The instinct is there, just in a broader sense. We (and other animals) instinctively do what we can to conserve our life and survive. In his case, he needed to stop/slow the bleeding and he happened to use fast food in place of a bunch of gauze. Personally, I think I would have opted for my shirt or something before food, but it apparently worked out fine for him. Although, using something more obvious probably wouldn't have made the news.
Interesting points. I knew they are non-moving, but didn't ever really stop and think of why that's the case.
In my recent case ( http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1735716&cid=33062102 ), I remember there being some fine print that included an explanation of what steps to take if you weren't the one driving, car had been sold, you were yielding to an emergency vehicle, etc. I wish I still had it handy to read in greater detail what it said. I suspect there would be an affidavit involved plus lots of supporting documentation. Proving you weren't the driver would surely be he hardest (if not impossible) to support. I'm sure it's not a fun or easy process, if you're ever realistically going to have it reversed, but that's the limited knowledge I was basing my reply on.
And these kids making printouts of others plates have the exact same year, make, model, and color car as you? Sorry, that's pretty far-fetched, even for the sake of argument. If that's honestly the case, you could fight the ticket. In addition, the video of every infraction is reviewed by an officer before they decide to send a ticket or not (at least in my case -- see comment of mine below --, and I would assume this is common practice). That should rule out any technology-based errors or even the system being erroneously triggered. If there really is a legitimate error, or if you really weren't the one driving your vehicle, you should have no problem getting it dismissed and not paying the fine.
Furthermore, they are non-moving violations (again, at least in my case - I don't know if this varies by state or location). This is the same as getting a parking ticket or something. Your "criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc" are not in any danger.
I recently got one of these in the mail only to find out that I had been ticketed for turning right on red. They had a nifty online log in where I could even view the video of the "infraction" and it did turn out that I didn't stop completely. I suppose I admit my "guilt," but it was 7:30am on a Saturday in a small town and a completely empty intersection. Unfortunately, the town is about an hour and a half drive from my home and there was some fine print about a $50 administrative fee for doing so. It wouldn't be at all worth it to fight or argue the thing (especially considering that I admittedly didn't come to a full stop), so I just paid the $75 and take it as a lesson learned.
I have no problem with using the cameras to ticket those who actually blatantly run red lights. I see it all the time and it scares the crap out of me how much people endanger themselves and others just to save a few minutes. After sitting at a red light, I'm always sure to check and make sure no one is about to blast through the intersection before I start going. It's something I started being extra sure of when riding motorcycles, and has just become a good habit.
Sure it's easy to install Ubuntu on your new machine (I did the same thing on a recent netbook purchase -- before even letting it load into its pre-packaged XP the first time). Yes, there's even tons of support in the community for someone completely new to it. But the users who don't already use, and aren't already familiar with Linux, are most likely not going to do this or seek the information. These are generally the same users who really don't need windows and could actually benefit from the simplicity of something like Ubuntu, but they're completely unaware of that; they know nothing except windows. Thus, they pay a premium for a crappy and unnecessary OS and the Open Source movement is hindered in a way (or at least doesn't gain that potential new user).
Why exactly is light being associated with birds; are they carrying flashlights when hunting for shrimp now? Okay, maybe surface light in general, but I'm not so sure that qualifies the shrimp as being suicidal.
This is specific to album sales. Tours and ticket sales, clothing, other promotional or advertising gigs, licensing, etc, all account for a lot of money.
The lawsuit-happy RIAA is probably now going try taking on Techdirt. They're going to need to hire some lawyers with different specialties than their usual ones.
"Back-breakingly heavy"? Admittedly, I've never worn the aprons for more than the few minutes that an X-Ray takes, but they're not that heavy. Heck, it could even have some core-strengthening benefits. What about Law Enforcement or Military Personnel who have to wear bullet-proof vests all day long?
The video won't load for me right now, but the thing looks pretty cumbersome to have on you all day long and I'd be interested to see how it is attached (or suspended?) and "follows" you as you move around a room. The increased coverage that it provides definitely seems like a good thing, but there appear to be some major trade-offs.
I've actually been planning a backpacking/primitive camping trip with a buddy of mine for a while now, which was prompted in part by a random feeling of being tired of all the comforts we take for granted, as well as realizing how out of touch the majority of people are (myself included) with nature and the associated skills that come with it (the ones that many of our Dads may have taught us, and we've since forgotten). I'm glad to know that the trip will have these other benefits too.
It's the language that's NSFW, for those of you who have headphones at work. Otherwise, it looks like a harmless animation the entire time, and you really don't even need to watch it.
Is NPG only increasing the price [by so much] for UC, or is it being done across the board to all who subscribe? Similarly, is UC the only entity that is opposed to the increase (or at least voicing it in such a fashion)? I wonder what NPG's reasoning for the increase is, especially if it's such a drastic increase.
My guess: Both sides are bluffing to some extent and they'll end up reaching a deal somewhere in the middle because it's in both of their best interest to do so.
I wonder if their statistics include my Google News app populating stories every time I open my iGoogle page without any intention of looking at the news.
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA so I don't know if it clarified this.
This is a matter of convincing people to pay for something that they *can* get for free - whether or not they can afford to pay for it doesn't play much of a role. Unless they've been directly affected by an RIAA lawsuit or the like, the great majority aren't going to bother changing their ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another Firefox vs. IE article. (note that either browser in this statement can be switched out with yet another competitor)
The instinct is there, just in a broader sense. We (and other animals) instinctively do what we can to conserve our life and survive. In his case, he needed to stop/slow the bleeding and he happened to use fast food in place of a bunch of gauze. Personally, I think I would have opted for my shirt or something before food, but it apparently worked out fine for him. Although, using something more obvious probably wouldn't have made the news.
Surprise not found.
It's gonna turn into a hookup tool. Like craigslist adult forums, but very very immediate.
There was an episode of Law and Order: SVU in which the rape/murder victim was on a site exactly like that.
Interesting points. I knew they are non-moving, but didn't ever really stop and think of why that's the case.
In my recent case ( http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1735716&cid=33062102 ), I remember there being some fine print that included an explanation of what steps to take if you weren't the one driving, car had been sold, you were yielding to an emergency vehicle, etc. I wish I still had it handy to read in greater detail what it said. I suspect there would be an affidavit involved plus lots of supporting documentation. Proving you weren't the driver would surely be he hardest (if not impossible) to support. I'm sure it's not a fun or easy process, if you're ever realistically going to have it reversed, but that's the limited knowledge I was basing my reply on.
And these kids making printouts of others plates have the exact same year, make, model, and color car as you? Sorry, that's pretty far-fetched, even for the sake of argument. If that's honestly the case, you could fight the ticket. In addition, the video of every infraction is reviewed by an officer before they decide to send a ticket or not (at least in my case -- see comment of mine below --, and I would assume this is common practice). That should rule out any technology-based errors or even the system being erroneously triggered. If there really is a legitimate error, or if you really weren't the one driving your vehicle, you should have no problem getting it dismissed and not paying the fine.
Furthermore, they are non-moving violations (again, at least in my case - I don't know if this varies by state or location). This is the same as getting a parking ticket or something. Your "criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc" are not in any danger.
I recently got one of these in the mail only to find out that I had been ticketed for turning right on red. They had a nifty online log in where I could even view the video of the "infraction" and it did turn out that I didn't stop completely. I suppose I admit my "guilt," but it was 7:30am on a Saturday in a small town and a completely empty intersection. Unfortunately, the town is about an hour and a half drive from my home and there was some fine print about a $50 administrative fee for doing so. It wouldn't be at all worth it to fight or argue the thing (especially considering that I admittedly didn't come to a full stop), so I just paid the $75 and take it as a lesson learned.
I have no problem with using the cameras to ticket those who actually blatantly run red lights. I see it all the time and it scares the crap out of me how much people endanger themselves and others just to save a few minutes. After sitting at a red light, I'm always sure to check and make sure no one is about to blast through the intersection before I start going. It's something I started being extra sure of when riding motorcycles, and has just become a good habit.
Sure it's easy to install Ubuntu on your new machine (I did the same thing on a recent netbook purchase -- before even letting it load into its pre-packaged XP the first time). Yes, there's even tons of support in the community for someone completely new to it. But the users who don't already use, and aren't already familiar with Linux, are most likely not going to do this or seek the information. These are generally the same users who really don't need windows and could actually benefit from the simplicity of something like Ubuntu, but they're completely unaware of that; they know nothing except windows. Thus, they pay a premium for a crappy and unnecessary OS and the Open Source movement is hindered in a way (or at least doesn't gain that potential new user).
But why wouldn't the industry take equally huge chunks of that revenue?
Because "the industry" isn't the RIAA?
Why exactly is light being associated with birds; are they carrying flashlights when hunting for shrimp now? Okay, maybe surface light in general, but I'm not so sure that qualifies the shrimp as being suicidal.
This is specific to album sales. Tours and ticket sales, clothing, other promotional or advertising gigs, licensing, etc, all account for a lot of money.
The lawsuit-happy RIAA is probably now going try taking on Techdirt. They're going to need to hire some lawyers with different specialties than their usual ones.
"Back-breakingly heavy"? Admittedly, I've never worn the aprons for more than the few minutes that an X-Ray takes, but they're not that heavy. Heck, it could even have some core-strengthening benefits. What about Law Enforcement or Military Personnel who have to wear bullet-proof vests all day long?
The video won't load for me right now, but the thing looks pretty cumbersome to have on you all day long and I'd be interested to see how it is attached (or suspended?) and "follows" you as you move around a room. The increased coverage that it provides definitely seems like a good thing, but there appear to be some major trade-offs.
I've actually been planning a backpacking/primitive camping trip with a buddy of mine for a while now, which was prompted in part by a random feeling of being tired of all the comforts we take for granted, as well as realizing how out of touch the majority of people are (myself included) with nature and the associated skills that come with it (the ones that many of our Dads may have taught us, and we've since forgotten). I'm glad to know that the trip will have these other benefits too.
If this is what it takes to get some people out and doing something healthy, then why not?!
It's the language that's NSFW, for those of you who have headphones at work. Otherwise, it looks like a harmless animation the entire time, and you really don't even need to watch it.
Nothing to lose your head over!
Peeping Tom's around the world are frantically trying to order one.
Is NPG only increasing the price [by so much] for UC, or is it being done across the board to all who subscribe? Similarly, is UC the only entity that is opposed to the increase (or at least voicing it in such a fashion)? I wonder what NPG's reasoning for the increase is, especially if it's such a drastic increase. My guess: Both sides are bluffing to some extent and they'll end up reaching a deal somewhere in the middle because it's in both of their best interest to do so.
More importantly, why do you want the password to your own sister's pants?
I wonder if their statistics include my Google News app populating stories every time I open my iGoogle page without any intention of looking at the news.
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA so I don't know if it clarified this.
This is a matter of convincing people to pay for something that they *can* get for free - whether or not they can afford to pay for it doesn't play much of a role. Unless they've been directly affected by an RIAA lawsuit or the like, the great majority aren't going to bother changing their ways.
Senator Sexton from Dan Brown's Deception Point? Is that you?!