As you approach the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them. Yield to oncoming traffic at the yield line.
When sufficient space and time to enter traffic occur, enter the roundabout. You should enter to the inside path (left side) of the circulatory roadway.
Use your right turn signal to let other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians know that you are exiting the roundabout at the next exit as soon as you pass the exit prior to the desired exit.
Stay to the left, the inside path, until you come to the desired exit. You will now proceed from the inside path (left side) of the circulatory roadway, across the outside path (right side), and exit the roundabout in the inside (left) exit lane. When exiting from the inside path, watch for vehicles on the outside path that may continue to circulate around the roundabout. As you exit the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.
That 'move from the outside to the apex and back to the outside' crap you list? Not supposed to do it.
OK, 'genious', where did you get THAT incorrect piece of information? The militia of the United States is "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Other than bask in the warm glow of your own sense of superiority, what do you do for entertainment? Whatever it is, the exact same stupid statements can be made about it.
Well yeah, if you want to charge from empty to full overnight you would have to fast charge. But that would not usually be the case, would it? If you have 10x the energy, thus 10x the range, you could go 2500 miles on a charge. Nobody is doing that daily. So slow charge to 10% the first night, use half of that charge during the day, after the next night you are at 15%. In 20 days you will be at 100%, then you just need to keep it 'topped up'.
In order to be 'fined' or 'jailed', an infringer must commit CRIMINAL infringement. The criteria for criminal infringement is:
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
Obviously, 'sharing something with 10 of your friends online' does not qualify for criminal infringement, unless the thing you are sharing has a retail value of more than $100
There is no distinction made of the type of work (movies, records, software).
How, exactly, does one 'invest in blockchain', other than by buying stock in companies doing blockchain stuff? If you think buying BTC (or any other crypocurrency) is 'investing in blockchain', you are an idiot.
You are making a serious mistake. You are confusing a technology with a particular product that uses that technology. Cryptocurrency (blockchain) is the technology, Bitcoin is a product that uses the technology.
While there may be very good reasons to think that in 10, 20, or 30 years cryptocurrency will be in widespread use, there is ZERO reason to believe that Bitcoin will be the particular cryptocurrency in widespread use.
'We' have not decided that BTC has any value. 'We' may have decided that cryptocurrency has some value. Big difference.
How many car manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century survived long enough to see the widespread adoption of cars? How many internet companies at the start of the internet boom survived? How many PC companies at the start of the PC era survived to see widespead adoption?
You made a claim, now back it up. Give some examples. I don't want examples of people being prosecuted for leaking movies, we all now that happens. I want examples of complaints made by software developers, that fit the criteria of the law, that were not persued.
Owning something means that it belongs to you. You can sell it. You can keep the profits. You can gift it to someone else. You can do with it what you please. None of those are true with the Fed. There IS NO OWNER, no matter how much you want to claim there is.
Here is a list of the member banks of the fed (as of 2014). Every one of them is a 'shareholder' in the fed. I have no idea where this silly '12 shareholders' nonsense comes from
Whole lotta crazy there. The 'board' is a federal agency, appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
Any net income (profit) the banks earn goes directly to the US Treasury, not the 'shareholder' banks.
There is no such thing as 'the 12 shareholders'. Every bank that is part of the federal reserve system is a shareholder - there are approx 3000 of them.
I have no idea what you think is in that link you sent that supports your position in any way. Is this one of those things where if you take the third letter of every word it spells out a secret message or something?
US Copyright law, section 506 (criminal offences), under definitions:
'Work being prepared for commercial distribution' means: (A) a computer program , musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording... (emphasis mine).
You're missing the point. Being pressured to do unsafe things is different than doing them of your own accord. The outcome does not matter.
I have seen pictures of people climbing ladders placed on a stack of inverted buckets. By your logic, it should be OK for a roofing company to pressure workers to do that, as long as there are not more falls than the average dope that does that.
There must be a balance of risk to benefit. People, in general, are terrible at assessing risk. So we hire people who are trained in risk assessment, etc to help us out.
Bullshit. You do not need a 'control group'. The article (and headline) are not about whether or not gig-economy drivers are more or less safe than other drivers, it is about whether or not the 'pressures' of being a gig-economy driver are making them less safe than they would otherwise be. The given examples of things that make them unsafe is running red lights and speeding due to 'time pressure', using a required but distracting app, driving while too tired, etc. There is no possible way that you can spin that doing those things makes you 'safer' or even 'as safe' as someone who does not do them.
Did they correct WHAT for miles driven? There is nothing to correct.
The study was interviews of drivers. They reported things like running red lights and speeding because of 'time pressures'. They reported that they had to use distracting apps. They reported that they drive while too tired. None of that has anything to do with 'miles driven'.
The existence of the sand is not (and never was) a secret. The secrets are the processes used to purify it, and as TFA says, they were unable to get ANY information about that.
DMV? Good one. I just had the experience of 'proving' something to the DMV (NY). I needed to provide 2 'proofs of residence'. My mailing address is a PO box, as the wonderful USPS does not deliver to homes in our town. One of the proofs I had was my water/sewer bill. The bill has 'YOURTOWN WATER/SEWER DISTRICT' printed across the top, and had my address (street and house) listed as 'service to property'. The genius at the DMV would not accept that, because the 'service address' did not have the town listed. Exactly what town do they think 'Yourtown water/sewer district' serves?
But it gets better. They gave me a form, which could be used to 'prove' my address. This form could be filled out by anyone, including my spouse, saying that I lived at the address I said I did. The person filling out the form doesn't have to appear in person, and the form doesn't even have to be notarized. Not sure how that proves anything.
Oh, and another form of 'proof' that they will accept? 'A computer printed pay statement'. Man, who could ever forge one of those?
Start with TFA, which gives an overview. Basically, purity is measured by how many (expensive, trade secret) physical and chemical processes you have to run the sand through until you wind up with just the desired material. Probably not something you are going to do as a hobby.
So you want the telcos to set up some process where, when purchasing a new phone (for instance), a customer must now provide a previously set up PIN? And then wait several hours? Good one!
While you MAY be able to do something like that if the new and old phones are on the same carrier (if you don't mind pissing off your customers), it would be illegal to do it across carriers. If requested to 'port' a number by another carrier, the carrier MAY NOT refuse the request, MAY NOT contact the customer, and MUST do the port within a day.
You could just do a little research on your own. The charitynavigator numbers are from 2016. They were already in trouble then. In 2017 (BEFORE THEY CUT GRANTS), they laid off a hundred of their people, and sold their headquarters to raise cash.
Slashdot Mirror
'Single lane' roundabouts are not the problem, and the rules for those are the same here. The problem is multi-lane roundabouts, and the rules for those a stupid, and that is the problem. The multi-lane rules are: if you will be getting off at the first exit (ie a right-hand turn), start in the right lane, stay in the right lane, and exit from the right lane. If you will be getting off AFTER the second exit (ie, a left-hand turn), start in the left lane, stay in the left lane, and directly exit from the left lane. But, if you are getting off at the second exit (ie straight though), then you can start in either lane, stay in that lane, and exit from that lane. That means you may be crossing the first exit, while someone on the inside lane is trying to exit there.
According to the rules, YOU are the one who doesn't know how to use a roundabout.
Yield to oncoming traffic at the yield line.
That 'move from the outside to the apex and back to the outside' crap you list? Not supposed to do it.
Your (incorrect) definition of abridge might actually mean something if that word was used. But the phrase is "shall not be infringed".
So who, exactly, gets to decide what 'real happiness' is? Who gets to decide what 'improves' your life?
Your ideas aren't stopped by some mystical 'them', they are stopped because they are nothing more than 'the whole world should do what I want'.
OK, 'genious', where did you get THAT incorrect piece of information? The militia of the United States is "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Other than bask in the warm glow of your own sense of superiority, what do you do for entertainment? Whatever it is, the exact same stupid statements can be made about it.
Well yeah, if you want to charge from empty to full overnight you would have to fast charge. But that would not usually be the case, would it? If you have 10x the energy, thus 10x the range, you could go 2500 miles on a charge. Nobody is doing that daily. So slow charge to 10% the first night, use half of that charge during the day, after the next night you are at 15%. In 20 days you will be at 100%, then you just need to keep it 'topped up'.
In order to be 'fined' or 'jailed', an infringer must commit CRIMINAL infringement. The criteria for criminal infringement is:
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
Obviously, 'sharing something with 10 of your friends online' does not qualify for criminal infringement, unless the thing you are sharing has a retail value of more than $100
There is no distinction made of the type of work (movies, records, software).
How, exactly, does one 'invest in blockchain', other than by buying stock in companies doing blockchain stuff? If you think buying BTC (or any other crypocurrency) is 'investing in blockchain', you are an idiot.
You are making a serious mistake. You are confusing a technology with a particular product that uses that technology. Cryptocurrency (blockchain) is the technology, Bitcoin is a product that uses the technology.
While there may be very good reasons to think that in 10, 20, or 30 years cryptocurrency will be in widespread use, there is ZERO reason to believe that Bitcoin will be the particular cryptocurrency in widespread use.
'We' have not decided that BTC has any value. 'We' may have decided that cryptocurrency has some value. Big difference.
How many car manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century survived long enough to see the widespread adoption of cars? How many internet companies at the start of the internet boom survived? How many PC companies at the start of the PC era survived to see widespead adoption?
You made a claim, now back it up. Give some examples. I don't want examples of people being prosecuted for leaking movies, we all now that happens. I want examples of complaints made by software developers, that fit the criteria of the law, that were not persued.
Owning something means that it belongs to you. You can sell it. You can keep the profits. You can gift it to someone else. You can do with it what you please. None of those are true with the Fed. There IS NO OWNER, no matter how much you want to claim there is.
Here is a list of the member banks of the fed (as of 2014). Every one of them is a 'shareholder' in the fed. I have no idea where this silly '12 shareholders' nonsense comes from
Whole lotta crazy there. The 'board' is a federal agency, appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
Any net income (profit) the banks earn goes directly to the US Treasury, not the 'shareholder' banks.
There is no such thing as 'the 12 shareholders'. Every bank that is part of the federal reserve system is a shareholder - there are approx 3000 of them.
I have no idea what you think is in that link you sent that supports your position in any way. Is this one of those things where if you take the third letter of every word it spells out a secret message or something?
US Copyright law, section 506 (criminal offences), under definitions:
'Work being prepared for commercial distribution' means: (A) a computer program , musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording... (emphasis mine).
The entire premise of your rant is incorrect.
You're missing the point. Being pressured to do unsafe things is different than doing them of your own accord. The outcome does not matter.
I have seen pictures of people climbing ladders placed on a stack of inverted buckets. By your logic, it should be OK for a roofing company to pressure workers to do that, as long as there are not more falls than the average dope that does that.
There must be a balance of risk to benefit. People, in general, are terrible at assessing risk. So we hire people who are trained in risk assessment, etc to help us out.
Bullshit. You do not need a 'control group'. The article (and headline) are not about whether or not gig-economy drivers are more or less safe than other drivers, it is about whether or not the 'pressures' of being a gig-economy driver are making them less safe than they would otherwise be. The given examples of things that make them unsafe is running red lights and speeding due to 'time pressure', using a required but distracting app, driving while too tired, etc. There is no possible way that you can spin that doing those things makes you 'safer' or even 'as safe' as someone who does not do them.
Did they correct WHAT for miles driven? There is nothing to correct.
The study was interviews of drivers. They reported things like running red lights and speeding because of 'time pressures'. They reported that they had to use distracting apps. They reported that they drive while too tired. None of that has anything to do with 'miles driven'.
Yeah, your average Uber driver is going to spend the money on a wheelchair accessible vehicle.
The existence of the sand is not (and never was) a secret. The secrets are the processes used to purify it, and as TFA says, they were unable to get ANY information about that.
DMV? Good one. I just had the experience of 'proving' something to the DMV (NY). I needed to provide 2 'proofs of residence'. My mailing address is a PO box, as the wonderful USPS does not deliver to homes in our town. One of the proofs I had was my water/sewer bill. The bill has 'YOURTOWN WATER/SEWER DISTRICT' printed across the top, and had my address (street and house) listed as 'service to property'. The genius at the DMV would not accept that, because the 'service address' did not have the town listed. Exactly what town do they think 'Yourtown water/sewer district' serves?
But it gets better. They gave me a form, which could be used to 'prove' my address. This form could be filled out by anyone, including my spouse, saying that I lived at the address I said I did. The person filling out the form doesn't have to appear in person, and the form doesn't even have to be notarized. Not sure how that proves anything.
Oh, and another form of 'proof' that they will accept? 'A computer printed pay statement'. Man, who could ever forge one of those?
Start with TFA, which gives an overview. Basically, purity is measured by how many (expensive, trade secret) physical and chemical processes you have to run the sand through until you wind up with just the desired material. Probably not something you are going to do as a hobby.
So you want the telcos to set up some process where, when purchasing a new phone (for instance), a customer must now provide a previously set up PIN? And then wait several hours? Good one!
While you MAY be able to do something like that if the new and old phones are on the same carrier (if you don't mind pissing off your customers), it would be illegal to do it across carriers. If requested to 'port' a number by another carrier, the carrier MAY NOT refuse the request, MAY NOT contact the customer, and MUST do the port within a day.
You could just do a little research on your own. The charitynavigator numbers are from 2016. They were already in trouble then. In 2017 (BEFORE THEY CUT GRANTS), they laid off a hundred of their people, and sold their headquarters to raise cash.
Huh? Do you any citation for that?