Well, Snapchat explicitly gives a warning to users to *NOT* use the thing while driving (probably intending for people to use it while they are passengers), so I would think that the more pockets one tries to reach into with the suit when the ones with the deepest pockets are not actually at fault, the greater the chance that any legitimate case they might have had against the person who actually *was* responsible will not actually be given as much merit.
Here's the thing.... snapchat explicitly gives a warning to users to *NOT* do what this person did... While sure, people can be idiotic and ignore this warning, the fact that they might do so is *NOT* snapchat's fault.
Really, this is about on par with blaming a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death when the gun itself was not faulty.
While an argument can be made that Snapchat was being idiotic for producing an environment that might entice people to drive faster, the blame still seems to me to fall squarely on the driver that was going too fast. Why are they trying to sue Snapchat? Snapchat wasn't controlling the car in any way, so this whole thing looks very suspect to me.
"Vehicles may be remedied in any of three ways: repairing the vehicle; replacing the vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle; or refunding the vehicleâ(TM)s purchase price, less a reasonable amount for depreciation."
1) They cannot repair the vehicle now, they do not have the parts. 2) Any reasonably equivalent vehicle that they *MIGHT* have would likely also be impacted by the recall. 3) That could leave us without a car entirely... which we need, and given a choice, I would much rather not have to face buying another car right now. Many of the used cars we might find for what we could get for our car right now would almost as likely as not also be affected by this or any other already-existing recall. Prior experience with buying used before our current car has left me in the position where I'd rather buy new anyways.
I never suggested it was. I only suggested that what they are considering "hobbyist" usage when it happens as part of an academic course does not appear to require said registration, while if you are actually just a hobbyist, you *DO* need to have a registration that must be renewed every three years.
As I said, it helps only in the sense that it permits free will to at least be something that *MIGHT* be physically possible, as opposed to determinism, which tosses the entire concept of free will out as something that cannot even exist in this universe. That any alternatives to determinism which might exist may not provide any direct support for free will specifically is immaterial to the point that they simply do not completely preclude it, like determinism does.
Lack of determinism helps the case for free will only to the extent that it permits free will to be something that is at least physically possible, where a fully deterministic universe would not permit actual free will to exist at all.
So, they classify flying drones while at school or at an event sponsored by a school as a "hobby" or "recreational activity", allowing them to fly drones without any authorization, while actually flying drones as a hobby or for personal recreation itself still *DOES* require such authorization.
It doesn't particularly... but I was always under the impression that the strongest case for lack of free will rests on the notion that the universe is deterministic. While the universe may not actually be deterministic, any lack of determinism cannot possibly help the case for trying to disprove the existence of free will.
It's ironic that you didn't read your own link. 765kV transmission lines have losses of between half a percent and 1.1 percent per hundred miles, and the losses are even higher for lower voltages (according to the link you provided). Cumulative losses can become quite large if you are sending power too far away from the place where you generate it.
If the universe is non-deterministic, then upon what basis can we ultimately have confidence that we have no free will?
I would argue that "free will" is actually just a phrase to describe the appearance of free will anyways, but only when there is no provable evidence that anyone, either the person making the choice or anyone or anything else, has the ability to be able to tell the difference between the outcome of their so-called free-willed choice and an otherwise predetermined outcome.
Well, more specifically, when freed from one thing, humans will tend towards practising something else that they would rather be doing.
And if you'd ever rather be doing something else than having sex when you otherwise have both sufficient energy and the free time then I would suggest that either you or your partner are just plain doing it wrong.
.... he or she should be entitled to charge as much or as little as they want, whenever they want. Uber's price can and should always be fixed, but drivers should feel free to raise their prices to correspond with demand. If they price themselves too high, then they won't get fares at all. Anything that the driver collects over Uber's price should count as income for the driver.
Marriage is most definitely a religious thing among Catholics, at least, and in countries where it is not allowed, Catholic assemblies are usually held privately, in people's homes. The leaders of these assemblies may be ordained by the Church, but are not generally registered with the government where that would impose restrictions on their ability to practice their religion. However, that does not diminish their ability to perform weddings. The wedding is simply not one that is recognized that would be recognized legally... that detail is just paperwork that can be conducted later.
This. Facebook is not a place where people are free to say what is on their mind. They are only free to do so as long as the public accepts it.
One cannot freely express their opinions on Facebook if they happen to deviate from what are otherwise considered socially acceptable norms.
While most people appear to be capable of ignoring the views of people that they don't agree with, there are some that... well.... don't. And sometimes it can lead to a person who did nothing more than express an unpopular view no longer even feeling safe.
Reread what I wrote... I did not allege that it was particularly easy or particularly difficult... I suggested that there is no reason to suppose that computer software in general today would be any better at it than it could have been 24 years ago.
They say that these days, smartphones and computer software can calculate sales tax easily, and that was apparently what was burdensome for a seller to have to calculate for every destination in '92, leading to the decision at the time to for online sellers to not have to bother with collecing sales tax. While obviously smartphones didn't exist at the time, I'm not sure what's change in the realm of computer software that it is somehow allegedly easier now than it used to be.
I'm not sure what imaginary immigration numbers these so-called officials are quoting to substantiate the claim. While it may certainly be true that some do leave, the numbers are not significant. Consider that even though millions of Americans threaten to move to Canada before the election if the results are unfavorable, the immigration rate from the US remains fairly steady in recent years at about 7 to 9 thousand people per year, which is represents less than 4% of Canada's total immigration, and less than a tenth of a percent of the people that make threats about moving to Canada. Further, since most Americans do not threaten to leave the US in anticipation of an election, there is no reason to assume that those reasons are high on the agenda for most of those who chose to immigrate to Canada anyways. There may be other political reasons, but it is usually not because of who is president. Logistically, this is probably because the president's maximum term can only be eight years, which is probably not as big a deal in the grand scheme of things as leaving one's country. What's unfortunate is that there are so many people that don't realize this before they start shooting their mouth off and say they'll move elsewhere if they don't happen to get their way.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly, but it seems risky, since as I said, it diverts some attention away from any legitimate case they might have.
Well, Snapchat explicitly gives a warning to users to *NOT* use the thing while driving (probably intending for people to use it while they are passengers), so I would think that the more pockets one tries to reach into with the suit when the ones with the deepest pockets are not actually at fault, the greater the chance that any legitimate case they might have had against the person who actually *was* responsible will not actually be given as much merit.
Here's the thing.... snapchat explicitly gives a warning to users to *NOT* do what this person did... While sure, people can be idiotic and ignore this warning, the fact that they might do so is *NOT* snapchat's fault.
Really, this is about on par with blaming a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death when the gun itself was not faulty.
While an argument can be made that Snapchat was being idiotic for producing an environment that might entice people to drive faster, the blame still seems to me to fall squarely on the driver that was going too fast. Why are they trying to sue Snapchat? Snapchat wasn't controlling the car in any way, so this whole thing looks very suspect to me.
1) They cannot repair the vehicle now, they do not have the parts. 2) Any reasonably equivalent vehicle that they *MIGHT* have would likely also be impacted by the recall. 3) That could leave us without a car entirely... which we need, and given a choice, I would much rather not have to face buying another car right now. Many of the used cars we might find for what we could get for our car right now would almost as likely as not also be affected by this or any other already-existing recall. Prior experience with buying used before our current car has left me in the position where I'd rather buy new anyways.
And I was told that parts won't be in until 2018. Nice, huh?
I never suggested it was. I only suggested that what they are considering "hobbyist" usage when it happens as part of an academic course does not appear to require said registration, while if you are actually just a hobbyist, you *DO* need to have a registration that must be renewed every three years.
As I said, it helps only in the sense that it permits free will to at least be something that *MIGHT* be physically possible, as opposed to determinism, which tosses the entire concept of free will out as something that cannot even exist in this universe. That any alternatives to determinism which might exist may not provide any direct support for free will specifically is immaterial to the point that they simply do not completely preclude it, like determinism does.
Lack of determinism helps the case for free will only to the extent that it permits free will to be something that is at least physically possible, where a fully deterministic universe would not permit actual free will to exist at all.
Well that's what *I* was talking about.... so what am I supposedly factually incorrect about, exactly?
Ahem
So, they classify flying drones while at school or at an event sponsored by a school as a "hobby" or "recreational activity", allowing them to fly drones without any authorization, while actually flying drones as a hobby or for personal recreation itself still *DOES* require such authorization.
It doesn't particularly... but I was always under the impression that the strongest case for lack of free will rests on the notion that the universe is deterministic. While the universe may not actually be deterministic, any lack of determinism cannot possibly help the case for trying to disprove the existence of free will.
It's ironic that you didn't read your own link. 765kV transmission lines have losses of between half a percent and 1.1 percent per hundred miles, and the losses are even higher for lower voltages (according to the link you provided). Cumulative losses can become quite large if you are sending power too far away from the place where you generate it.
The whole point of having a watch is to tell the time, and if the watch is slow, then it isn't fit for the purpose for which it is made, is it? :)
If the universe is non-deterministic, then upon what basis can we ultimately have confidence that we have no free will?
I would argue that "free will" is actually just a phrase to describe the appearance of free will anyways, but only when there is no provable evidence that anyone, either the person making the choice or anyone or anything else, has the ability to be able to tell the difference between the outcome of their so-called free-willed choice and an otherwise predetermined outcome.
Which is not any different than it was in 1992, That's what I'm saying... what's supposedly changed?
Well, more specifically, when freed from one thing, humans will tend towards practising something else that they would rather be doing.
And if you'd ever rather be doing something else than having sex when you otherwise have both sufficient energy and the free time then I would suggest that either you or your partner are just plain doing it wrong.
.... he or she should be entitled to charge as much or as little as they want, whenever they want. Uber's price can and should always be fixed, but drivers should feel free to raise their prices to correspond with demand. If they price themselves too high, then they won't get fares at all. Anything that the driver collects over Uber's price should count as income for the driver.
Marriage is most definitely a religious thing among Catholics, at least, and in countries where it is not allowed, Catholic assemblies are usually held privately, in people's homes. The leaders of these assemblies may be ordained by the Church, but are not generally registered with the government where that would impose restrictions on their ability to practice their religion. However, that does not diminish their ability to perform weddings. The wedding is simply not one that is recognized that would be recognized legally... that detail is just paperwork that can be conducted later.
This. Facebook is not a place where people are free to say what is on their mind. They are only free to do so as long as the public accepts it.
One cannot freely express their opinions on Facebook if they happen to deviate from what are otherwise considered socially acceptable norms.
While most people appear to be capable of ignoring the views of people that they don't agree with, there are some that... well.... don't. And sometimes it can lead to a person who did nothing more than express an unpopular view no longer even feeling safe.
Right.... so all that means is that you need to automate it in some way.
News flash.... computers existed 24 years ago.
And even home computers were more than powerful enough to do those kinds of calculations.
The question remains.... what's changed since '92 that software is more able to do this now than before?
Reread what I wrote... I did not allege that it was particularly easy or particularly difficult... I suggested that there is no reason to suppose that computer software in general today would be any better at it than it could have been 24 years ago.
They say that these days, smartphones and computer software can calculate sales tax easily, and that was apparently what was burdensome for a seller to have to calculate for every destination in '92, leading to the decision at the time to for online sellers to not have to bother with collecing sales tax. While obviously smartphones didn't exist at the time, I'm not sure what's change in the realm of computer software that it is somehow allegedly easier now than it used to be.
I'm not sure what imaginary immigration numbers these so-called officials are quoting to substantiate the claim. While it may certainly be true that some do leave, the numbers are not significant. Consider that even though millions of Americans threaten to move to Canada before the election if the results are unfavorable, the immigration rate from the US remains fairly steady in recent years at about 7 to 9 thousand people per year, which is represents less than 4% of Canada's total immigration, and less than a tenth of a percent of the people that make threats about moving to Canada. Further, since most Americans do not threaten to leave the US in anticipation of an election, there is no reason to assume that those reasons are high on the agenda for most of those who chose to immigrate to Canada anyways. There may be other political reasons, but it is usually not because of who is president. Logistically, this is probably because the president's maximum term can only be eight years, which is probably not as big a deal in the grand scheme of things as leaving one's country. What's unfortunate is that there are so many people that don't realize this before they start shooting their mouth off and say they'll move elsewhere if they don't happen to get their way.