Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?
I think you need to go with something less ridiculous, not more. You need to look at the reason clarkkent09 does not want such a law, which is it would preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future. Public masturbation and carrying around a shoulder-fired grenade launcher in public I suspect are both currently illegal by themselves, and I don't see why adding "while operating a motor vehicle" would change that. So lets try something that, by itself, is not illegal. The consumption of alcohol.
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while completely plastered than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
Why does she need to have made the dish in order to know what is in it? She just needs to know who to ask. And in my experience, regarding peanut allergies and cherry allergies, if they don't know off the top of their head, they've always known who to ask.
That example seems a little fucked up. In a country that (supposedly) guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, I would think that simply seeing a gun would be insufficient evidence to justify seizing said gun on the basis of unlawful possession.
Your state requires a doctor to flip the figurative/literal switch? I thought in all states that had the death penalty, the doctor was only present to certify that the person was, in fact, dead, and that it was a non-doctor performing the actual execution.
I can't see any advantage on using chemicals to kill a person, instead of a bullet shot into the head
Less messy, plus chemicals appear more humane. From the perspective of all but the condemned, it looks like they are just going to sleep.
Personally, I'm wondering why they've never tried nitrogen asphyxiation. It gives the same appearance as lethal injection, with the added benefits of being safer to handle and dispose of, and it is actually humane, since the whole "need to breathe" feeling comes about from a build up of CO2, not a lack of O2. If I were a religious person, I'd even go so far as to suggest that nitrogen asphyxiation is God's preferred method of execution. Why else design us with what appears to be such a serious flaw?
A locked down control freak company cuts out anything that would compete with their appstore crapstore and you APPLAUD that shit?
Applaud? All I see is someone being sarcastic, saying that something will never work, while pointing to a company that made that thing work. I see nothing in Doh!'s short post that indicates approval of it. Would you mind pointing it out?
By making a system which is resistant to court orders, you're making it impossible for them to uphold the law, and even if you do so to prevent a violation of the law (an illegal leaking of information), that's still wrong, because upholding the law is their job, not yours.
1) The system is not resistant to court orders. It is resistant to the court going to the wrong party to get at the data.
2) Restricting the ability of a 3rd party to access the data has nothing to do with upholding the law. At most, you could say it is about keeping the government honest, which is the job of everyone.
I guess nurb432 really couldn't figure that out for himself.
Didn't he address it in his second sentence?
Sure, if you are using DRMized books they could yank it off your reader ( or come to your house for your dead tree version ), but that isn't inherent functionality in an e-book.
The government would *love* to be able to discontinue those bills, and replace them with coins.
It costs 18.03 cents to mint those dollar coins, but only 5.4 cents to print a one dollar bill. So why exactly would they want to get rid of the paper bill?
The latter can result in being fired, snubbed, insulted, blackmailed, and justifiably having your judgement challenged.
Why justifiably? I mean, I agree that all of that could happen, including having ones judgement challenged. I just don't see why you singled out having ones judgement challenged as being justified. You're basically saying being filmed while having sex is inherently wrong, and in an extreme worst case, that being filmed while having sex shows that you are mentally unfit to live in society and must be locked up for your own good.
Slashdot Mirror
What kinds of disabilities would a segway help overcome, that would not also hamper use of a segway?
My thoughts similarly. After all, didn't they think that the brain's only purpose was to produce mucus?
Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?
I think you need to go with something less ridiculous, not more. You need to look at the reason clarkkent09 does not want such a law, which is it would preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future. Public masturbation and carrying around a shoulder-fired grenade launcher in public I suspect are both currently illegal by themselves, and I don't see why adding "while operating a motor vehicle" would change that. So lets try something that, by itself, is not illegal. The consumption of alcohol.
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while completely plastered than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
She would not know, she did not make it.
Why does she need to have made the dish in order to know what is in it? She just needs to know who to ask. And in my experience, regarding peanut allergies and cherry allergies, if they don't know off the top of their head, they've always known who to ask.
You could always try asking the waiter/waitress if you are concerned about what is in your food.
But I agree that the whole "not really zero, it's just low enough that we're allowed to call it zero" thing is bullshit.
I don't like spinach. However, I have no problem with other people liking spinach.
Another person doesn't like spinach, and wants to remove spinach from the planet, such that no one can eat it, not even those that do like spinach.
Not all things deserve tolerance. And me not tolerating that other person's feelings does not make me "just as big of a douchbag".
whether a person sees the movie or not doesn't effect his bottom line.
It could.
"Wow, look at how well Ender's Game did! We should get the rights for more of this guy's books!"
"Wow, look at what a flop Ender's Game was. Guess we won't be doing any more with this guy's books."
It also went from 4 AA to 2 AAA batteries, but got better battery life (iirc).
That example seems a little fucked up. In a country that (supposedly) guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, I would think that simply seeing a gun would be insufficient evidence to justify seizing said gun on the basis of unlawful possession.
Your state requires a doctor to flip the figurative/literal switch? I thought in all states that had the death penalty, the doctor was only present to certify that the person was, in fact, dead, and that it was a non-doctor performing the actual execution.
If said right winger believes we were designed, just pose this question to them.
"Then why did God design us this way?"
I can't see any advantage on using chemicals to kill a person, instead of a bullet shot into the head
Less messy, plus chemicals appear more humane. From the perspective of all but the condemned, it looks like they are just going to sleep.
Personally, I'm wondering why they've never tried nitrogen asphyxiation. It gives the same appearance as lethal injection, with the added benefits of being safer to handle and dispose of, and it is actually humane, since the whole "need to breathe" feeling comes about from a build up of CO2, not a lack of O2. If I were a religious person, I'd even go so far as to suggest that nitrogen asphyxiation is God's preferred method of execution. Why else design us with what appears to be such a serious flaw?
And when the cyclist ignored the stop sign / red light?
A locked down control freak company cuts out anything that would compete with their appstore crapstore and you APPLAUD that shit?
Applaud? All I see is someone being sarcastic, saying that something will never work, while pointing to a company that made that thing work. I see nothing in Doh!'s short post that indicates approval of it. Would you mind pointing it out?
By making a system which is resistant to court orders, you're making it impossible for them to uphold the law, and even if you do so to prevent a violation of the law (an illegal leaking of information), that's still wrong, because upholding the law is their job, not yours.
1) The system is not resistant to court orders. It is resistant to the court going to the wrong party to get at the data.
2) Restricting the ability of a 3rd party to access the data has nothing to do with upholding the law. At most, you could say it is about keeping the government honest, which is the job of everyone.
Who cares if it doesn't correctly detect that you sister has lupus and is on steroid therapy... if the outcome of an incorrect detection is...
"Would she like a 20 cent coupon on special K?"
If that is the outcome, then yeah, it probably wouldn't matter to anyone. But that isn't what Impy the Impiuos Imp said. They said:
"Fat person detected. Would you be interested in a 20 cents off coupon for Special K?"
Correct. Unfortunately, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "reasonable" parenting.
I guess nurb432 really couldn't figure that out for himself.
Didn't he address it in his second sentence?
Sure, if you are using DRMized books they could yank it off your reader ( or come to your house for your dead tree version ), but that isn't inherent functionality in an e-book.
It sounds more like, for lack of a better term, "reverse" DRM.
Alice is trying to give data to Bob, but not give it to Chuck. Problem is, Bob and Chuck are the same person.
In "normal" DRM, Alice is a big corporation, and I am Bob/Chuck.
In "reverse" DRM, I am Alice, and the big corporation is Bob/Chuck.
Though all that said, yes, it does sound like a step towards getting people to accept "normal" DRM.
Funny, but in all seriousness, guessing Jerzy Kaltenberg meant this: http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/08/1341234/alcatel-lucent-to-cut-10000-workers-calls-it-shift-plan.
Thanks. Can't believe I overlooked such an obvious reason. :P
Bah, of course I'd overlook something so obvious. :P
Thanks.
The government would *love* to be able to discontinue those bills, and replace them with coins.
It costs 18.03 cents to mint those dollar coins, but only 5.4 cents to print a one dollar bill. So why exactly would they want to get rid of the paper bill?
The latter can result in being fired, snubbed, insulted, blackmailed, and justifiably having your judgement challenged.
Why justifiably? I mean, I agree that all of that could happen, including having ones judgement challenged. I just don't see why you singled out having ones judgement challenged as being justified. You're basically saying being filmed while having sex is inherently wrong, and in an extreme worst case, that being filmed while having sex shows that you are mentally unfit to live in society and must be locked up for your own good.
(My idea of) family is a classic family where the woman has a fundamental role.
Now I'm curious if any women's rights groups have taken up arms against him and his company.