That has nothing to do with my argument. The argument is whether or not texting had anything to do with it, or proving that it indeed had anything to do with it.
Hrm... so I receive a text message, but don't read it. I get in an accident 30 seconds later. I get taken to court by the other driver. They subpoena my cell records to see if I was texting. They see a message received just before the accident. There is no way for them to prove that I actually was reading the text, nor that it was in any way involved in the accident.
Take it a step further. Say the accident was 5 minutes after the text, say I did read the message, and let's say I was in the middle of creating a text to respond but then got in the accident. Since my phone is a flip phone, it is likely in the accident to either snap in half or close itself.
Now, as a prosecuting lawyer, prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that I was texting while driving, and deserve the 15 year sentence as opposed to the standard accidental manslaughter defense.
Don't get me wrong. These are just examples. I personally avoid texting while in my car at all, and if something is really important, I wait until at a light I know will take 30 seconds to a minute to change from red to green, and text it then (rare occurrence).
Now, again, take the last scenario, the one that might actually be the case for me. I send a text while waiting at a red light. 5 seconds later, the light changes to green. I start to go through, and hit a pedestrian who ignored the don't walk sign. I go to prison for 15 years because my records show I had just sent a text message?!? Again, good luck proving beyond a shadow of doubt, that texting while driving was the cause of that person's death, though this law now makes it easier to have false positives.
While I agree wholeheartedly that every state should enact a law similar to this, to say that it should be a Federal law is just plain wrong. How does this involve interstate commerce or holding a standing army? How does this have anything to do with national security? It doesn't. Each state is a sovereign state, has it's own constitution and laws, and only ceded limited power to the Federal government for the general purpose of presenting a unified front to the world (military, trade agreements, etc.), to regulate interstate commerce so that we are more than the sum of our parts, and to handle crimes committed in more than one state jurisdiction. The states did not grant the Federal government the right to willy nilly impose new laws on everyone, except in special circumstances via the Supreme Court. The Constitution was a document that clearly delimited what the Federal government could do, and more importantly, what it could not do.
Each state needs to see the value of a law like this an implement it, or, if you feel it is okay for the Federal government to strong arm the states, ignoring their local laws and constitutions, then the Federal government could threaten to cease all federal road funding to any state that does not implement the law, but that just goes against the whole concept of 50 individual states, loosely united by a federated system.
I want a step better. I want a web interfaced TV show, where at any point, I can pause the show, hover over something I see that I like, and have it tell me who makes it, and if I click on it, have it take me to a shopping site to buy the product. Now that would be effective product placement. Like that jacket? Buy it with a click. Think Fargo's car is cool? Click on it to find your local dealer. Think that maternity shirt is adorable? Order one for your wife within seconds if you enable Amazon's one click show based interface.
Want to just watch the show? Hey, it's commercial free, brought to you by Amazon.com - enjoy!
Think of the money that could be made on these types of impulse purchases?!
Why not include a schematic for building an mp4 player from an open source microcontroller project like an Arduino? Design it so that it can read printed sheets of data to build it's video / audio files. Print all of your data onto plastic sheets. Place all of the electronic components necessary to build the unit into the box. Don't build it, just put in all of the parts, because if a part is bad, she'll have to replace it before building the player. Then, if you can get her interested in electronics at a young age, when the time comes, she'll open up the time capsule and say "Thanks Dad! I needed a fun electronics problem." If she's not into electronics... you're a geek. You'll want to build it for nostalgia sake, and she will love you for the labor of love.
The principles of electronics will not change. Put as many non-corruptable parts as possible into the box (should be most of them, if not all of them), and make sure that there is enough detail to build the reader from the parts and program the reader using only the parts.
Not saying that this would be easy, but it would be a cool project for father and daughter to work on together right at a point in her life where she's starting to get over the rebellious stage of life.
Oh, and if you're going to all the trouble to include audio and video... do her a favor and actually hand write something from everyone. As someone else said, the tactile element of handling an object that has been buried for 16 years is of greater value than the digital data.
Man... now I've got a project I want to make happen before my first child is born!
"Just say'n" is a shortened version of "I (am/was) just saying..." which in turn is a phrase which usually implies that something obvious was pointed out, and that the commenter is "just saying that this should be thought about", "just saying that this seems obvious", and "just saying my opinion on the matter".
example: While it seemed that Bill found kicking someone in the shins to be fun, it seems to be a bit sadistic to me. Just say'n....
My problem is that once you upgrade your account, you are charged their fees even for gifts! (unless they've changed their terms on this yet again?).
Why should my dad sending me birthday money be charged a 3% fee? He could just send me a physical check (which I'm getting ready to start requesting from all family and friends). Paypal makes enough off my business transactions. Leave the free stuff free, or lose my business. I stopped selling on eBay because they removed my ability to choose how I would be paid - I can't refuse to accept credit cards anymore. I don't want to accept credit cards (they can reverse the charges on me both via paypal and via their credit card company). I want the user to be required to pay via paypal with an account that is confirmed to be tied to a bank account, or to pay directly with an eCheck. Why should eBay be able to remove these payment options? Why can't I use eGold or Google Checkout or opt to receive a physical check? It's anti-competitive. Using a check or eCheck or paypal via direct connection to the buyer's bank account confirms for me that the buyer is a real person with a real bank account, and not just a credit card fraudster. The other options have federal laws protecting me from fraud. Credit card fraud is just shrugged off as a "cost of doing business" but I'm still out my money!
Now, to sell my personal stuff, I sell on Craigslist and only take cash in person. To sell my business stuff, I use Authorize.net to accept credit cards on my personal business website to spite Paypal for their horrible practices. I'm tired of being scammed and ripped off from both ends - it's just not good for business.
I am quite educated, and know full well that probable cause is required to search your home. But what does that have anything to do with my analogy? It doesn't!
I can do drugs in my own home, and they cannot search my property and arrest me without probable cause.
I can disassemble that code in my own home, and they cannot search my computer and arrest me for copyright infringement without probable cause (actually, it likely wouldn't be criminal charges, unless you proceeded to use the disassembled code to create a competing commercial product. More likely, it would be civil charges, but hopefully you get the point).
Oh, and how, exactly, am I not educated? You seem to have completely missed my argument and pointed to something totally unrelated and then proceeded to insult me. Seems that someone else is in need of education - in respect and in reading comprehension skills.
What type of water are you talking about? How much salt content? How much mineral content? This is why the Celsius scale is also just as arbitrary as the Fahrenheit scale. At least the zero point in Fahrenheit is the point at which practically any type of water will be found to be frozen. This is useful knowledge if you are in a cold climate.
If the temperature is above zero degrees Fahrenheit, using salt to melt ice makes sense. If the temperature is below zero degrees Fahrenheit, ice becomes pointless, and it is time to switch to sand for traction.
For hot climates, if it is above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, it's getting dangerous to be outside for too long. If it is less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, it is generally safe to be outside.
Fahrenheit is just more practical for every day use. (Note: everyday use, not scientific use).
When is it acceptable for Chevy to say "We won't reissue you a key for your Chevy after your install of that Hemi engine"? Never? And that's because there are no artificial barriers. If I want to machine my own parts, Chevy can't stop me from continuing to maintain that old Chevy.
The same does not hold true for a computer bought with Microsoft Windows XP. If I want to upgrade my hardware, I need Microsoft's permission to continue to use the product I bought from them. I'm not asking Microsoft to support the hardware with drivers (just like I'd not be expecting Chevy to support my desire to install a Hemi - it's up to me to make sure all the parts play nice together), but you'd better believe I'd expect Chevy to provide me a key if they made it impossible for me to get replacement keys from a third party source and had lobbied to make it illegal for me to replace the lock mechanism on my Chevy.
I paid for the Chevy (and the key to drive it), so I can do with it what I want. I paid for the computer (and the Windows XP OS to drive it), so I should be able to do with it what I want. Microsoft makes that more and more impossible.
If it was in your contract that if I buy one copy of your software, you have a right to inspect my systems to ensure compliance, then yes, I would expect you to get full access to my company's computers to make sure I'm not running more copies of your software than I am licensed to run.
This is why Microsoft is hated... because their contracts and licensing are so rigid and so absolutely confusing that many companies are just not even sure if they really are in compliance.
The problem is that if I swap out a bad motherboard on my XP computer, it insists that I call Microsoft to re-validate the installation using their automated system. Once that automated system is gone (due to the product being discontinued), if I upgrade the motherboard or have too many other hardware changes, I have two options: buy a new OS, or break the law by circumventing the copyright on the software I personally own.
It does not, nor has it ever meant "Personal Computer with Microsoft Windows Operating System installed".
In fact, Atari and others had created many personal computers before Windows even existed. IBM also had put out personal computers prior to this. The Apple I actually was released in 1976, fully 5 years before IBM and Bill Gates got together to discuss creating an operating system for the IBM PC.
The first paragraph wasn't about Windows ports... it was about PC ports, many of which just happen to be Windows ports.
Many games I see come out in Windows, Mac, and Linux all at the same time (PC games, that is). Some even come out on a console at the same time as on various PC operating systems.
Games ported from game consoles, on the other hand, work from highest market share to lowest. Windows is the highest market share, so the most money is made from porting to this OS. Some companies find that there is a sufficiently large market in the Mac portion of PCs to port their game to that, and make some additional money. Linux generally gets the shaft because of it's very small market share in the PC gaming industry. It's simple economics. It costs money to rewrite the game so that it works on other hardware - why spend that unless you will get a good return on profits from that market?
Well, the government, in effect, owns the land, and if you don't pony up the dough, they can take it away from you. Also, "eminent domain" = they can take it if they want to. But trust me, I still own my house. If you try to take my stuff from my house, or try to live in my house, I will call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing.
I don't actively use my electronics in my basement. It's been years since the Atari 2600 has been hooked up, but I'll likely be hooking it up in the next couple of months now that I have moved to a bigger place.
When, exactly, does my ownership of those objects suddenly end due to lack of use, and who comes to take them away from me (and how do they know to take them from my home? What if they take the wrong things?). Absolute ownership is the only thing that works... See: American Indian concept of not owning land versus settlers concept of ownership... American Indians didn't believe anyone owned any land, so when it became difficult to keep others off their hunting grounds, they moved to keep the peace. The settlers ended up pushing them into a corner (yes, oversimplified and missing the gory details, I know!).
Thank you. My basic view on this is that anything that Science can prove, I will believe, and will incorporate into my faith. Anything that Science cannot (or at least has not to date) proven... I will believe what I can glean from what in my opinion is a reliable source of information.
Note: I understand that this takes things out of the realm of science at this point, and that is exactly my point... science doesn't have proof, so unless and until it shows my view to be wrong, I will follow what I believe to be true based on a very historically accurate document that also attempts to discuss the beginning of time.
And do you really trust this organization to just "do the right thing" no matter how much profit is waived in front of their face if they decide to say "we don't like that movie of yours, so you're forced to take it down... oh, and in 6 months, we'll be releasing it nationwide because we don't like it so much..." That's the problem with "good intentions" defining a contract... they can be worked around so easily.
Seeing as how the point I was making "Anyone who says they know the absolute date of the coming of Jesus is flat out in contradiction of the scripture on which they base their claim" is directly related solely to the works that these individuals base their beliefs on, quoting from their their works was 100% on point.
I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say? How is quoting the bible when talking about a person who is stating a biblically based belief and using that quote to prove their biblically based belief is not, in fact, biblically based, a non-credible argument?
Sorry, missed an important bit in that quote (verses 36 and 37 were vital to my above point):
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:36-37
Slashdot Mirror
That has nothing to do with my argument. The argument is whether or not texting had anything to do with it, or proving that it indeed had anything to do with it.
Hrm... so I receive a text message, but don't read it. I get in an accident 30 seconds later. I get taken to court by the other driver. They subpoena my cell records to see if I was texting. They see a message received just before the accident. There is no way for them to prove that I actually was reading the text, nor that it was in any way involved in the accident.
Take it a step further. Say the accident was 5 minutes after the text, say I did read the message, and let's say I was in the middle of creating a text to respond but then got in the accident. Since my phone is a flip phone, it is likely in the accident to either snap in half or close itself.
Now, as a prosecuting lawyer, prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that I was texting while driving, and deserve the 15 year sentence as opposed to the standard accidental manslaughter defense.
Don't get me wrong. These are just examples. I personally avoid texting while in my car at all, and if something is really important, I wait until at a light I know will take 30 seconds to a minute to change from red to green, and text it then (rare occurrence).
Now, again, take the last scenario, the one that might actually be the case for me. I send a text while waiting at a red light. 5 seconds later, the light changes to green. I start to go through, and hit a pedestrian who ignored the don't walk sign. I go to prison for 15 years because my records show I had just sent a text message?!? Again, good luck proving beyond a shadow of doubt, that texting while driving was the cause of that person's death, though this law now makes it easier to have false positives.
While I agree wholeheartedly that every state should enact a law similar to this, to say that it should be a Federal law is just plain wrong. How does this involve interstate commerce or holding a standing army? How does this have anything to do with national security? It doesn't. Each state is a sovereign state, has it's own constitution and laws, and only ceded limited power to the Federal government for the general purpose of presenting a unified front to the world (military, trade agreements, etc.), to regulate interstate commerce so that we are more than the sum of our parts, and to handle crimes committed in more than one state jurisdiction. The states did not grant the Federal government the right to willy nilly impose new laws on everyone, except in special circumstances via the Supreme Court. The Constitution was a document that clearly delimited what the Federal government could do, and more importantly, what it could not do.
Each state needs to see the value of a law like this an implement it, or, if you feel it is okay for the Federal government to strong arm the states, ignoring their local laws and constitutions, then the Federal government could threaten to cease all federal road funding to any state that does not implement the law, but that just goes against the whole concept of 50 individual states, loosely united by a federated system.
I want a step better. I want a web interfaced TV show, where at any point, I can pause the show, hover over something I see that I like, and have it tell me who makes it, and if I click on it, have it take me to a shopping site to buy the product. Now that would be effective product placement. Like that jacket? Buy it with a click. Think Fargo's car is cool? Click on it to find your local dealer. Think that maternity shirt is adorable? Order one for your wife within seconds if you enable Amazon's one click show based interface.
Want to just watch the show? Hey, it's commercial free, brought to you by Amazon.com - enjoy!
Think of the money that could be made on these types of impulse purchases?!
I don't know about you, but I am happily married and getting some tonight (and got some Sunday afternoon too... I love my wife!).
I've got two in my basement. They're available if you really want one.
Why not include a schematic for building an mp4 player from an open source microcontroller project like an Arduino? Design it so that it can read printed sheets of data to build it's video / audio files. Print all of your data onto plastic sheets. Place all of the electronic components necessary to build the unit into the box. Don't build it, just put in all of the parts, because if a part is bad, she'll have to replace it before building the player. Then, if you can get her interested in electronics at a young age, when the time comes, she'll open up the time capsule and say "Thanks Dad! I needed a fun electronics problem." If she's not into electronics... you're a geek. You'll want to build it for nostalgia sake, and she will love you for the labor of love.
The principles of electronics will not change. Put as many non-corruptable parts as possible into the box (should be most of them, if not all of them), and make sure that there is enough detail to build the reader from the parts and program the reader using only the parts.
Not saying that this would be easy, but it would be a cool project for father and daughter to work on together right at a point in her life where she's starting to get over the rebellious stage of life.
Oh, and if you're going to all the trouble to include audio and video... do her a favor and actually hand write something from everyone. As someone else said, the tactile element of handling an object that has been buried for 16 years is of greater value than the digital data.
Man... now I've got a project I want to make happen before my first child is born!
"Just say'n" is a shortened version of "I (am/was) just saying..." which in turn is a phrase which usually implies that something obvious was pointed out, and that the commenter is "just saying that this should be thought about", "just saying that this seems obvious", and "just saying my opinion on the matter".
example:
While it seemed that Bill found kicking someone in the shins to be fun, it seems to be a bit sadistic to me. Just say'n....
My problem is that once you upgrade your account, you are charged their fees even for gifts! (unless they've changed their terms on this yet again?).
Why should my dad sending me birthday money be charged a 3% fee? He could just send me a physical check (which I'm getting ready to start requesting from all family and friends). Paypal makes enough off my business transactions. Leave the free stuff free, or lose my business. I stopped selling on eBay because they removed my ability to choose how I would be paid - I can't refuse to accept credit cards anymore. I don't want to accept credit cards (they can reverse the charges on me both via paypal and via their credit card company). I want the user to be required to pay via paypal with an account that is confirmed to be tied to a bank account, or to pay directly with an eCheck. Why should eBay be able to remove these payment options? Why can't I use eGold or Google Checkout or opt to receive a physical check? It's anti-competitive. Using a check or eCheck or paypal via direct connection to the buyer's bank account confirms for me that the buyer is a real person with a real bank account, and not just a credit card fraudster. The other options have federal laws protecting me from fraud. Credit card fraud is just shrugged off as a "cost of doing business" but I'm still out my money!
Now, to sell my personal stuff, I sell on Craigslist and only take cash in person. To sell my business stuff, I use Authorize.net to accept credit cards on my personal business website to spite Paypal for their horrible practices. I'm tired of being scammed and ripped off from both ends - it's just not good for business.
Oh, and how, exactly, am I not educated? You seem to have completely missed my argument and pointed to something totally unrelated and then proceeded to insult me. Seems that someone else is in need of education - in respect and in reading comprehension skills.
You are not allowed to smoke pot or cocaine in the comfort of your own home. This invades your privacy and yet is an accepted law.
There is nothing that prevents
Um... import laws?
What type of water are you talking about? How much salt content? How much mineral content? This is why the Celsius scale is also just as arbitrary as the Fahrenheit scale. At least the zero point in Fahrenheit is the point at which practically any type of water will be found to be frozen. This is useful knowledge if you are in a cold climate.
If the temperature is above zero degrees Fahrenheit, using salt to melt ice makes sense. If the temperature is below zero degrees Fahrenheit, ice becomes pointless, and it is time to switch to sand for traction.
For hot climates, if it is above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, it's getting dangerous to be outside for too long. If it is less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, it is generally safe to be outside.
Fahrenheit is just more practical for every day use. (Note: everyday use, not scientific use).
I noticed a considerable difference in my house between 71*F and 72*F—I start to sweat easily at 72*, but am fine at 71*.
(using * for degree since Slashdot sucks at rendering unicode, refuses to parse the # code correctly, and ignores the & codes altogether)
When is it acceptable for Chevy to say "We won't reissue you a key for your Chevy after your install of that Hemi engine"? Never? And that's because there are no artificial barriers. If I want to machine my own parts, Chevy can't stop me from continuing to maintain that old Chevy.
The same does not hold true for a computer bought with Microsoft Windows XP. If I want to upgrade my hardware, I need Microsoft's permission to continue to use the product I bought from them. I'm not asking Microsoft to support the hardware with drivers (just like I'd not be expecting Chevy to support my desire to install a Hemi - it's up to me to make sure all the parts play nice together), but you'd better believe I'd expect Chevy to provide me a key if they made it impossible for me to get replacement keys from a third party source and had lobbied to make it illegal for me to replace the lock mechanism on my Chevy.
I paid for the Chevy (and the key to drive it), so I can do with it what I want.
I paid for the computer (and the Windows XP OS to drive it), so I should be able to do with it what I want. Microsoft makes that more and more impossible.
If it was in your contract that if I buy one copy of your software, you have a right to inspect my systems to ensure compliance, then yes, I would expect you to get full access to my company's computers to make sure I'm not running more copies of your software than I am licensed to run.
This is why Microsoft is hated... because their contracts and licensing are so rigid and so absolutely confusing that many companies are just not even sure if they really are in compliance.
The problem is that if I swap out a bad motherboard on my XP computer, it insists that I call Microsoft to re-validate the installation using their automated system. Once that automated system is gone (due to the product being discontinued), if I upgrade the motherboard or have too many other hardware changes, I have two options: buy a new OS, or break the law by circumventing the copyright on the software I personally own.
That is a problem.
PC = Personal Computer.
It does not, nor has it ever meant "Personal Computer with Microsoft Windows Operating System installed".
In fact, Atari and others had created many personal computers before Windows even existed. IBM also had put out personal computers prior to this. The Apple I actually was released in 1976, fully 5 years before IBM and Bill Gates got together to discuss creating an operating system for the IBM PC.
The first paragraph wasn't about Windows ports... it was about PC ports, many of which just happen to be Windows ports.
Many games I see come out in Windows, Mac, and Linux all at the same time (PC games, that is). Some even come out on a console at the same time as on various PC operating systems.
Games ported from game consoles, on the other hand, work from highest market share to lowest. Windows is the highest market share, so the most money is made from porting to this OS. Some companies find that there is a sufficiently large market in the Mac portion of PCs to port their game to that, and make some additional money. Linux generally gets the shaft because of it's very small market share in the PC gaming industry. It's simple economics. It costs money to rewrite the game so that it works on other hardware - why spend that unless you will get a good return on profits from that market?
Well, the government, in effect, owns the land, and if you don't pony up the dough, they can take it away from you. Also, "eminent domain" = they can take it if they want to. But trust me, I still own my house. If you try to take my stuff from my house, or try to live in my house, I will call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing.
Problem with this:
I don't actively use my electronics in my basement. It's been years since the Atari 2600 has been hooked up, but I'll likely be hooking it up in the next couple of months now that I have moved to a bigger place.
When, exactly, does my ownership of those objects suddenly end due to lack of use, and who comes to take them away from me (and how do they know to take them from my home? What if they take the wrong things?). Absolute ownership is the only thing that works... See: American Indian concept of not owning land versus settlers concept of ownership... American Indians didn't believe anyone owned any land, so when it became difficult to keep others off their hunting grounds, they moved to keep the peace. The settlers ended up pushing them into a corner (yes, oversimplified and missing the gory details, I know!).
Thank you. My basic view on this is that anything that Science can prove, I will believe, and will incorporate into my faith. Anything that Science cannot (or at least has not to date) proven... I will believe what I can glean from what in my opinion is a reliable source of information.
Note: I understand that this takes things out of the realm of science at this point, and that is exactly my point... science doesn't have proof, so unless and until it shows my view to be wrong, I will follow what I believe to be true based on a very historically accurate document that also attempts to discuss the beginning of time.
The only bad press is no press at all.
And do you really trust this organization to just "do the right thing" no matter how much profit is waived in front of their face if they decide to say "we don't like that movie of yours, so you're forced to take it down... oh, and in 6 months, we'll be releasing it nationwide because we don't like it so much..." That's the problem with "good intentions" defining a contract... they can be worked around so easily.
No problem... just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something (like a logical fallacy) in my argument. :-)
We all have our days!
Seeing as how the point I was making "Anyone who says they know the absolute date of the coming of Jesus is flat out in contradiction of the scripture on which they base their claim" is directly related solely to the works that these individuals base their beliefs on, quoting from their their works was 100% on point.
I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say? How is quoting the bible when talking about a person who is stating a biblically based belief and using that quote to prove their biblically based belief is not, in fact, biblically based, a non-credible argument?
Sorry, missed an important bit in that quote (verses 36 and 37 were vital to my above point):
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:36-37