In the GP's defense, he didn't necessarily claim that *all* accidents that aren't your fault can be avoided.
True but he did make an absolute claim and I reacted to his post very much like anyone would. Much like anyone who saw the following on their bank statement.
"Overdrafts on your account, including overdrafts that are not your fault, will be charged a fee. If you failed to avoid an overdraft, including the ones that are not your fault, you deserve to be charged the fee."
The BS meter would go into the red with that logic and if a bank tried to justify it's position. So, I see no reason why I should not call the GP out when the same BS logic is being used regarding auto accidents.
Being stopped (or almost stopped) like you were is about the worst situation to be in, because you have almost no control of the situation. Even then: Was there a shoulder? If you stay in the right lane, and leave enough space in front of you when you stop, you might have been able to get out of the way. Leaving plenty of space in front of you instead of riding someone's bumper (at a light or stopped in traffic) means you won't be as likely to end up in a sandwich.
The guy never hit the breaks. I had enough time to get out a "Oh Crap" and turn the wheel before he drove into the driver side half of my rear end.
I was knocked out with the impact. I went right, pushing my way through the car in front of me, across an acceleration lane and about 50 yards at an angle into a ditch. Glad I had an extended cab Ranger with an empty full size bed. About 12 feet of stuff to get crushed and deformed before it got to me. However, he was far from done yet.
He went left and bounced off car #2. A large portion of energy was spent on my sorry ass so there wasn't enough energy and the angle was fairly slight. He didn't force car #2 into another. Instead, into car #3 he goes and then, finally, to a rest.
Me? I get a helicopter ride and the uninsured guy sleeping at the wheel? TA DA! Walks away. The other 2 drivers were also okay. Luck played a big role. He had drifted to the driver side and managed to bounce between vehicles. Had he caught me dead center on the rear, if I had lumber in the bed, who knows.
Did the GP hit a nerve? Damn straight he did and I'll call him out again on it in a heartbeat to explain his position. An explanation that I feel supports my original position.
Do you think one of those stretch limos with the hot tubs in the back from the 80's will work? I know it's not a real bathtub, but I think I could pick one up cheap on eBay and there is plenty of room for the wood carving machine.
I wonder how many wooden ball would get carved that said..
*carve* "I said, bubble jets off!" *carve* "And for Christs sake if..." *carve* "I have to listen to Van..." *carve* "Halen one more time I'll..." *carve* "make you drive off a cliff!"
While precautions are necessary, you serve as proof against your own position when it is considered in it's entirety. For example, your precautions still failed you with regards to the drunk driver. Did you tell your employer or the police that arrived at the scene that you could have avoided the accident?
I'll never know what happened in the side-swipe, but the road was narrow and winding, so there's mitigating circumstances.
Where is that willingness to take responsibility? You focus on and downplay your own fault here and thus, by your own words "Some people, such as you, get focused on fault instead of responsibility. You are the type of person who deserves to get impaled."
Your own experience is contradicting your stated position so I'll stick to my stated position. That is you managed to post something really stupid.
Accidents, including accidents that are not your fault, can be avoided.
Normally, I try to be constructive and polite but sometimes there is a need to make an exception.
Don't you hate it when you post something really stupid on slashdot and you can't unpost it?
Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?
Something that would have told myself and a few others to pull to the side of the road rather than stop in the lane for heavy traffic on I95 to allow the driver that fell asleep to pass us by harmlessly? You know, rather than plow into the back of my truck, into another vehicle and finally into a third?
They had to cut the roof off to get me out. So if you have figured out some magic way I could have avoided that I, and I'm sure a heck of a lot of other people, would really like to know.
The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.
But they didn't put "the first object in space". The first "Man made object in space" by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942.
So... you want a tiny url to "/libertarianface" to show a picture of a confused Hitler? Is that your point?
Why do I have a feeling I'm going to walk away from this exchange convinced that you write emails to shows like "The Daily Show" telling them that their jokes are wrong.
My friend let me take a look at his Kindle but I wanted to see what the iPad offered. Now that I have and given that I don't travel that much, I have to consider that a Kindle or iPad would be a at home appliance.
That means, for me, all the functionality offered by the iPad has already been covered and done so by better methods. It's also true that all the functionality offered by the Kindle has been covered but it offers better methods even though it offers a much narrower scope of them.
My conclusion is that the Kindle is cheaper and I get a better return on my investment for my circumstances. If I traveled more often, I would have to reevaluate or end up with both.
That's not the point. Fighting an uphill battle and then at some point claiming to pull out due to freedom of speech issues isn't quite as believable as a world leader in search not entering a market due to freedom of speech issues.
From the article:
Could Beijing really countenance a filter-free search engine? Probably not. But it also knows that driving Google from China would be a public relations catastrophe.
I think Google entering the market and then leaving has a more profound effect since that 36% of the population will actually have a tangible experience to relate to. What may happen is that Google may be able to leverage this so that censorship is less restrictive on google.cn. and in order to compete Baidu would have to do the same.
From the article:
It was Schmidt who put the business case for Google to expand into China: with 384 million internet users, it is the world's biggest digital market – of which Google has grasped about 36 per cent since 2006. But Brin and Page spent a year weighing the pros and cons of the decision on what they called their "evil scale" before approving the launch of Google.cn.
It's a pragmatic approach to "do no evil" rather than an idealistic one and in my opinion a better one since the idealistic approach would have made less progress or any progress at all.
...and that's probably a good choice if all you ever want to do with it is read black and white ebooks page-by-page.
The iPad's size means it's not going to replace my phone. Since my phone can duplicate some, if not most, of the functionality of the iPad those extra features don't add as much value for me.
It comes down to two basic needs. The need for a larger screen for text media and the need for a larger screen for visual media. For me, the former wins out and my phone's capability suffices for the other needs ( mostly communication, natch ).
True but I think his point is that the identity of the victim can have a huge impact on motive, good and bad, and motive does have impact on the punishment of the crime.
i.e. In retrospect, killing Hitler would be considered a good thing by many and the motive justifiable.
It's an extreme, yes, but just because someone mentions Hitler it doesn't mean it's automatically reductio ad Hitlerum.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country. Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China? What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
There seems to be the general point of view the Google discovered what was happening and investigated on their own rather than enlist the State Dept. and their help from the beginning to use Google's network to observe, create honey pots and collect further data.
Perhaps they seeded the compromised accounts with information provided by the State Dept. to see who acted on that information and it turned out to be the Chinese Government?
Sure there is, it's usually referred to at the bottom line. Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock in 2006 and Neilsen didn't rate it then. With the momentum the current market has, I don't think it is going to change to accommodate something that, up to this point, was irrelevant.
Rather, I think Neilsen rating system is taking steps into a new market by taking in the portions that already match it's current market. In the end I think they will be the one to adapt & change.
I'm gonna cry if entropy ever becomes "the new CO2".
Well, we were going to stage a protest to have the government stop the eventual heat death of the universe, but then we realized the energy spent in actually carrying through with the protest and the bureaucracy needed to legislate it would hasten the eventual heat death of the universe by a factor of 100.
In this example, ignorance of the fact that the indie musician ( Universal Music Group ) broke the law does not alleviate guilt. The judge my choose to mitigate any fines & fees they may have to pay due to the circumstances but the question that needs to be asked is if indie musician ( Universal Music Group ) exercised due diligence to make sure their blanket DMCA takedown did not include individuals that qualified under fair use.
Yes, in hindsight, all that was needed were letters to be sent. However, at the beginning, the outcome is unknown and shouldn't preparation start ASAP just in case the Universal Music Group decide to ignore the letters and bulldoze over the claim against them? When you consider the possibility that EFF may also have starting preparation to take Universal Music Group to court, $400,000 may be justified.
Slashdot Mirror
Harkonen Trooper: "Now, if I go into that spice crawler over there... will I find a bill of sale for these thropters?"
Fremen played by Tim Burton: "Utinni!"
Then the Fremen would all be cute midgets...
In the GP's defense, he didn't necessarily claim that *all* accidents that aren't your fault can be avoided.
True but he did make an absolute claim and I reacted to his post very much like anyone would. Much like anyone who saw the following on their bank statement.
"Overdrafts on your account, including overdrafts that are not your fault, will be charged a fee. If you failed to avoid an overdraft, including the ones that are not your fault, you deserve to be charged the fee."
The BS meter would go into the red with that logic and if a bank tried to justify it's position. So, I see no reason why I should not call the GP out when the same BS logic is being used regarding auto accidents.
Being stopped (or almost stopped) like you were is about the worst situation to be in, because you have almost no control of the situation. Even then: Was there a shoulder? If you stay in the right lane, and leave enough space in front of you when you stop, you might have been able to get out of the way. Leaving plenty of space in front of you instead of riding someone's bumper (at a light or stopped in traffic) means you won't be as likely to end up in a sandwich.
The guy never hit the breaks. I had enough time to get out a "Oh Crap" and turn the wheel before he drove into the driver side half of my rear end.
I was knocked out with the impact. I went right, pushing my way through the car in front of me, across an acceleration lane and about 50 yards at an angle into a ditch. Glad I had an extended cab Ranger with an empty full size bed. About 12 feet of stuff to get crushed and deformed before it got to me. However, he was far from done yet.
He went left and bounced off car #2. A large portion of energy was spent on my sorry ass so there wasn't enough energy and the angle was fairly slight. He didn't force car #2 into another. Instead, into car #3 he goes and then, finally, to a rest.
Me? I get a helicopter ride and the uninsured guy sleeping at the wheel? TA DA! Walks away. The other 2 drivers were also okay. Luck played a big role. He had drifted to the driver side and managed to bounce between vehicles. Had he caught me dead center on the rear, if I had lumber in the bed, who knows.
Did the GP hit a nerve? Damn straight he did and I'll call him out again on it in a heartbeat to explain his position. An explanation that I feel supports my original position.
Well... it's better than what I've already got.
Do you think one of those stretch limos with the hot tubs in the back from the 80's will work? I know it's not a real bathtub, but I think I could pick one up cheap on eBay and there is plenty of room for the wood carving machine.
I wonder how many wooden ball would get carved that said..
*carve*
"I said, bubble jets off!"
*carve*
"And for Christs sake if..."
*carve*
"I have to listen to Van..."
*carve*
"Halen one more time I'll..."
*carve*
"make you drive off a cliff!"
While precautions are necessary, you serve as proof against your own position when it is considered in it's entirety. For example, your precautions still failed you with regards to the drunk driver. Did you tell your employer or the police that arrived at the scene that you could have avoided the accident?
I'll never know what happened in the side-swipe, but the road was narrow and winding, so there's mitigating circumstances.
Where is that willingness to take responsibility? You focus on and downplay your own fault here and thus, by your own words "Some people, such as you, get focused on fault instead of responsibility. You are the type of person who deserves to get impaled."
Your own experience is contradicting your stated position so I'll stick to my stated position. That is you managed to post something really stupid.
Accidents, including accidents that are not your fault, can be avoided.
Normally, I try to be constructive and polite but sometimes there is a need to make an exception.
Don't you hate it when you post something really stupid on slashdot and you can't unpost it?
Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?
Something that would have told myself and a few others to pull to the side of the road rather than stop in the lane for heavy traffic on I95 to allow the driver that fell asleep to pass us by harmlessly? You know, rather than plow into the back of my truck, into another vehicle and finally into a third?
They had to cut the roof off to get me out. So if you have figured out some magic way I could have avoided that I, and I'm sure a heck of a lot of other people, would really like to know.
The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.
But they didn't put "the first object in space". The first "Man made object in space" by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_V-2_test_launches
As for the rest of your facts, I would suggest you check them. They may or may not be correct but I'm short on time to fact check them all.
So... you want a tiny url to "/libertarianface" to show a picture of a confused Hitler? Is that your point?
Why do I have a feeling I'm going to walk away from this exchange convinced that you write emails to shows like "The Daily Show" telling them that their jokes are wrong.
My friend let me take a look at his Kindle but I wanted to see what the iPad offered. Now that I have and given that I don't travel that much, I have to consider that a Kindle or iPad would be a at home appliance.
That means, for me, all the functionality offered by the iPad has already been covered and done so by better methods. It's also true that all the functionality offered by the Kindle has been covered but it offers better methods even though it offers a much narrower scope of them.
My conclusion is that the Kindle is cheaper and I get a better return on my investment for my circumstances. If I traveled more often, I would have to reevaluate or end up with both.
That's so cool. You could hold your hand up so it shows up in the lower part of the rectangle view of the world and practice your head bob.
Well, I thought it may be time to step away for a bit when I tried to get a tan by making a picture of the Sun my screen saver.
I sure as hell wasn't going to see the actual Sun and with it always moving across the screen and bouncing off the edges, I'd minimize tan lines.
Since when is a 5 digit UID considered low? :)
~jaraxle
When it works with a 16-bit sarcasm detector :-)
Given the very low UID. Probably a catastrophic failure caused by a stress fracture or material fatigue.
AC:
That's not the point. Fighting an uphill battle and then at some point claiming to pull out due to freedom of speech issues isn't quite as believable as a world leader in search not entering a market due to freedom of speech issues.
From the article:
Could Beijing really countenance a filter-free search engine? Probably not. But it also knows that driving Google from China would be a public relations catastrophe.
I think Google entering the market and then leaving has a more profound effect since that 36% of the population will actually have a tangible experience to relate to. What may happen is that Google may be able to leverage this so that censorship is less restrictive on google.cn. and in order to compete Baidu would have to do the same.
From the article:
It was Schmidt who put the business case for Google to expand into China: with 384 million internet users, it is the world's biggest digital market – of which Google has grasped about 36 per cent since 2006. But Brin and Page spent a year weighing the pros and cons of the decision on what they called their "evil scale" before approving the launch of Google.cn.
It's a pragmatic approach to "do no evil" rather than an idealistic one and in my opinion a better one since the idealistic approach would have made less progress or any progress at all.
...and that's probably a good choice if all you ever want to do with it is read black and white ebooks page-by-page.
The iPad's size means it's not going to replace my phone. Since my phone can duplicate some, if not most, of the functionality of the iPad those extra features don't add as much value for me.
It comes down to two basic needs. The need for a larger screen for text media and the need for a larger screen for visual media. For me, the former wins out and my phone's capability suffices for the other needs ( mostly communication, natch ).
I may still get a Kindle because of this reason.
Next time, click both links before you post.
True but I think his point is that the identity of the victim can have a huge impact on motive, good and bad, and motive does have impact on the punishment of the crime.
i.e. In retrospect, killing Hitler would be considered a good thing by many and the motive justifiable.
It's an extreme, yes, but just because someone mentions Hitler it doesn't mean it's automatically reductio ad Hitlerum.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country. Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China? What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
There seems to be the general point of view the Google discovered what was happening and investigated on their own rather than enlist the State Dept. and their help from the beginning to use Google's network to observe, create honey pots and collect further data.
Perhaps they seeded the compromised accounts with information provided by the State Dept. to see who acted on that information and it turned out to be the Chinese Government?
There *is* no other barometer of success.
Sure there is, it's usually referred to at the bottom line. Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock in 2006 and Neilsen didn't rate it then. With the momentum the current market has, I don't think it is going to change to accommodate something that, up to this point, was irrelevant.
Rather, I think Neilsen rating system is taking steps into a new market by taking in the portions that already match it's current market. In the end I think they will be the one to adapt & change.
However, I happen to be addicted to Eve Online instead of World of Warcraft, so where's my spaceships?
Give it time,... right now the institute is low on funds so we're going to turn you lose on the commodities market.
I'm gonna cry if entropy ever becomes "the new CO2".
Well, we were going to stage a protest to have the government stop the eventual heat death of the universe, but then we realized the energy spent in actually carrying through with the protest and the bureaucracy needed to legislate it would hasten the eventual heat death of the universe by a factor of 100.
Dice roller app and PDFs of the rules on the cell phones that get in?
They only work part of the time. Every day but just part of the day. There are huge chunks of time when they're just asleep.
I must qualify this by saying I'm not a lawyer
In this example, ignorance of the fact that the indie musician ( Universal Music Group ) broke the law does not alleviate guilt. The judge my choose to mitigate any fines & fees they may have to pay due to the circumstances but the question that needs to be asked is if indie musician ( Universal Music Group ) exercised due diligence to make sure their blanket DMCA takedown did not include individuals that qualified under fair use.
Yes, in hindsight, all that was needed were letters to be sent. However, at the beginning, the outcome is unknown and shouldn't preparation start ASAP just in case the Universal Music Group decide to ignore the letters and bulldoze over the claim against them? When you consider the possibility that EFF may also have starting preparation to take Universal Music Group to court, $400,000 may be justified.