Let's say, for example, you're walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY".
Let's say, for example, that your boss sends you out walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY", or you get fired. Then your boss steals it from you, and then claims that you asked him to do it. Except the briefcase is you.
Do we really need explicit prohibitions against sexual harassment and sexual assaults for field work? What about murder or violent assaults? Do we need to explicitly prohibit those as well? Or are those implicitly permitted because they're not mentioned somewhere in a field manual?
The difference is that sexual assault, unlike, for example, murder, routinely goes unpunished or is even rationalized as normal behavior. If young women were regularly being murdered by their supervisors without consequence, then perhaps more attention ought to be brought to bear on that, too, eh?
Sadly, I don't think some women "get it" sometimes and they misunderstand why what clothes they choose are not getting the kind of attention they really want. Now, I'm NOT saying that a woman being assaulted or harassed is at fault
Radical socialist nations got that way under the leadership of and influence of famously rich and exploitative people who united people under the promise of equality and utopia and are somehow suprised when their government takes away their freedom and points guns at them all the time. How many nations ended up like this?
They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.
Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.
Mod parent up. We all know that God specifically wanted airspace full of unlicensed pilots operating entirely without rules. Yeee Haw!
This guy probably is the tech but is wanting to spend more time with his family or something.
Probably settled down too fast and can't get a better job now. My advice: don't settle down and quit using your wife and children as excuses for your career failures because they'll grow to hate you for it.
.It is reasonable for scientists in the pay of the public to be required at intervals to publish tts or at least what they were currently doing over the past few months or year or whatever interval is deemed reasonable.
Dear NEJM:
For the last six months, I mostly sat around in my office, read Slashdot, and mined Bitcoin on the cluster.
Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.
If you slow down to change lanes, then you only make the matter worse, and that much more difficult to safely merge.
Who said anything about changing lanes? If the cyclist in front of you is signaling a left, you wait behind them until it is safe to proceed.
Bear in mind that legally speaking, merging requires that you are already moving with the flow of traffic in the target lane, and that other vehicles will not need to slow down to accommodate you because of your speed
No, and no. As long as there is sufficient space between you and following traffic to move left and take the lane, that traffic is absolutely required to slow to accommodate your speed. Why is it so fucking hard to understand that vehicles are not obligated to travel at the speed limit just because you're too muck of a dick to slow down for thirty seconds or so?
If there is an accident, all they would ever have to do is say that you changed lanes and pulled in front of them. Bam... it's instantly your fault unless either you had video evidence showing that you had signalled in plenty of time to indicate your intent, and that you had completely finished merging and were travelling safely in that lane otherwise (which is possible of the car behind you had a dash cam, and if the insurance company knows about it being there, they may ask to review the footage), or enough witnesses to the accident who would say that the fault was clearly that of the other driver and not you.
Of course, if you were already fully in the lane and somebody rear ends you anyway, it would literally be murder (or attempted murder if you survived). Luckily, very very few drivers will actually murder another road user in cold blood.
Whether they are "entitled" to use it or not is irrelevant if they cannot safely enter the lane in the first place, because cars move much faster than bicycles, preventing a cyclist from being able to change lanes from the rightmost lane (designated bike lane) to the leftmost without causing an accident that they would actually be considered entirely at fault for.
Going slower than the traffic behind you wants to go is not "causing" an accident. What causes accidents is idiotic responses to a slow vehicle in the lane. Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.
To leave the bike lane, you still have to yield to vehicles that are not in the process of changing lanes. Since cars are typically moving faster than you, you generally wouldn't be able to do this safely unless there was absolutely no other traffic moving in the same direction (which isn't impossible, but is unlikely on a road that has high enough traffic volumes that it would warrant having a controlled intersection), and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.
Once you have merged left and taken the lane, any traffic behind you must yield right of way (i.e. slow down) to you. They can't just indiscriminately run you over and say its your fault because you're going slower than they are. Bikes have the right to use the full lane when it is necessary for safe operation of the bicycle, and that includes making a left turn.
Going slower than the speed limit in the center of the lane is not illegal, for a car or for a bike. And it certainly shouldn't be punished with the death penalty.
Facebook didn't simply set out to make tweaks and see how users responded; they setup a controlled experiment on subjects without their consent; a practice that appears to violate ethical and possibly legal guidelines for behavioral research.
Bingo. Advertisers may do this sort of thing all the time, but they don't get it published in peer-reviewed scientific journals without adhering to standard human research protocols. PNAS should immediately retract the article, and the researchers involved should be censured and stripped of funding.
And people who don't want to be experimented on without consent should just fucking quit using Facebook.
Specific practices like driver using phone while driving, or curb parking time limits can certainly be regulated. But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information. Dislike it all you want, but people have freedom to do as they want.
It is illegal to exchange money for all kinds of information. Credit card and Social Security numbers, for example. Insider trading, for another. It continually amazes me the degree to which crackpot libertarian ideology is so consistently blind to extremely common legal practice. Do you people spend all of your time in the basement?
Furthermore, a law banning the parking app would be trivial to enforce. Just have police answer the ads, find the douchebag who is blocking the spot in order to charge for it, tow their car, and give them a nice big ticket. Can't happen soon enough.
So it is also illegal to offer somebody money, in person, to let you know when they leave their spot so you can park closer? Technically speaking, you're not paying for the "public" spot, you're paying for the opportunity to park in a more convenient location for a period of time, at which point you leave.
No, it's illegal to squat on a public parking space and demand money to move. Get the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say, for example, you're walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY".
Let's say, for example, that your boss sends you out walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY", or you get fired. Then your boss steals it from you, and then claims that you asked him to do it. Except the briefcase is you.
I'm gonna start suing for sexual harassment every time someone says I'm a nerd or I'm too shy or whatever too.
You would also be prettier if you smiled.
Do we really need explicit prohibitions against sexual harassment and sexual assaults for field work? What about murder or violent assaults? Do we need to explicitly prohibit those as well? Or are those implicitly permitted because they're not mentioned somewhere in a field manual?
The difference is that sexual assault, unlike, for example, murder, routinely goes unpunished or is even rationalized as normal behavior. If young women were regularly being murdered by their supervisors without consequence, then perhaps more attention ought to be brought to bear on that, too, eh?
I feel harassed by the dress, cosmetics and perfume that some women in my office wear.
You poor thing. How do you stand the injustice?
Sadly, I don't think some women "get it" sometimes and they misunderstand why what clothes they choose are not getting the kind of attention they really want. Now, I'm NOT saying that a woman being assaulted or harassed is at fault
Yes you are.
Car heaven is where the mechanics are German, the drivers are Italian, and the leather is maintained by a British butler.
In heaven, the lovers are Italian, the cooks are French, the Germans make the cars, the Swiss are the Bankers, and the British are the police.
In hell, the Swiss are the lovers, the Italians make the cars, the French are the bankers, the British are the cooks, and the Germans are the police.
Meanwhile, the FCC's deadline for comments about net neutrality has arrived, and the agency's servers buckled after recording over 670,000 of them.
That's because they didn't pay extra for the bandwidth. What did they expect?
Radical socialist nations got that way under the leadership of and influence of famously rich and exploitative people who united people under the promise of equality and utopia and are somehow suprised when their government takes away their freedom and points guns at them all the time. How many nations ended up like this?
Sweden, for example?
So we got rid of human slavery but are forced to endure ...human slavery? Is that your argument?
Very true. Having to be licensed to fly a commercial drone over residential areas is slavery, plain and simple.
Nothing from Amazon requires 30 minute delivery.
Well, almost.
Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.
Mod parent up. We all know that God specifically wanted airspace full of unlicensed pilots operating entirely without rules. Yeee Haw!
This guy probably is the tech but is wanting to spend more time with his family or something.
Probably settled down too fast and can't get a better job now. My advice: don't settle down and quit using your wife and children as excuses for your career failures because they'll grow to hate you for it.
Congratulations! You're management material!
.It is reasonable for scientists in the pay of the public to be required at intervals to publish tts or at least what they were currently doing over the past few months or year or whatever interval is deemed reasonable.
Dear NEJM: For the last six months, I mostly sat around in my office, read Slashdot, and mined Bitcoin on the cluster.
... cue the antitrust suit.
Galileo is four syllables.
Yeah, but Galileo was a dude. Dudes get extra syllables.
If you slow down to change lanes, then you only make the matter worse, and that much more difficult to safely merge.
Who said anything about changing lanes? If the cyclist in front of you is signaling a left, you wait behind them until it is safe to proceed. Bear in mind that legally speaking, merging requires that you are already moving with the flow of traffic in the target lane, and that other vehicles will not need to slow down to accommodate you because of your speed
No, and no. As long as there is sufficient space between you and following traffic to move left and take the lane, that traffic is absolutely required to slow to accommodate your speed. Why is it so fucking hard to understand that vehicles are not obligated to travel at the speed limit just because you're too muck of a dick to slow down for thirty seconds or so?
If there is an accident, all they would ever have to do is say that you changed lanes and pulled in front of them. Bam... it's instantly your fault unless either you had video evidence showing that you had signalled in plenty of time to indicate your intent, and that you had completely finished merging and were travelling safely in that lane otherwise (which is possible of the car behind you had a dash cam, and if the insurance company knows about it being there, they may ask to review the footage), or enough witnesses to the accident who would say that the fault was clearly that of the other driver and not you.
Of course, if you were already fully in the lane and somebody rear ends you anyway, it would literally be murder (or attempted murder if you survived). Luckily, very very few drivers will actually murder another road user in cold blood.
Whether they are "entitled" to use it or not is irrelevant if they cannot safely enter the lane in the first place, because cars move much faster than bicycles, preventing a cyclist from being able to change lanes from the rightmost lane (designated bike lane) to the leftmost without causing an accident that they would actually be considered entirely at fault for.
Going slower than the traffic behind you wants to go is not "causing" an accident. What causes accidents is idiotic responses to a slow vehicle in the lane. Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.
To leave the bike lane, you still have to yield to vehicles that are not in the process of changing lanes. Since cars are typically moving faster than you, you generally wouldn't be able to do this safely unless there was absolutely no other traffic moving in the same direction (which isn't impossible, but is unlikely on a road that has high enough traffic volumes that it would warrant having a controlled intersection), and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.
Once you have merged left and taken the lane, any traffic behind you must yield right of way (i.e. slow down) to you. They can't just indiscriminately run you over and say its your fault because you're going slower than they are. Bikes have the right to use the full lane when it is necessary for safe operation of the bicycle, and that includes making a left turn.
Going slower than the speed limit in the center of the lane is not illegal, for a car or for a bike. And it certainly shouldn't be punished with the death penalty.
You can always pick the airline that doesn't allow calls.
And when there are no such airlines left, then what?
Facebook didn't simply set out to make tweaks and see how users responded; they setup a controlled experiment on subjects without their consent; a practice that appears to violate ethical and possibly legal guidelines for behavioral research.
Bingo. Advertisers may do this sort of thing all the time, but they don't get it published in peer-reviewed scientific journals without adhering to standard human research protocols. PNAS should immediately retract the article, and the researchers involved should be censured and stripped of funding.
And people who don't want to be experimented on without consent should just fucking quit using Facebook.
I've had parking spots that I claimed (blinker was on!) stolen from me. I didn't call the cops.
Jamaica Man Killed in Gun Battle Over Parking Space
Miami Barber Shot, Killed Over Parking Spot
Man Sentenced in Shooting Over Parking Space
Man critically hurt in Gold Coast shooting over parking spot
People are insane. Never forget this.
How are you going to prove B would have moved earlier if not for A? Reading their mind?
Um, they advertised the space on the app?
Specific practices like driver using phone while driving, or curb parking time limits can certainly be regulated. But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information. Dislike it all you want, but people have freedom to do as they want.
It is illegal to exchange money for all kinds of information. Credit card and Social Security numbers, for example. Insider trading, for another. It continually amazes me the degree to which crackpot libertarian ideology is so consistently blind to extremely common legal practice. Do you people spend all of your time in the basement?
Furthermore, a law banning the parking app would be trivial to enforce. Just have police answer the ads, find the douchebag who is blocking the spot in order to charge for it, tow their car, and give them a nice big ticket. Can't happen soon enough.
So it is also illegal to offer somebody money, in person, to let you know when they leave their spot so you can park closer? Technically speaking, you're not paying for the "public" spot, you're paying for the opportunity to park in a more convenient location for a period of time, at which point you leave.
No, it's illegal to squat on a public parking space and demand money to move. Get the difference?