Well, so long as the taxpayer doesn't have to fund the hundreds of thousands of dollars of rehabilitation therapy you could easily have avoided by wearing a seatbelt, then knock yourself out. Literally.
I do always wear my seatbelt even though I don't think there should be laws forcing me to.
Your point about public cost is well taken, but that doesn't quite jusify legisltation to me or most americans. We're fond of our cheeseburgers, beer, and cigarettes, all of which cause health problems later on that become burdens on everyone else indirectly. Anti-smoking laws are gaining traction, but I think that's not really the public cost argument so much as non-smokers hate the smell and like feeling self-righteous.
(Before anyone asks, yes I do think anti-smoking laws are stupid and no I don't smoke.)
I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else".. If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
Protecting you from something unpleasant, possibly unpleasant enough to go into therapy, is not a good reason for a law. Hate to sound callous, but those are your issues for you to deal with.
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket).
I don't want to sound like I'm saying "You sound like you're saying that because you are" but that would be hypocritical. Overreaching laws cannot make for responsible parenting.
Anyway you missed the most important reason for getting rid of seatbelt laws: there's no reason TO do it. Not wearing a seatbelt is a self-autonomous safety issue. You're not going to kill someone else doing it. We don't (shouldn't rather) pass laws to protect you from yourself. You should be free to harm yourself as much as you want.
So you're judging your opinions of HD on one of the few movies that was done almost entirely in front of blue/green screens, the exception being the scene involving the Persian horseback messenger coming across the hills.
I think one movie alone is enough to justify not buying into it, plus it wouldn't be just that one movie, it would be any movie with green screening.
What? Cancer and flatulence? No, I just read an interesting summary about somehow fighting cancer with gasoline and pilot lights.
I like articles I can understand:
The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach â" a pilot light â" and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.'
So they're burning cancer with gasoline and pilot lights. I'd expect this to get more refined, like maybe they'll use lighter fluid and a zippo?
If only Germany had protected its citizens from violent video games in the 1930's, imagine how many lives would have been saved!
I'm confused... your point here is "This is one of the countries that started WW2, so they have no right to ban violent videogames?" Or was it "WW2 was not caused by videogames, so clearly videogames can never be blamed for real life violence?"
Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
Easy solution: the list of places with child porn will not be shown to anyone. The telecoms will just have to block those sites on the secret list without seeing the list. Is that too much to ask to protect our children?!? JESUS CHRIST WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
No, what is foolish is knowing you were guilty, challenging them (so far, it can still be construed as civil disobedience or standing up to a bully), then putting on a show, committing perjury and trying to pull a fast one on the jurors - which in a jury trial is suicidal if they realize it. Its no wonder she got spanked in court.
That is true, although I think it would be easy to justify lying under oath to fight back against people who were clearly abusing the system.
Easy to justify, not actually justified. And the lies weren't the best thought out either.
Anyway, I was responding to the bit about it being foolish to try to fight it in the first place.
Are you still jesting, or did you just seriously imply that the plural of "apocalypse" is "apocali"?
Look, I just admitted to causing the Mayan civilization's end, you really want to quibble over grammar with me? I say apocali, it's apocali. English is wrong, not me.
The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.
The expenses can be recouped in the following manner: the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred. If we get into a fender bender, and I sue you for damages, that's okay. If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it, that's me spending money foolishly. You shouldn't have to pay for it.
I did say should... applying logic or "should" statements to legal proceedings is it's own type of illogical, I know...
Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.
To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was. That's what makes them bad guys.
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
You are living in some post-apocalypse vision from J.G. Ballard, and yet you use this as an opportunity to jest.
False dichotomy. I jest all types of apocali while fighting them.
Hell, a while ago I mocked the mayan apocalypse so hard it promised not to come back for a thousand years.
You are now in the avenue of destruction - but they'll have you at each other's throats over false ideological dichotomies instead of turning on the real villains of history.
Right, the extra money would obviously be so that NASA could battle the air force in space to take control of the GPS, at which point we'd dump even more money into NASA to fix the GPS.
is that energy extracted from the cars? then is not magically created, but just a inefficient way to suck energy from other people use of oil.
It sounds to me (IANAPhysicist) like the energy is already being wasted, this is just using it. It harvests energy by pressing down on the plates, wouldn't the car driving over a strip of pavement use the same energy, except it wouldn't be reharvested at all?
Maybe not vampiring so much as collecting dropped change?
Maybe there's more friction moving over these plates though. In which case I'd say most of the drivers probably waste more energy driving around looking for parking spaces than they've lost to the plates.
Again, not a physicist.
By the way, this sounds a lot like the reasoning the RIAA uses.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't even know Kodak made cheese!
Hey, speaking of cheesy...
Well, so long as the taxpayer doesn't have to fund the hundreds of thousands of dollars of rehabilitation therapy you could easily have avoided by wearing a seatbelt, then knock yourself out. Literally.
I do always wear my seatbelt even though I don't think there should be laws forcing me to.
Your point about public cost is well taken, but that doesn't quite jusify legisltation to me or most americans. We're fond of our cheeseburgers, beer, and cigarettes, all of which cause health problems later on that become burdens on everyone else indirectly. Anti-smoking laws are gaining traction, but I think that's not really the public cost argument so much as non-smokers hate the smell and like feeling self-righteous.
(Before anyone asks, yes I do think anti-smoking laws are stupid and no I don't smoke.)
I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else" ..
If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
Protecting you from something unpleasant, possibly unpleasant enough to go into therapy, is not a good reason for a law. Hate to sound callous, but those are your issues for you to deal with.
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket).
I don't want to sound like I'm saying "You sound like you're saying that because you are" but that would be hypocritical. Overreaching laws cannot make for responsible parenting.
Anyway you missed the most important reason for getting rid of seatbelt laws: there's no reason TO do it. Not wearing a seatbelt is a self-autonomous safety issue. You're not going to kill someone else doing it. We don't (shouldn't rather) pass laws to protect you from yourself. You should be free to harm yourself as much as you want.
How the hell can you screw up Wolverine?
You answered yourself: an adamantium bullet.
If that ruined the movie for anyone: you're welcome.
So you're judging your opinions of HD on one of the few movies that was done almost entirely in front of blue/green screens, the exception being the scene involving the Persian horseback messenger coming across the hills.
I think one movie alone is enough to justify not buying into it, plus it wouldn't be just that one movie, it would be any movie with green screening.
What? Cancer and flatulence? No, I just read an interesting summary about somehow fighting cancer with gasoline and pilot lights.
I like articles I can understand:
The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach â" a pilot light â" and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.'
So they're burning cancer with gasoline and pilot lights. I'd expect this to get more refined, like maybe they'll use lighter fluid and a zippo?
I can't wait until gamers stop talking about "casual gamers" like they're different in any real sense.
Cash just sits there and loses value to inflation. Precious Metals (historically) don't.
Until someone invents a way to synthesize a lot of gold cheaply. Then you suddenly have yellow scrap metal.
If only Germany had protected its citizens from violent video games in the 1930's, imagine how many lives would have been saved!
I'm confused... your point here is "This is one of the countries that started WW2, so they have no right to ban violent videogames?" Or was it "WW2 was not caused by videogames, so clearly videogames can never be blamed for real life violence?"
Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
Easy solution: the list of places with child porn will not be shown to anyone. The telecoms will just have to block those sites on the secret list without seeing the list. Is that too much to ask to protect our children?!? JESUS CHRIST WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
That wasn't an L block! This is an L block:
###
#
Tetris pieces (Tetrinos?) have only 4 blocks.
Had this not been slashdot, that would have been excusable.
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
No, what is foolish is knowing you were guilty, challenging them (so far, it can still be construed as civil disobedience or standing up to a bully), then putting on a show, committing perjury and trying to pull a fast one on the jurors - which in a jury trial is suicidal if they realize it. Its no wonder she got spanked in court.
That is true, although I think it would be easy to justify lying under oath to fight back against people who were clearly abusing the system.
Easy to justify, not actually justified. And the lies weren't the best thought out either.
Anyway, I was responding to the bit about it being foolish to try to fight it in the first place.
I'll bugfix this thing with badgers gnawing on both my arms for that kind of pay.
Going to ask a shockingly ignorant coding question: Does that REALLY help?!?
The world will be a better place when all the managers retire who were raised without computers.
But will get much much worse a short time later when managers who were raised on twitter take effect.
Are you still jesting, or did you just seriously imply that the plural of "apocalypse" is "apocali"?
Look, I just admitted to causing the Mayan civilization's end, you really want to quibble over grammar with me? I say apocali, it's apocali. English is wrong, not me.
The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.
The expenses can be recouped in the following manner: the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred. If we get into a fender bender, and I sue you for damages, that's okay. If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it, that's me spending money foolishly. You shouldn't have to pay for it.
I did say should... applying logic or "should" statements to legal proceedings is it's own type of illogical, I know...
Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.
To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was. That's what makes them bad guys.
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
So they admit they want to control our minds!
Wonder what they'll do with downloaders' hearts. Barbecue? Kentucky fried?
Baby steps man, maybe one day we'll be up to taking pictures of memories of a green emoticon, or, dare I say it, a green dot WITH A RED DOT!
Seriously: they could probably get mCherry, tdTomato, or RFP fusion proteins going for different types.
Also the cell biologist in me has to point out they're not green dots, they're green NEURONS: green dots with thin green lines.
Can Sacramento go third?
*looks around* You mean it hasn't ALREADY been done?!?
The IMPORTANT ones too! How can you claim to have a political position on torture if you don't even know where W was living prior to washington DC?!?
You are living in some post-apocalypse vision from J.G. Ballard, and yet you use this as an opportunity to jest.
False dichotomy. I jest all types of apocali while fighting them.
Hell, a while ago I mocked the mayan apocalypse so hard it promised not to come back for a thousand years.
You are now in the avenue of destruction - but they'll have you at each other's throats over false ideological dichotomies instead of turning on the real villains of history.
So same shit different names in other words?
the ocean is a sort of buffer solution
If there's one thing I've learned about buffers, it's that they have limits and will not keep the pH the same if you dump in too much acid.
If you'll excuse me, the stumps where my hands used to be are needing new bandages after all this typing.
Um, the GPS constellation belongs to the USAF.
Right, the extra money would obviously be so that NASA could battle the air force in space to take control of the GPS, at which point we'd dump even more money into NASA to fix the GPS.
Thanks, I really needed to have three messages telling me this.
is that energy extracted from the cars? then is not magically created, but just a inefficient way to suck energy from other people use of oil.
It sounds to me (IANAPhysicist) like the energy is already being wasted, this is just using it. It harvests energy by pressing down on the plates, wouldn't the car driving over a strip of pavement use the same energy, except it wouldn't be reharvested at all?
Maybe not vampiring so much as collecting dropped change?
Maybe there's more friction moving over these plates though. In which case I'd say most of the drivers probably waste more energy driving around looking for parking spaces than they've lost to the plates.
Again, not a physicist.
By the way, this sounds a lot like the reasoning the RIAA uses.