You are allowed to speed when overtaking (at least here).
Not legal where I live. If you can't overtake without speeding, then you shouldn't overtake.
You are certainly allowed to speed to get out of the way of an oncomming train
I'm trying to imagine a case where that would actually ever even happen unless you were driving stupidly. You'd have to be trying to deliberately race the train because the warning lights will give you plenty of notice to not try to cross in the first place.
If a driverless car can't speed up and drive (even off the road) to avoid collisions we will have a problem.
Or it could try... I dunno... slowing down, or perhaps even coming to a complete stop. Momentum equals velocity times mass... the slower the car is moving, the less damage that it will do (even if something else that is moving does more damage to it as a result).
The only time traveling faster than the limit will actually ever prevent an accident that could not otherwise be avoided is when the person behind me is following too closely for the speed that he is moving, which is *their* decision about how to control their own car, and not reflective of any decision I have made or how I am driving. I do not drive slower than the speed limit, but I do not speed either.
I do anticipate.... quite far in advance, actually (compared to most people that I know). My experience with other drivers is that so many of them are complete bastards about letting you change lanes in front of them (and the person behind them is no better, so slowing down doesn't help) that it's best to just get into the lane I know I will ultimately need to be in as early as I can safely do so, and stay there instead of only changing lanes a block or so before the turn, in case I am unable to safely negotiate the lane change at that time.
It would be most correct to say that I never willfully speed. I've caught myself doing so occasionally, and will ease up on the gas when I find it happening.
It's not that I do not trust the car to speed up, its the fact that when I do increase it, I am making my car a greater danger to others who are in front of me. Even with everything else being entirely equal, with increased speed comes a an increased amount of time it will actually take to bring the car to a complete stop in the event that something unexpected happens, and the damage that the car will do to somebody else will also be proportionally higher.
Some advocates of "speeding to keep up with traffic" would argue that I am unsafe driver, but I would challenge any of them to substantiate that allegation without making what is most almost invariably a false assumption about my own personal driving record.
I'm 50 now, and I've been driving for almost half of that, my driving has caused exactly zero accidents. The worst infraction I've ever had is I received a parking ticket one time for being parked on a street outside of the hours that it was allowed at that location. But that incident doesn't reflect on my driving either.
If everyone is going 75 and it is 55 zone. You decide to drive 55 and just you. *YOU* are the unsafe driver. You can be ticketed accordingly in many places. Usually reckless or impeding traffic or both. The cops then just go 'fishing' and catch a driver here an there and generate revenue. However, you would be an easy mark.
I do not live in a jurisdiction where such things are legal. An argument that I was actually traveling at the speed limit where everyone else was going faster would be thrown out of court, and the cop probably charged.
As I have never been found at fault for any vehicle accident I have been in (I've been in three in my life... all three were while my car was actually stopped at an intersection, twice while waiting for a red light and one time at a crosswalk while allowing pedestrians to cross - fortunately my car did not lurch forward so far from the collision at the time as to hit any of them, but it scared them pretty badly), I'd suggest that you probably couldn't hope to substantiate your allegation that I am an unsafe driver... rather, it is simply a baseless opinion that you have formed about me based upon your own world views.
My point is that I wouldn't want my car to exceed the posted speed limit. *EVER*... even if it allegedly somehow "safer" to do so, and that if being able to do so is a desirable feature, I'd prefer the ability to turn that feature off. If not, then... well... I stick to a manual car for the time being until they are no longer available... after that, I'll just bicycle everywhere.
Considering city driving and commuting are far and away what automobiles are most used for, I would have expected the default to apply to that, and not to highway driving.
If it were user selectable, I would presume it to be some sort of configuration setting where you set what you want the default behavior of the car to be rather than something that you explicity have to authorize at the time.
Your claim that if a right is not natural then it does not deserve to be respected is certainly a valid opinion, but it is still only a subjective viewpoint, The federal mint has no "natural" right of exclusivity to print legally valid currency, but that exclusivity is still recognized by law.
Can you prove that the tiny elephant god Fred does not live in my freezer?
No, but that is because you cannot lay out any unambiguously defined parameters for a god that would preclude such a being from living in your freezer. That is not the same thing claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative in general, however.
>prove entirely by a process of elimination that there is no prime number between 31398 and 31468.
Are you not just proving a set positives?
Yes, but the proof of the set of positives affirmations (that every number in that range is composite) still constitutes a proof of the absence of the opposite notion (that there are no primes in that range). With primes vs composites, absence is especially easy to prove in any natural number range because barring the number 1 (which is neither prime nor composite), there are otherwise only two states to deal with, and the presence of one state corresponds directly to the absence of the other. You can, however, do this with many other things, as long as the definition of the terms involved has a specific enough scope that you can apply such reasoning to preclude something's existence. You can prove that using commonly accepted definitions of words, there are no elephants living in your freezer for instance, since elephants are not invisible, nor particularly tiny, not unable to survive for prolonged periods without consuming oxygen, all three requirements of which would preclude an elephant living your freezer for very long, if at all. If you start messing with the definitions of words, however, or try to make exceptional cases, then you can always contrive an example of something that is impossible to disprove the existence of. Again, that is not the same thing as concluding that it is generally impossible to disprove the existence of something.
But you can't always even necessarily prove the existence of something either.... like you can't actually *prove* that you love someone... you can attempt to demonstrate it, or always do things that seem to show it, but in the end, none of those actions actually prove that you genuinely feel a particular way. You can, at most, potentially observe that with brain scans, your brain exhibits certain traits in matters dealing with that person which might indicate the presence of particular chemicals that may, in samples of other people, be associated with feelings of love, but we already know that no two brains are identical, so while this may constitute some evidence in its favor, in the end it is actually largely circumstantial, and quite far removed from proof. The reason this is so is again, because we often lack clearly defined ways to unambiguously describe what we are actually talking about.
If I had reason to suspect they were ignoring me, then I'd just keep calling them again about it until I knew what action they were going to take. In the case of a false positive, which is what would be the case if they were ever to take any interest in me, we'd be talking about an actual law being broken here.... just as certainly as it would be if a credit card company occasionally threw random charges on customer's bills under the expectation that they would not notice them, and would probably just pay them without saying anything about it.
If Rightscorp took an interest in me and my ISP did their "hard-redirect", I would offer the allegation that Rightscorp are just randomly charging anyone that they think will pay money to make a problem go away that was never even a real thing. Such activities are illegal, and I would report their activities to the police, turning the matter into entirely legal proceedings.
I would offer them the allegation that they are just randomly charging these fees without any substantiation whatsoever - that it is simple extortion for what is very nearly an essential service, and even if the program itself to suspend copyright infringes is legitimate, they are also arbitrarily targeting whomever they wish, knowing that the fees are small enough that most will pay just to make the problem go away, effectively charging more for the service than what the contract is for. Such activities are highly illegal, and I would report them to the police for doing so.
Actually, willful infringement is definitely criminal. Far and away the clearest standard for showing willful infringement is commercial gain, but there are a handful of others that do not require any commercial gain at all.
what crime? copyright infringement doesn't kill or maim anyone, and the owner still has their words or pictures after a copy made
Yes, they still have their words or pictures, but after an unauthorized copy is made, what they do *NOT* have is the exclusivity to control who may make copies that is supposed to be intrinsically what copyright is about.
Whether one believes that anyone should or should not have such exclusivity is entirely moot... it is something that is supposed to be offered by holding a copyright, and when somebody infringes on copyright, some portion of that exclusivity is permanently compromised.
Presumably, because they realize that going without internet will create more of an inconvenience for yourself, discouraging you from actually doing it.
This is false. The most obvious example from history is the Michaelson-Morley experiment,. which disproved the existence of a luminiferous aether.
You can easily prove a negative, as long as there are enough constraints on the positive to do so.... for example, you can prove entirely by a process of elimination that there is no prime number between 31398 and 31468. On the slightly crazier side, you can also prove that there are no elephants in your freezer by stipulating that the English definition of the word "elephant" be applicable to your scope of search, etc.
There is a difference, however, between proving something and making somebody believe it, however. You can prove things without the proof being believed, and a person can believe in thins without proof. They are entirely independent of eachother.
That's all very well and good, except that copyright infringement actually *IS* really against the law. So why shouldn't a presumption of innocence exist?
You know... One could also make similar claims about a voice inbox, an answering machine, or even receptionists who will take a message for people while they are out of the office.
Photons trying to escape are don't actually escape not because they are sucked back in by gravity, but because space is so curved by gravity that straight lines which are inside of the event horizon never leave it.
And we are inside of its event horizon. Anything that might exist beyond it, if the laws of physics are the same as they are here (which they may not be), would not be able to see anything that happens inside. Similarly, we cannot see outside of it because every straight line (how light travels) in our space does not go beyond its event horizon, just like in a black hole.
Slashdot Mirror
But you aren't held personally responsible for any negative consequences that result from following the law because they aren't actually your fault.
Not legal where I live. If you can't overtake without speeding, then you shouldn't overtake.
I'm trying to imagine a case where that would actually ever even happen unless you were driving stupidly. You'd have to be trying to deliberately race the train because the warning lights will give you plenty of notice to not try to cross in the first place.
Or it could try... I dunno... slowing down, or perhaps even coming to a complete stop. Momentum equals velocity times mass... the slower the car is moving, the less damage that it will do (even if something else that is moving does more damage to it as a result).
The only time traveling faster than the limit will actually ever prevent an accident that could not otherwise be avoided is when the person behind me is following too closely for the speed that he is moving, which is *their* decision about how to control their own car, and not reflective of any decision I have made or how I am driving. I do not drive slower than the speed limit, but I do not speed either.
I do anticipate.... quite far in advance, actually (compared to most people that I know). My experience with other drivers is that so many of them are complete bastards about letting you change lanes in front of them (and the person behind them is no better, so slowing down doesn't help) that it's best to just get into the lane I know I will ultimately need to be in as early as I can safely do so, and stay there instead of only changing lanes a block or so before the turn, in case I am unable to safely negotiate the lane change at that time.
It would be most correct to say that I never willfully speed. I've caught myself doing so occasionally, and will ease up on the gas when I find it happening.
It's not that I do not trust the car to speed up, its the fact that when I do increase it, I am making my car a greater danger to others who are in front of me. Even with everything else being entirely equal, with increased speed comes a an increased amount of time it will actually take to bring the car to a complete stop in the event that something unexpected happens, and the damage that the car will do to somebody else will also be proportionally higher.
Some advocates of "speeding to keep up with traffic" would argue that I am unsafe driver, but I would challenge any of them to substantiate that allegation without making what is most almost invariably a false assumption about my own personal driving record.
I'm 50 now, and I've been driving for almost half of that, my driving has caused exactly zero accidents. The worst infraction I've ever had is I received a parking ticket one time for being parked on a street outside of the hours that it was allowed at that location. But that incident doesn't reflect on my driving either.
I do not live in a jurisdiction where such things are legal. An argument that I was actually traveling at the speed limit where everyone else was going faster would be thrown out of court, and the cop probably charged.
As I have never been found at fault for any vehicle accident I have been in (I've been in three in my life... all three were while my car was actually stopped at an intersection, twice while waiting for a red light and one time at a crosswalk while allowing pedestrians to cross - fortunately my car did not lurch forward so far from the collision at the time as to hit any of them, but it scared them pretty badly), I'd suggest that you probably couldn't hope to substantiate your allegation that I am an unsafe driver... rather, it is simply a baseless opinion that you have formed about me based upon your own world views.
My point is that I wouldn't want my car to exceed the posted speed limit. *EVER*... even if it allegedly somehow "safer" to do so, and that if being able to do so is a desirable feature, I'd prefer the ability to turn that feature off. If not, then... well... I stick to a manual car for the time being until they are no longer available... after that, I'll just bicycle everywhere.
Considering city driving and commuting are far and away what automobiles are most used for, I would have expected the default to apply to that, and not to highway driving.
If it were user selectable, I would presume it to be some sort of configuration setting where you set what you want the default behavior of the car to be rather than something that you explicity have to authorize at the time.
What if you are in the left lane because you know you will be turning left up ahead?
Because I would not want any driverless car I own to *EVER* decide that it is safe to exceed the speed limit if I didn't explicitly allow it to.
Your claim that if a right is not natural then it does not deserve to be respected is certainly a valid opinion, but it is still only a subjective viewpoint, The federal mint has no "natural" right of exclusivity to print legally valid currency, but that exclusivity is still recognized by law.
No, but that is because you cannot lay out any unambiguously defined parameters for a god that would preclude such a being from living in your freezer. That is not the same thing claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative in general, however.
Yes, but the proof of the set of positives affirmations (that every number in that range is composite) still constitutes a proof of the absence of the opposite notion (that there are no primes in that range). With primes vs composites, absence is especially easy to prove in any natural number range because barring the number 1 (which is neither prime nor composite), there are otherwise only two states to deal with, and the presence of one state corresponds directly to the absence of the other. You can, however, do this with many other things, as long as the definition of the terms involved has a specific enough scope that you can apply such reasoning to preclude something's existence. You can prove that using commonly accepted definitions of words, there are no elephants living in your freezer for instance, since elephants are not invisible, nor particularly tiny, not unable to survive for prolonged periods without consuming oxygen, all three requirements of which would preclude an elephant living your freezer for very long, if at all. If you start messing with the definitions of words, however, or try to make exceptional cases, then you can always contrive an example of something that is impossible to disprove the existence of. Again, that is not the same thing as concluding that it is generally impossible to disprove the existence of something.
But you can't always even necessarily prove the existence of something either.... like you can't actually *prove* that you love someone... you can attempt to demonstrate it, or always do things that seem to show it, but in the end, none of those actions actually prove that you genuinely feel a particular way. You can, at most, potentially observe that with brain scans, your brain exhibits certain traits in matters dealing with that person which might indicate the presence of particular chemicals that may, in samples of other people, be associated with feelings of love, but we already know that no two brains are identical, so while this may constitute some evidence in its favor, in the end it is actually largely circumstantial, and quite far removed from proof. The reason this is so is again, because we often lack clearly defined ways to unambiguously describe what we are actually talking about.
If I had reason to suspect they were ignoring me, then I'd just keep calling them again about it until I knew what action they were going to take. In the case of a false positive, which is what would be the case if they were ever to take any interest in me, we'd be talking about an actual law being broken here.... just as certainly as it would be if a credit card company occasionally threw random charges on customer's bills under the expectation that they would not notice them, and would probably just pay them without saying anything about it.
If Rightscorp took an interest in me and my ISP did their "hard-redirect", I would offer the allegation that Rightscorp are just randomly charging anyone that they think will pay money to make a problem go away that was never even a real thing. Such activities are illegal, and I would report their activities to the police, turning the matter into entirely legal proceedings.
I would offer them the allegation that they are just randomly charging these fees without any substantiation whatsoever - that it is simple extortion for what is very nearly an essential service, and even if the program itself to suspend copyright infringes is legitimate, they are also arbitrarily targeting whomever they wish, knowing that the fees are small enough that most will pay just to make the problem go away, effectively charging more for the service than what the contract is for. Such activities are highly illegal, and I would report them to the police for doing so.
Actually, willful infringement is definitely criminal. Far and away the clearest standard for showing willful infringement is commercial gain, but there are a handful of others that do not require any commercial gain at all.
Yes, they still have their words or pictures, but after an unauthorized copy is made, what they do *NOT* have is the exclusivity to control who may make copies that is supposed to be intrinsically what copyright is about.
Whether one believes that anyone should or should not have such exclusivity is entirely moot... it is something that is supposed to be offered by holding a copyright, and when somebody infringes on copyright, some portion of that exclusivity is permanently compromised.
Presumably, because they realize that going without internet will create more of an inconvenience for yourself, discouraging you from actually doing it.
This is false. The most obvious example from history is the Michaelson-Morley experiment,. which disproved the existence of a luminiferous aether.
You can easily prove a negative, as long as there are enough constraints on the positive to do so.... for example, you can prove entirely by a process of elimination that there is no prime number between 31398 and 31468. On the slightly crazier side, you can also prove that there are no elephants in your freezer by stipulating that the English definition of the word "elephant" be applicable to your scope of search, etc.
There is a difference, however, between proving something and making somebody believe it, however. You can prove things without the proof being believed, and a person can believe in thins without proof. They are entirely independent of eachother.
That's all very well and good, except that copyright infringement actually *IS* really against the law. So why shouldn't a presumption of innocence exist?
You know... One could also make similar claims about a voice inbox, an answering machine, or even receptionists who will take a message for people while they are out of the office.
Photons trying to escape are don't actually escape not because they are sucked back in by gravity, but because space is so curved by gravity that straight lines which are inside of the event horizon never leave it.
And we are inside of its event horizon. Anything that might exist beyond it, if the laws of physics are the same as they are here (which they may not be), would not be able to see anything that happens inside. Similarly, we cannot see outside of it because every straight line (how light travels) in our space does not go beyond its event horizon, just like in a black hole.