In fact if you DID use it, found yourself to be under the limit and then drove you would be breaking the law because you no longer have a working breathalyser!
Because if you put two of them in the same car they'll fight each other?
Actually there is one very important difference. Most seatbelt laws require the installation and USE of seatbelts.
I was talking about differences that made requiring the latter acceptable but requiring the former a grave violation of the humans' rights.
I don't know how it works in France, but at least here we have an NHS too, and 1) insurance only covers damages to other parties, not to the driver himself and 2) the NHS doesn't charge for the medical care, regardless of whose fault it was.
And French taxpayers pay for emergency medical care when someone gets hit by a drunk idiot too, therefore you can use that exact same argument to defend the imposition of the presence of a breathanalyser.
My post wasn't pro or against seatbelts, it was to show that
Being required to have a breathanalyser in the car is no different than being required to have e.g. seatbelts.
I'm not saying this is right nor wrong. I'm saying the whole "Oh look at rights-violating France, I wouldn't like to live there!" said by US citizens is moronic.
Yes, I agree. My post wasn't against seatbelts, it was showing that requiring the presence of a breathanalyser is not fundamentally different. They the French People have deemed so.
And as a citizen I want to reduce my chances of getting some drunk driver rolling over me, and as a taxpayer I don't want to pay for people getting hit by such drunks.
My post wasn't against seatbelts, it was showing that requiring the presence of a breathanalyser is not fundamentally different.
I find Ng's explanations clearer. It's not necessarily my teacher's fault - some people might prefer his lectures.
Bizarre is having all this free educational content that can actually help the students at no real extra cost for the university and not take advantage of it due to dumb restrictions.
Maybe they should reduce the prices of electricity at night to get people and companies to reduce their peak consumption. Most needs are time-bound (you can't e.g. run the office AC at night instead of during the day), but even some home needs like washing machines or charging gadgets could be displaced to night hours.
You don't get it. At least half of the users go to those machines exactly for that use case: check webmail, facebook, maybe do a search. They still load Windows every time and they still reboot to Windows if they mistakenly choose Linux.
I've read the comments from stories from 2002. I don't see how are they much better. Are you sure you haven't forgot to take off the rose-colored glasses?
Dear Linux community, you guys WANT to gain share...right? You WANT people to actually use Linux, to spread the wealth of FOSS software, to have more and more people have real choices...yes? Am I right?
As a Linux user speaking for nobody else, no, I don't really care.
As for EG, I've never used it, but I do study in a place where all machines dual-boot Windows and Linux, and despite the Linux distro booting much faster and actually having more applications (which users can't run on Windows, since it's pretty locked down), I've never seen anyone choose Linux unless by mistake, and even those proceeded to reboot the machine.
I know the OSD. I disagree that you can't "usefully" use PHP for non-open source projects*, therefore I assumed you meant it legally. I think it's a fair assumption.
* Relying on obfuscators is ridiculous. You license it under a non-open source license and sue people who are obviously repackaging your code (the court will force them to provide the source). There are plenty of non-open source projects with the code available. PGP was one for a lot of time, Microsoft has plenty of "View only" licensed code, etc.
On the other hand, Apple had no new line of products for six years after launching the iPod. Then they launched the iPhone. It hasn't been six years from that.
Slashdot Mirror
How would that work for controlling the car radio?
In fact if you DID use it, found yourself to be under the limit and then drove you would be breaking the law because you no longer have a working breathalyser!
Because if you put two of them in the same car they'll fight each other?
Actually there is one very important difference. Most seatbelt laws require the installation and USE of seatbelts.
I was talking about differences that made requiring the latter acceptable but requiring the former a grave violation of the humans' rights.
I don't know how it works in France, but at least here we have an NHS too, and 1) insurance only covers damages to other parties, not to the driver himself and 2) the NHS doesn't charge for the medical care, regardless of whose fault it was.
NFS is awesome, but it's for small websites. It doesn't fit their needs at all - it's expensive and it's not built for streaming.
Because pronouns aren't nouns.
And French taxpayers pay for emergency medical care when someone gets hit by a drunk idiot too, therefore you can use that exact same argument to defend the imposition of the presence of a breathanalyser.
My post wasn't pro or against seatbelts, it was to show that
Being required to have a breathanalyser in the car is no different than being required to have e.g. seatbelts.
from themselves
If you think drunk drivers only hurt themselves, I think you need some governmental protection from yourself too.
I'm not saying this is right nor wrong. I'm saying the whole "Oh look at rights-violating France, I wouldn't like to live there!" said by US citizens is moronic.
That makes absolutely no sense. Just FYI.
Yes, I agree. My post wasn't against seatbelts, it was showing that requiring the presence of a breathanalyser is not fundamentally different. They the French People have deemed so.
Please read the thread, not just my post.
And as a citizen I want to reduce my chances of getting some drunk driver rolling over me, and as a taxpayer I don't want to pay for people getting hit by such drunks.
My post wasn't against seatbelts, it was showing that requiring the presence of a breathanalyser is not fundamentally different.
I might prefer to risk my life, why should I have to pay for (and be forced to use) seatbelts?
How is requiring you to have a $2 breathanalyser any worse than requiring you to e.g. use sealtbelts?
Comparing it to UK's cameras is ridiculous. And claiming the US with its thousands of warrantless GPS trackers is any better is ridiculous too.
Guilty of what? Being required to have a breathanalyser in the car is no different than being required to have e.g. seatbelts.
I find Ng's explanations clearer. It's not necessarily my teacher's fault - some people might prefer his lectures.
Bizarre is having all this free educational content that can actually help the students at no real extra cost for the university and not take advantage of it due to dumb restrictions.
Possibly; they still have XP. But even if the UI isn't, the name is. That's probably more important.
Maybe they should reduce the prices of electricity at night to get people and companies to reduce their peak consumption. Most needs are time-bound (you can't e.g. run the office AC at night instead of during the day), but even some home needs like washing machines or charging gadgets could be displaced to night hours.
You don't get it. At least half of the users go to those machines exactly for that use case: check webmail, facebook, maybe do a search. They still load Windows every time and they still reboot to Windows if they mistakenly choose Linux.
Windows is familiar, Linux isn't.
I've read the comments from stories from 2002. I don't see how are they much better. Are you sure you haven't forgot to take off the rose-colored glasses?
Because, funnily enough, important education content like Stanford's machine learning lectures are available exactly via Youtube and torrents: http://see.stanford.edu/see/lecturelist.aspx?coll=348ca38a-3a6d-4052-937d-cb017338d7b1
Yeah, I've used iodine successfully in the past. You need to get your own domain, though.
You know the nice part? It uses their DNS servers to tunnel your data ;)
Dear Linux community, you guys WANT to gain share...right? You WANT people to actually use Linux, to spread the wealth of FOSS software, to have more and more people have real choices...yes? Am I right?
As a Linux user speaking for nobody else, no, I don't really care.
As for EG, I've never used it, but I do study in a place where all machines dual-boot Windows and Linux, and despite the Linux distro booting much faster and actually having more applications (which users can't run on Windows, since it's pretty locked down), I've never seen anyone choose Linux unless by mistake, and even those proceeded to reboot the machine.
injustices of the past
I agree with you with the rest, but I'd like to point out that the injustices are hardly "of the past".
I know the OSD. I disagree that you can't "usefully" use PHP for non-open source projects*, therefore I assumed you meant it legally. I think it's a fair assumption.
* Relying on obfuscators is ridiculous. You license it under a non-open source license and sue people who are obviously repackaging your code (the court will force them to provide the source).
There are plenty of non-open source projects with the code available. PGP was one for a lot of time, Microsoft has plenty of "View only" licensed code, etc.
On the other hand, Apple had no new line of products for six years after launching the iPod. Then they launched the iPhone. It hasn't been six years from that.