The complaint was "pollutes", so I'm not sure how you could interpret recycling to mean anything other than reusing the raw materials that compose the battery in order to avoid having dig more of them out of the ground, etc. Obviously recycling uses energy, but that's got very little to do with the traditional pollution of battery production. Now if recycling a battery produces as much pollution as making one from the scratch, that would be a counter point, but that isn't what you said.
And why do you think hydrogen is a better way of transporting energy than sending electricity through cables and then into batteries (since electric train style direct delivery doesn't seem practical so it needs to be stored in the vehicle at some point)? Because newer must be better than older no matter what?
Fuel cells are less efficient than batteries. If you are going to make hydrogen in a "renewable" fashion (i.e. not steam reforming) then the energy efficiency of that step is going to be significant as well. Of course there's the refueling time advantage - you can refuel a vehicle with hydrogen much faster than you can charge a battery - but you seem to be arguing purely from an energy efficiency point.
In which case you don't need a law preventing manufacturers from doing so - they'll use resellers because it is cheaper/better for them. That there is such a law is usually evidence (not proof, there are other possible explanations) that manfacturers do in fact want to sell directly. If no one wanted to speed we wouldn't need speed limit laws after all.
That's what shitty parenting combined with a crappy school system will get you. It can be fixed at either end - in fact school days are usually about 7 hours long, only happen 5 in every 7 days, and more than 1/5 of those are vacation days anyway so schools don't have a monopoly.
Sure you shouldn't have to but there are 3.5 waking hours that a kid is not in school for every 1 hour they are in school so parents have ample time make up for things schools don't do and fix any damage schools do do. If the are no bad effects of being lazy in school enforced by the school there's ample time for there to be bad effects enforced outside of school. If the school homework is non-existent or stupid time-wasting garbage there's no law that a parent can't give their child their own homework to do as well (well not in the states I've lived anyway).
Immediately pleading the fifth always makes you look suspicious. But given the police are questioning you they are already suspicious so no loss there.
This particular case just reinforces the "don't talk" mantra. If they can do what they did here then you need to not answer from the very beginning so they can't argue "oh look he clammed up as soon as we mentioned X". Yes they shouldn't be able to do so anyway, but apparently the Supreme Court disagrees (OK there are some circumstances, it would appear he just needed to say some magic words rather than saying nothing) and frankly their opinion is all that matters in a disagreement about the constitution.
I didn't think you were lying. I figured you just forgot about snow shoveling since it's such just the done thing anyway. I was surprised myself when it turns out that CA expects owners to repair the sidewalk (I expected my recollections of a news article would be wrong since it's such a dumb idea) - though if CA does I'm sure a bunch of other places do too (CA isn't exactly famous for small government after all).
I was wrong, obviously. You didn't forget about snow shoveling you just didn't consider it part of maintenance. Which is fine, just strange that me possibly wanting to say that yes I do think it is part of maintenance could only be a crippling desire to always be right on my part.
No. Not talking with the police in the first place would be the right choice so I'm not claiming either way is wrong.
In this particular case it should be obvious. He apparently murdered two people. Of course he shouldn't talk to the police. How justice is supposed to work is irrelevant - if you have in fact committed a crime don't talk to the police. That seems pretty obvious to me. Now if he hadn't done anything wrong then you hit the less obvious grounds, though I'm of the opinion that "not talking" is the correct response in 99.9% of cases.
And yes I do consider that a sad state of affairs.
However, we have a system in which the laws are so complicated that highly specialized lawyers with decades of experience disagree with each other on the details, and the sheer volume of things made illegal is astounding, and with a police force that takes pride in its "us versus them" mentality. Combine those and yes you are going to end up with a really crappy system of justice in which you should avoid contact and certainly talking to law enforcement as best you can. You have to play the cards you are dealt even when they are shitty (and folding isn't an option - I guess you could leave the country entirely, but many other places have similar if not worse issues).
I'm not going far to disprove your point. I've accepted that you used "anything" with a qualifier that I didn't see (since I jumped in in the middle of the thread). so there's no point to disprove in the first place. I've agreed that non-snow removal type maintenance has probably been the responsibility of the city in the places you've lived (I've lived in apartments in some places and so wouldn't know for them). I haven't changed what you've said at all that I can tell.
I'm currently just amazed that you seem to consider someone having a different opinion than you and/or that they do trivial fact checking before making a claim so be a sign of zealousness and ego (whatever those actually are). I'll try and remember to just make stuff up whenever replying to you rather than checking if my recollections are valid - though I don't actually look at the names on the comments so it won't matter anyway since I won't notice it's you, sorry.
I can honestly say that there's no ego involved. I truly don't care if I'm right or wrong on this (there doesn't seem to be a dispute to be wrong or right for that matter). I agree in fact that in most of the places I've lived sidewalk repair has been paid for by the city. I'm only still engaged in the hope that I'll get insight into why you felt the need to explicitly tell me not to bother saying "sorry, I considered snow removal a form of maintenance" and that the only reason I could possibly have for wanting to clear up a difference in definitions was a need to be right rather than say trying to end on agreement.
I must admit you did bait me into looking up CA rules (since I vaguely remembered a news story long ago about Los Angeles getting sued for crappy sidewalks and trying to stick it back on the property owners but the city had some old regulation in which they took responsibility and good luck getting the people to let them go back on that deficit and hence had something to check), congratulations on that one:)
Really? You can detect zealousness and ego in my opinion that hazard removal is a type of maintenance?
Your abilities are truly astounding.
Or was is the minute I spent googling for "MD snow shovel owner", "DC snow shovel owner", "VA snow shovel owner", and "CA snow shovel owner" and clicking through one of the top matches for something that looked like what I expected due to it being the law in my own state. Well except for CA - that gave matches for Canada instead of California and I couldn't be bothered special casing a search. If so was it the minute of time I spent that shows too much "zealous ego engagement" for you? Or was it that I gave up on California at the first obstacle?
I hope it wasn't the minute I spent, since if so I just spent another minute typing this proving your point again I guess. Then again if so, why do you want rapid non-thinking conversations rather than me spending a tiny bit of time checking my facts before spouting them?
Gee, maybe to provide information on an actual crime that someone had committed?
If you are suicidal, sure go ahead.
Those of us with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together, if they haven't already, will be able to understand the example given in this very article and how it clearly shows that you should not in fact talk the police even to provide them such information.
Sure that is going to make it harder for the police to solve crimes, but they made the bed and they get to lie in it.
Of course there's a risk/reward trade off. If their child has been kidnapped then most people will take the risk of talking to the police in order to increase the chances of getting their child back, as just one example.
If he had have not answered any of the questions and then not answered that one then he wouldn't have "got into trouble" (in terms of his non-answer being usable against him). Thus not answering the question isn't actually the problem. The problem was the answering of the other questions
I consider removing hazards as maintenance. You are allowed not to. That I think that doesn't mean I have an ego that requires me always to be right. Do you have a problem with random people on the internet not agreeing with all your opinions?
Liability purposed is all there is. What other purpose could there be? "Looking pretty" I guess but it'd be very strange for a state to get involved at that level.
Anyway I found it:
"The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto." - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/SHC/1/d7/3/22/2/s5610 (CAL CODE 5610)
That some cities have decided to take on the responsibility doesn't change what the state law is. Of course it isn't surprising that CA voters have elected people to city government who have had the city take such responsibilities.
Assuming the city of Berkeley isn't lying then (it's always suspicious when they don't give the darn reference for to the law in question of course): "State law has long held that property owners are fully responsible for keeping sidewalks in safe condition. However, to ensure that sidewalks provide safe passage for everyone, the City has been performing many needed repairs.".
MD : http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?url=/content/pio/emergency/Code_Section_49-24A.asp "A person is responsible for removing snow and ice on any sidewalk, other walkway, or parking area on or adjacent to property that the person owns, leases, or manages, including any walkway in the public right-of-way, to provide a pathway wide enough for safe pedestrian and wheelchair use. "
DC: http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=D.C.+Code+%2525A7+9-601 "It shall be the duty of every person, partnership, corporation, joint-stock company, or syndicate in charge or control of any building or lot of land within the fire limits of the District of Columbia, fronting or abutting on a paved sidewalk, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee, or otherwise, within the first 8 hours of daylight after the ceasing to fall of any snow or sleet, to remove and clear away, or cause to be removed and cleared away, such snow or sleet from so much of said sidewalk as is in front of or abuts on said building or lot of land."
That's a mighty weird definition of sharing you have there. Maybe you mean lending?
Because when I share my lunch with you I don't want your half back later. When I share my wifi connection with you I don't want you to return the bits and bandwidth somehow. When I share my opinions with you I don't want you to parrot them back to me next week.
The owners stiill have to be willing to sell it, which was the original claim.
Management is irrelevant, just like the current person I have handling renting out a property has exactly no say in whether I sell it or not. Sure they can give me advice, but they aren't the owner and hence they don't have a say.
Now of course in the corporate world board members can also be owners.
Maybe he doesn't consider Syria a "dumb war", either because he is dumber than you or because he has more information that you?
Of course there are lots of examples of him explicitly lying with no value judgement words (like dumb) mixed in to weasel out with, why not pick one of them?
So because someone happens to like a form of entertainment you don't they have a problem. Your mother must be very proud of the bigoted child she has managed to raise.
Slashdot Mirror
The complaint was "pollutes", so I'm not sure how you could interpret recycling to mean anything other than reusing the raw materials that compose the battery in order to avoid having dig more of them out of the ground, etc. Obviously recycling uses energy, but that's got very little to do with the traditional pollution of battery production. Now if recycling a battery produces as much pollution as making one from the scratch, that would be a counter point, but that isn't what you said.
And why do you think hydrogen is a better way of transporting energy than sending electricity through cables and then into batteries (since electric train style direct delivery doesn't seem practical so it needs to be stored in the vehicle at some point)? Because newer must be better than older no matter what?
Fuel cells are less efficient than batteries. If you are going to make hydrogen in a "renewable" fashion (i.e. not steam reforming) then the energy efficiency of that step is going to be significant as well. Of course there's the refueling time advantage - you can refuel a vehicle with hydrogen much faster than you can charge a battery - but you seem to be arguing purely from an energy efficiency point.
Do you also think that recycling plastic violates the laws of thermodynamics because you also don't get more energy out than you put in?
I'm right here.
Here you go: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1519756&cid=30852218 - there is me, a /. user, posting in support of that ruling. There are many others.
That you are unobservant or willfully ignorant doesn't say anything about anyone but you.
In which case you don't need a law preventing manufacturers from doing so - they'll use resellers because it is cheaper/better for them. That there is such a law is usually evidence (not proof, there are other possible explanations) that manfacturers do in fact want to sell directly. If no one wanted to speed we wouldn't need speed limit laws after all.
That's what shitty parenting combined with a crappy school system will get you. It can be fixed at either end - in fact school days are usually about 7 hours long, only happen 5 in every 7 days, and more than 1/5 of those are vacation days anyway so schools don't have a monopoly.
Sure you shouldn't have to but there are 3.5 waking hours that a kid is not in school for every 1 hour they are in school so parents have ample time make up for things schools don't do and fix any damage schools do do. If the are no bad effects of being lazy in school enforced by the school there's ample time for there to be bad effects enforced outside of school. If the school homework is non-existent or stupid time-wasting garbage there's no law that a parent can't give their child their own homework to do as well (well not in the states I've lived anyway).
Yes it does, but that hardly seems at all relevant.
Immediately pleading the fifth always makes you look suspicious. But given the police are questioning you they are already suspicious so no loss there.
This particular case just reinforces the "don't talk" mantra. If they can do what they did here then you need to not answer from the very beginning so they can't argue "oh look he clammed up as soon as we mentioned X". Yes they shouldn't be able to do so anyway, but apparently the Supreme Court disagrees (OK there are some circumstances, it would appear he just needed to say some magic words rather than saying nothing) and frankly their opinion is all that matters in a disagreement about the constitution.
I didn't think you were lying. I figured you just forgot about snow shoveling since it's such just the done thing anyway. I was surprised myself when it turns out that CA expects owners to repair the sidewalk (I expected my recollections of a news article would be wrong since it's such a dumb idea) - though if CA does I'm sure a bunch of other places do too (CA isn't exactly famous for small government after all).
I was wrong, obviously. You didn't forget about snow shoveling you just didn't consider it part of maintenance. Which is fine, just strange that me possibly wanting to say that yes I do think it is part of maintenance could only be a crippling desire to always be right on my part.
No. Not talking with the police in the first place would be the right choice so I'm not claiming either way is wrong.
In this particular case it should be obvious. He apparently murdered two people. Of course he shouldn't talk to the police. How justice is supposed to work is irrelevant - if you have in fact committed a crime don't talk to the police. That seems pretty obvious to me. Now if he hadn't done anything wrong then you hit the less obvious grounds, though I'm of the opinion that "not talking" is the correct response in 99.9% of cases.
And yes I do consider that a sad state of affairs.
However, we have a system in which the laws are so complicated that highly specialized lawyers with decades of experience disagree with each other on the details, and the sheer volume of things made illegal is astounding, and with a police force that takes pride in its "us versus them" mentality. Combine those and yes you are going to end up with a really crappy system of justice in which you should avoid contact and certainly talking to law enforcement as best you can. You have to play the cards you are dealt even when they are shitty (and folding isn't an option - I guess you could leave the country entirely, but many other places have similar if not worse issues).
I'm not going far to disprove your point. I've accepted that you used "anything" with a qualifier that I didn't see (since I jumped in in the middle of the thread). so there's no point to disprove in the first place. I've agreed that non-snow removal type maintenance has probably been the responsibility of the city in the places you've lived (I've lived in apartments in some places and so wouldn't know for them). I haven't changed what you've said at all that I can tell.
I'm currently just amazed that you seem to consider someone having a different opinion than you and/or that they do trivial fact checking before making a claim so be a sign of zealousness and ego (whatever those actually are). I'll try and remember to just make stuff up whenever replying to you rather than checking if my recollections are valid - though I don't actually look at the names on the comments so it won't matter anyway since I won't notice it's you, sorry.
I can honestly say that there's no ego involved. I truly don't care if I'm right or wrong on this (there doesn't seem to be a dispute to be wrong or right for that matter). I agree in fact that in most of the places I've lived sidewalk repair has been paid for by the city. I'm only still engaged in the hope that I'll get insight into why you felt the need to explicitly tell me not to bother saying "sorry, I considered snow removal a form of maintenance" and that the only reason I could possibly have for wanting to clear up a difference in definitions was a need to be right rather than say trying to end on agreement.
I must admit you did bait me into looking up CA rules (since I vaguely remembered a news story long ago about Los Angeles getting sued for crappy sidewalks and trying to stick it back on the property owners but the city had some old regulation in which they took responsibility and good luck getting the people to let them go back on that deficit and hence had something to check), congratulations on that one :)
Really? You can detect zealousness and ego in my opinion that hazard removal is a type of maintenance?
Your abilities are truly astounding.
Or was is the minute I spent googling for "MD snow shovel owner", "DC snow shovel owner", "VA snow shovel owner", and "CA snow shovel owner" and clicking through one of the top matches for something that looked like what I expected due to it being the law in my own state. Well except for CA - that gave matches for Canada instead of California and I couldn't be bothered special casing a search. If so was it the minute of time I spent that shows too much "zealous ego engagement" for you? Or was it that I gave up on California at the first obstacle?
I hope it wasn't the minute I spent, since if so I just spent another minute typing this proving your point again I guess. Then again if so, why do you want rapid non-thinking conversations rather than me spending a tiny bit of time checking my facts before spouting them?
If you are suicidal, sure go ahead.
Those of us with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together, if they haven't already, will be able to understand the example given in this very article and how it clearly shows that you should not in fact talk the police even to provide them such information.
Sure that is going to make it harder for the police to solve crimes, but they made the bed and they get to lie in it.
Of course there's a risk/reward trade off. If their child has been kidnapped then most people will take the risk of talking to the police in order to increase the chances of getting their child back, as just one example.
Not really.
If he had have not answered any of the questions and then not answered that one then he wouldn't have "got into trouble" (in terms of his non-answer being usable against him). Thus not answering the question isn't actually the problem. The problem was the answering of the other questions
I consider removing hazards as maintenance. You are allowed not to. That I think that doesn't mean I have an ego that requires me always to be right. Do you have a problem with random people on the internet not agreeing with all your opinions?
Liability purposed is all there is. What other purpose could there be? "Looking pretty" I guess but it'd be very strange for a state to get involved at that level.
Anyway I found it:
"The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto." - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/SHC/1/d7/3/22/2/s5610 (CAL CODE 5610)
That some cities have decided to take on the responsibility doesn't change what the state law is. Of course it isn't surprising that CA voters have elected people to city government who have had the city take such responsibilities.
I guess we use different working definitions for the word "anything".
But OK, for CA then: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/sidewalks.aspx
Assuming the city of Berkeley isn't lying then (it's always suspicious when they don't give the darn reference for to the law in question of course): "State law has long held that property owners are fully responsible for keeping sidewalks in safe condition. However, to ensure that sidewalks provide safe passage for everyone, the City has been performing many needed repairs.".
MD : http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?url=/content/pio/emergency/Code_Section_49-24A.asp
"A person is responsible for removing snow and ice on any sidewalk, other walkway, or parking area on or adjacent to property that the person owns, leases, or manages, including any walkway in the public right-of-way, to provide a pathway wide enough for safe pedestrian and wheelchair use. "
DC: http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=D.C.+Code+%2525A7+9-601
"It shall be the duty of every person, partnership, corporation, joint-stock company, or syndicate in charge or control of any building or lot of land within the fire limits of the District of Columbia, fronting or abutting on a paved sidewalk, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee, or otherwise, within the first 8 hours of daylight after the ceasing to fall of any snow or sleet, to remove and clear away, or cause to be removed and cleared away, such snow or sleet from so much of said sidewalk as is in front of or abuts on said building or lot of land."
VA: http://alexandriava.gov/special/weather/snow/default.aspx?id=40386
"Snow and ice must be cleared from all paved sidewalks abutting your property within 24-72 hours of the end of the snowfall, depending on the storm response level"
No idea about CA, and of course city/district level rather than state usually.
That's a mighty weird definition of sharing you have there. Maybe you mean lending?
Because when I share my lunch with you I don't want your half back later. When I share my wifi connection with you I don't want you to return the bits and bandwidth somehow. When I share my opinions with you I don't want you to parrot them back to me next week.
The owners stiill have to be willing to sell it, which was the original claim.
Management is irrelevant, just like the current person I have handling renting out a property has exactly no say in whether I sell it or not. Sure they can give me advice, but they aren't the owner and hence they don't have a say.
Now of course in the corporate world board members can also be owners.
Wow people are even dumber than I thought.
Maybe he doesn't consider Syria a "dumb war", either because he is dumber than you or because he has more information that you?
Of course there are lots of examples of him explicitly lying with no value judgement words (like dumb) mixed in to weasel out with, why not pick one of them?
That's not what obfuscation means, so those examples have nothing to do with obfuscation and are completely irrelevant.
If you don't know a simple English word, maybe use a dictionary?
So because someone happens to like a form of entertainment you don't they have a problem. Your mother must be very proud of the bigoted child she has managed to raise.
How would I know the details of your delusions?
Because yelling a passphrase is easier than yelling out 1.7TB of data on the spot?