So if the limit is 50, and I'm driving 50, if you're trying to pass me, you must be going over the limit.
So? Why do you care? Why would your response be to block them, endangering them and yourself? How do you hold the high-road when you break the law to block, making you no better than them?
And, if you don't do it, why are you working so hard to defend that position? People can justify speeding.
Simply put, I care because in your world, it's everyone else's job to get out of your way, and their fault if they don't move fast enough. Which is not a terribly safe place for anyone to be.
And here's a nice non-blocking example: There's a highway connecting two major centers. Speed limit is 65 mph. Four-lane divided. Right lane is generally slower traffic (tractor-trailers, campers, little old ladies). They go about 55-60 mph. Left lane is the folks doing the full speed limit (and the folks going over the limit). It's not a passing lane - it's a full lane for faster traffic (the signage even says "slow traffic keep right"). So, if I'm driving 65 (the posted limit), I'm likely to spend more time in the left lane than right. When you come burning down the road at 80, should we all dive into the ditch so you don't have to break? Or should you be expected to show a tiny bit of courtesy and wait for a break in traffic?
As a practical note, I do move right when traffic needs to get past, because I'd rather not risk my family's life over your idiocy. And then if I'm feeling particularly annoyed - maybe because you were three feet off my bumper - I call the local police hotline to report your licence plate for reckless driving.
But, as you say, I'm sure you always have a perfectly reasonable reason for speeding each time you go on the road. Saving five seconds on your commute, being the first to reach the next red light... oh yeah, and justifying your compensating sports car.
If I'm traveling at the speed limit, you're not legally allowed to pass me (in order to do so, you'd be speeding).
That's not true. There is no law that states someone may not pass someone traveling the speed limit.
True, there is no such law. But around here at least, there is also no exception to the speed laws allowing you to go over the posted limit in order to pass. So if the limit is 50, and I'm driving 50, if you're trying to pass me, you must be going over the limit.
You are asserting that anyone going faster than you is breaking the law, and that's something that I might accept if you had a speedometer that was professionally calibrated at least once a week. And even if that is the case, the legal state of the other driver is irrelevant to your actions. You are trying to justify breaking the law to perform vigilantism.
Who said anything about vigilantism? I'm simply pointing out that people who are driving the posted limit should be the fastest vehicles on the road. You're also assuming that your speedometer is more accurate than mine (and I suppose you get yours checked weekly?).
So, how could I be considered to be "blocking" you, except in the sense of "preventing you from breaking the law"?
You don't have a duty to prevent others from breaking the law. You certainly don't have the duty to put others at risk in order to prevent others from breaking the law. And you don't even know for sure that's what you are doing. You are a spoiled little 3 year old that belives everyone driving slower than them is a road hazard and everyone driving faster is a maniac. You give hypotheticals here like you are going the limit, but no one is that accurate, so you are either blocking while traveling under the limit, and thus your argument is crap, or you are a speeder yourself.
Wow, that's a good straw man argument. Yes, it is technically true that most drivers, due to basic physics and mechanical limitations of the vehicle, at any given time, are either (a) slightly under the limit - and thus under your definition blocking traffic, or (b) slightly over the limit - and thus under your definition, speeding.
So, let me restate - if you're trying to pass someone who's driving "about" the speed limit (say, within a mile/km or two?), you should probably rethink your sense of entitlement to be travelling at that speed. And I don't believe there's any justification for tailgating, period.
As an aside, if you have an actual emergency that required you to speed, I believe the accepted practice is to turn your four-ways on.
Oh, so if you were to block someone, and they turned their four-ways on, you'd let them pass?
I'm snipping the rest, because I don't have the time to deal with "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions (for instance "if you were to block someone" assumes that I drive to work every day blocking traffic for shits and giggles). At least in this region, four-ways are the equivalent of emergency lights (as in "this is an emergency, please give way"). So, yes, I'd pull over (and so should everyone else). Note that it doesn't give a legal right to drive illegally - you still get to explain to the cops at the end why you needed to do so.
And as a general rule, yes I let the idiots who are driving twice the limit pass me - as another poster mentioned, they give the cops someone to catch.
If I'm traveling at the speed limit, you're not legally allowed to pass me (in order to do so, you'd be speeding). So, how could I be considered to be "blocking" you, except in the sense of "preventing you from breaking the law"?
As an aside, if you have an actual emergency that required you to speed, I believe the accepted practice is to turn your four-ways on.
I believe he wasn't advocating a retroactive change (as in, changing the law to make them owe money), but going after money they believe is *already* owed - the implication being that no-one's wanted to risk rocking the boat to go after that money previously.
I personally believe we're all stupid. Including me. I might be a "professional", but my wife can talk circles about me about biology and environmental sciences. I wouldn't dream of arguing banking with my sister or father.
The trick is that I *know* I'm an idiot about those subjects. It's the people who don't know that they don't know... those are the ones to run and hide from. (Since they're not in season.)
But you most probably don't have any 'real world' experience. No professional who is not dealing with all kinds of people has. Therefore, you have a skewed view of the world. That is not meant as insulting or making a fool of you, it's just the way it is. Most people here on/. deal daily with people who are about as smart as they are. But only when you have to deal with, for instance, people who need unemployment money, or with patients, who come from all layers of society, can you understand the intelligence level of the average person.
And the person who needs unemployment money quite likely knows more about something (might be a trade, might be housekeeping or child care, or maybe just knows more about 1970s rock idols) than you do.
Remember: while people asking for your help seem stupid, think how you sound when you talk to your mechanic (or doctor).
(School payola, perhaps the RIAA will be caught bribing teachers to present this stuff, wouldn't that be a hoot?)
Sadly, it already exists - the music companies are just behind the curve. Soft drink companies have been "sponsoring" their way into schools of all stripes for decades. My favorite was the university scholarships in exchange for exclusivity on campus (meaning stores were flat out *told* they weren't allowed to serve The Other Brand). Of course, not only was the value of the scholarships a tiny fraction of the sales gained by forcing the competitor out, most student groups made a killing in black market soda.
What ever happened to making music for passion? Now it's all about money. Sad.
From the artists I know (and read), they don't make their money from albums anyway - they make their living playing live events, mostly. One version of a story I've heard around is some places don't even sell their CDs at the event, because they'd rather sell you the T-shirt - they make more money that way.
Only the *labels* (including artists who are big enough to have their own labels) are honked off about stealing, because they're the ones who lose out.
Remember kids, if you copy that CD, you're stealing from a large multinational corporation. If you want to support artists, buy their T-shirt.
in the hands of m people, where m is greater than 1
Which would exclude time shifting, space shifting, backups, etc.
.. but would include multiple people being in the room when it's heard, or it being stored on multiple devices.
Easy example: My wife and I each have a "portable music device". If we each put a copy of Song X on our machines, should we expect jackboots at the door?
It's the same problem with "public performance" being prohibited. If I watch a movie, that's OK. If I put it on the local movie screen for a hundred people, that's not. But where's the dividing line? Can my wife watch with me? How about my kid? If I invite my siblings and parents over, that's 7 people now watching. Can the seven of us watch it in a theatre? Can a hundred of us watch it in my living room?
Texters and callers will be able to notify trained counselors about guns in school and other threats of violence, "without being tagged as a snitch," said Julie Young-Burns, Safe and Drug-Free Schools coordinator for the Minneapolis Public Schools.
Hmm.. don't see the "not being tagged as a snitch" part working. Nothing travels faster than gossip.
I can think of two different counter-arguments for this:
One: your average kid doesn't really care about the "core subjects". But most of them like one or more of the "options" - you get your kids to like school by giving them *some* part of it they enjoy. (Remember the old saw - "my favorite subject is recess").
Two: I don't know about the rest of you, but my music, video, computers, and business education classes have been more useful to me in my life and career than my physics or calculus. (And I work in a "number crunching" job!). Giving kids a little of everything lets us both find what each student *really* wants to do, plus hedges our collective bets - when I was in school, everyone was pushed into computing classes. Now, office workers are a dime a dozen, but the few classmates who stuck with trades are doing quite nicely for themselves. We don't know what our kids will need five or ten years down the road - better to make them well rounded.
Wouldn't call the DS hinge cracking cosmetic - mine did that, and it pretty much kills the portability. Mine works fine, but you have to balance the top screen or else it flops over. And while I haven't tested this, it looks like the top screen would slide right off the remaining hinge, and then I'd be totally SOL.
I can't decide which is better - the Canadian version (where the bills are all automatically assigned numbers such as C-14), which means that while they can't give it a catchy/misleading name, you also can hide it, or the US version where everything gets a poppy name that doesn't have anything to do with the content inside.
A lot of people are misunderstanding the OP question (or maybe I am).
What I'm reading isn't "I'm going on vacation and have to micromanage my business" (to which the correct answer is "stop being married to your job", as posted several dozen times above)
What I'd like to know (and what the OP wants to know, I think) is can we solve the general case of telecommuting? He does his work on the web (and thus isn't tied to a physical address for the job). If he can work from his house, why not on the road? How far will current tech take us?
I would happily give up most aspects of civilization to go live in the woods. Except my internet. (And since you're reading this, join the club). The idea of being able to truck around the country while working doesn't sound half-bad to me.
My grandfather spent many years living out of an RV, working as a welder at remote sites. His place was nicer than mine, and he never needed to pack. *g*
Why would it upset you if the series go to book 20 if every one of them is good? Is it because you no longer like the book and just have to "finish" it? If so, why not just consider the last book you read as "finished" and move on? I did that with the Sword of Truth series, I just stopped after book 6 or 7 and never bothered the rest.
Can't speak for the rest of the universe, but for me the big issue is that Jordan lost track of what the series was about - there's so many sub-plots, and new characters, and little side quests, that you can go through an entire book and the main plot didn't advance at all.
I'd be happier if some of the little side plots were moved to their own books, so that the main plot could, ya know, advance
I just look on the bright side - at least the new author will actually finish the series
You can say a lot about Jordan, both good and bad (my wife likes the series, I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't in the house already), but the man did not know how to finish a story. I suspect he would have died with the series unfinished, whether he died now or 50 years from now.
What do you think this is about? They do not care about private laptops. It's about industrial espionage. God fuck america...
Because when they can make full copies of everything legally, why wouldn't they?
Think of it this way: it's relatively inexpensive to keep everything, and the data-mining abilities will only improve. Who's to say that today's harmless college kid isn't an annoying politician ten years from now? What's the value of being able to point to those naughty pictures that he's long since forgotten about?
The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the.gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.
And remember, while the cost to analyze the data now is somewhat high (meaning they probably won't run the numbers on everyone), the cost to store the data is getting cheaper by the day. Which means it is reasonable to assume they'll warehouse everything until either you've done something to warrant the analysis, or the cost has reduced enough that it's feasable to just run everyone.
Most likely the contract, if it even mentions speed, will use the "up to" wording that all the advertising does. It lets them put a big honkin' number in front of you, while disclaiming any responsibility to actually reach within a county mile of that standard.
It's a pity that it doesn't fall under false advertising - while technically true, it's completely useless information for the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
So if the limit is 50, and I'm driving 50, if you're trying to pass me, you must be going over the limit. So? Why do you care? Why would your response be to block them, endangering them and yourself? How do you hold the high-road when you break the law to block, making you no better than them? And, if you don't do it, why are you working so hard to defend that position? People can justify speeding.
Simply put, I care because in your world, it's everyone else's job to get out of your way, and their fault if they don't move fast enough. Which is not a terribly safe place for anyone to be.
And here's a nice non-blocking example: There's a highway connecting two major centers. Speed limit is 65 mph. Four-lane divided. Right lane is generally slower traffic (tractor-trailers, campers, little old ladies). They go about 55-60 mph. Left lane is the folks doing the full speed limit (and the folks going over the limit). It's not a passing lane - it's a full lane for faster traffic (the signage even says "slow traffic keep right"). So, if I'm driving 65 (the posted limit), I'm likely to spend more time in the left lane than right. When you come burning down the road at 80, should we all dive into the ditch so you don't have to break? Or should you be expected to show a tiny bit of courtesy and wait for a break in traffic?
As a practical note, I do move right when traffic needs to get past, because I'd rather not risk my family's life over your idiocy. And then if I'm feeling particularly annoyed - maybe because you were three feet off my bumper - I call the local police hotline to report your licence plate for reckless driving.
But, as you say, I'm sure you always have a perfectly reasonable reason for speeding each time you go on the road. Saving five seconds on your commute, being the first to reach the next red light... oh yeah, and justifying your compensating sports car.
If I'm traveling at the speed limit, you're not legally allowed to pass me (in order to do so, you'd be speeding). That's not true. There is no law that states someone may not pass someone traveling the speed limit.
True, there is no such law. But around here at least, there is also no exception to the speed laws allowing you to go over the posted limit in order to pass. So if the limit is 50, and I'm driving 50, if you're trying to pass me, you must be going over the limit.
You are asserting that anyone going faster than you is breaking the law, and that's something that I might accept if you had a speedometer that was professionally calibrated at least once a week. And even if that is the case, the legal state of the other driver is irrelevant to your actions. You are trying to justify breaking the law to perform vigilantism.
Who said anything about vigilantism? I'm simply pointing out that people who are driving the posted limit should be the fastest vehicles on the road. You're also assuming that your speedometer is more accurate than mine (and I suppose you get yours checked weekly?).
So, how could I be considered to be "blocking" you, except in the sense of "preventing you from breaking the law"? You don't have a duty to prevent others from breaking the law. You certainly don't have the duty to put others at risk in order to prevent others from breaking the law. And you don't even know for sure that's what you are doing. You are a spoiled little 3 year old that belives everyone driving slower than them is a road hazard and everyone driving faster is a maniac. You give hypotheticals here like you are going the limit, but no one is that accurate, so you are either blocking while traveling under the limit, and thus your argument is crap, or you are a speeder yourself.
Wow, that's a good straw man argument. Yes, it is technically true that most drivers, due to basic physics and mechanical limitations of the vehicle, at any given time, are either (a) slightly under the limit - and thus under your definition blocking traffic, or (b) slightly over the limit - and thus under your definition, speeding.
So, let me restate - if you're trying to pass someone who's driving "about" the speed limit (say, within a mile/km or two?), you should probably rethink your sense of entitlement to be travelling at that speed. And I don't believe there's any justification for tailgating, period.
As an aside, if you have an actual emergency that required you to speed, I believe the accepted practice is to turn your four-ways on. Oh, so if you were to block someone, and they turned their four-ways on, you'd let them pass?
I'm snipping the rest, because I don't have the time to deal with "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions (for instance "if you were to block someone" assumes that I drive to work every day blocking traffic for shits and giggles). At least in this region, four-ways are the equivalent of emergency lights (as in "this is an emergency, please give way"). So, yes, I'd pull over (and so should everyone else). Note that it doesn't give a legal right to drive illegally - you still get to explain to the cops at the end why you needed to do so.
And as a general rule, yes I let the idiots who are driving twice the limit pass me - as another poster mentioned, they give the cops someone to catch.
I'm curious about this "blocking" thing.
If I'm traveling at the speed limit, you're not legally allowed to pass me (in order to do so, you'd be speeding). So, how could I be considered to be "blocking" you, except in the sense of "preventing you from breaking the law"?
As an aside, if you have an actual emergency that required you to speed, I believe the accepted practice is to turn your four-ways on.
I believe he wasn't advocating a retroactive change (as in, changing the law to make them owe money), but going after money they believe is *already* owed - the implication being that no-one's wanted to risk rocking the boat to go after that money previously.
I personally believe we're all stupid. Including me. I might be a "professional", but my wife can talk circles about me about biology and environmental sciences. I wouldn't dream of arguing banking with my sister or father.
The trick is that I *know* I'm an idiot about those subjects. It's the people who don't know that they don't know... those are the ones to run and hide from. (Since they're not in season.)
But you most probably don't have any 'real world' experience. No professional who is not dealing with all kinds of people has. Therefore, you have a skewed view of the world. That is not meant as insulting or making a fool of you, it's just the way it is. Most people here on /. deal daily with people who are about as smart as they are. But only when you have to deal with, for instance, people who need unemployment money, or with patients, who come from all layers of society, can you understand the intelligence level of the average person.
And the person who needs unemployment money quite likely knows more about something (might be a trade, might be housekeeping or child care, or maybe just knows more about 1970s rock idols) than you do.
Remember: while people asking for your help seem stupid, think how you sound when you talk to your mechanic (or doctor).
(School payola, perhaps the RIAA will be caught bribing teachers to present this stuff, wouldn't that be a hoot?)
Sadly, it already exists - the music companies are just behind the curve. Soft drink companies have been "sponsoring" their way into schools of all stripes for decades. My favorite was the university scholarships in exchange for exclusivity on campus (meaning stores were flat out *told* they weren't allowed to serve The Other Brand). Of course, not only was the value of the scholarships a tiny fraction of the sales gained by forcing the competitor out, most student groups made a killing in black market soda.
Oh, where are my Funny mod points when I really need them?
What ever happened to making music for passion? Now it's all about money. Sad.
From the artists I know (and read), they don't make their money from albums anyway - they make their living playing live events, mostly. One version of a story I've heard around is some places don't even sell their CDs at the event, because they'd rather sell you the T-shirt - they make more money that way.
Only the *labels* (including artists who are big enough to have their own labels) are honked off about stealing, because they're the ones who lose out.
Remember kids, if you copy that CD, you're stealing from a large multinational corporation. If you want to support artists, buy their T-shirt.
Heck, you might not be able to listen to it at all - isn't changing it from MP3 to audio waves "format shifting"?
To be fair, he did say:
in the hands of m people, where m is greater than 1
Which would exclude time shifting, space shifting, backups, etc.
.. but would include multiple people being in the room when it's heard, or it being stored on multiple devices.
Easy example: My wife and I each have a "portable music device". If we each put a copy of Song X on our machines, should we expect jackboots at the door?
It's the same problem with "public performance" being prohibited. If I watch a movie, that's OK. If I put it on the local movie screen for a hundred people, that's not. But where's the dividing line? Can my wife watch with me? How about my kid? If I invite my siblings and parents over, that's 7 people now watching. Can the seven of us watch it in a theatre? Can a hundred of us watch it in my living room?
Texters and callers will be able to notify trained counselors about guns in school and other threats of violence, "without being tagged as a snitch," said Julie Young-Burns, Safe and Drug-Free Schools coordinator for the Minneapolis Public Schools.
Hmm.. don't see the "not being tagged as a snitch" part working. Nothing travels faster than gossip.
I can think of two different counter-arguments for this:
One: your average kid doesn't really care about the "core subjects". But most of them like one or more of the "options" - you get your kids to like school by giving them *some* part of it they enjoy. (Remember the old saw - "my favorite subject is recess").
Two: I don't know about the rest of you, but my music, video, computers, and business education classes have been more useful to me in my life and career than my physics or calculus. (And I work in a "number crunching" job!). Giving kids a little of everything lets us both find what each student *really* wants to do, plus hedges our collective bets - when I was in school, everyone was pushed into computing classes. Now, office workers are a dime a dozen, but the few classmates who stuck with trades are doing quite nicely for themselves. We don't know what our kids will need five or ten years down the road - better to make them well rounded.
Wouldn't call the DS hinge cracking cosmetic - mine did that, and it pretty much kills the portability. Mine works fine, but you have to balance the top screen or else it flops over. And while I haven't tested this, it looks like the top screen would slide right off the remaining hinge, and then I'd be totally SOL.
I can't decide which is better - the Canadian version (where the bills are all automatically assigned numbers such as C-14), which means that while they can't give it a catchy/misleading name, you also can hide it, or the US version where everything gets a poppy name that doesn't have anything to do with the content inside.
A lot of people are misunderstanding the OP question (or maybe I am).
What I'm reading isn't "I'm going on vacation and have to micromanage my business" (to which the correct answer is "stop being married to your job", as posted several dozen times above)
What I'd like to know (and what the OP wants to know, I think) is can we solve the general case of telecommuting? He does his work on the web (and thus isn't tied to a physical address for the job). If he can work from his house, why not on the road? How far will current tech take us?
I would happily give up most aspects of civilization to go live in the woods. Except my internet. (And since you're reading this, join the club). The idea of being able to truck around the country while working doesn't sound half-bad to me.
My grandfather spent many years living out of an RV, working as a welder at remote sites. His place was nicer than mine, and he never needed to pack. *g*
Why would it upset you if the series go to book 20 if every one of them is good? Is it because you no longer like the book and just have to "finish" it? If so, why not just consider the last book you read as "finished" and move on? I did that with the Sword of Truth series, I just stopped after book 6 or 7 and never bothered the rest.
Can't speak for the rest of the universe, but for me the big issue is that Jordan lost track of what the series was about - there's so many sub-plots, and new characters, and little side quests, that you can go through an entire book and the main plot didn't advance at all.
I'd be happier if some of the little side plots were moved to their own books, so that the main plot could, ya know, advance
I just look on the bright side - at least the new author will actually finish the series
You can say a lot about Jordan, both good and bad (my wife likes the series, I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't in the house already), but the man did not know how to finish a story. I suspect he would have died with the series unfinished, whether he died now or 50 years from now.
What do you think this is about? They do not care about private laptops. It's about industrial espionage. God fuck america...
Because when they can make full copies of everything legally, why wouldn't they?
Think of it this way: it's relatively inexpensive to keep everything, and the data-mining abilities will only improve. Who's to say that today's harmless college kid isn't an annoying politician ten years from now? What's the value of being able to point to those naughty pictures that he's long since forgotten about?
The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the .gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.
And remember, while the cost to analyze the data now is somewhat high (meaning they probably won't run the numbers on everyone), the cost to store the data is getting cheaper by the day. Which means it is reasonable to assume they'll warehouse everything until either you've done something to warrant the analysis, or the cost has reduced enough that it's feasable to just run everyone.
The $64,000 question, of course, is - what's other countries policies regarding this?
Because as a Canadian, when I take my next vacation, I'll go somewhere where they don't take copies of everything I own instead.
EA Spouse?
That... was a good rebuttal. Thanks.
Wasn't even much of a rebuttal, to be honest - it was just the first thing that came to mind.
wear a mask in public
...just not near a bank, airport, convenience store, or government building.
... or school, or nearly any commercial entity whatsoever. Sadly, you're filmed everywhere - the trick is that we're only now connecting the dots.
EA Spouse?
Most likely the contract, if it even mentions speed, will use the "up to" wording that all the advertising does. It lets them put a big honkin' number in front of you, while disclaiming any responsibility to actually reach within a county mile of that standard.
It's a pity that it doesn't fall under false advertising - while technically true, it's completely useless information for the consumer.