I really do not care because health insurance is a scam.
Spoken clearly by a person who has never needed it.
When the unexpected unfortunate incident happens to an otherwise perfectly healthy individual... the insurance pays for itself many thousands of times over.
The argument that having a car is a choice was hogwash, you have to have a car in texas
Why? Does Texas have no public transit, and laws prohibiting bicycles?
Now if you had said that it is simply *impractical* to not own a car in Texas, you may have had a point. But there's a big difference between that and it being an actual requirement.
Ultimately one who claims to be okay to drive after drinking some amount of alcohol is gauging, for themselves, the impact that alcohol appears to have on oneself by their own perceptions, which, when they've had alcohol, have *already* been affected, and can be very easily misled To what degree they may be actually effected is irrelevant, unless one has also been subject to scientific experimentation with controls and measures, because a person's who's had too much to drink and doesn't realize it can be just as confident in their own abilities and can express the exact same sentiment as a person who claims, however rightly, that they haven't had too much to drink in the first place. They are objectively indistinguishable without resorting to scientific study, so unless a person has actually had NOTHING alcoholic, I simply don't trust anyone in that regard.
But that's hardly the same thing as advocating a nanny state. So I'm really not sure what you're talking about... unless you were just wanting to argue with me about something that I never actually said.
To the people I see poo-poohing this....
on
Atari Turns 40 Today
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Would you mind terribly if I ask what your problem is?
I mean, what difference does it make to you if somebody likes something that you don't?
Do y'all really have nothing better to do than criticize somebody's passion just because it isn't all shiny and new?
As you started to allude to, but I think kind of glossed over, even asking people around the driver if the person is good to drive is not a reliable indicator of whether they really are okay to drive, since if they really didn't think so, they wouldn't be getting in the car with them in the first place.
And as you pointed out, results prove that at least some drivers are wrong about their own ability to drive safely when they've been drinking.
Even if certain specific people are genuinely capable of making sensible choices in such circumstances, it's typically impossible for anybody else to objectively known the accuracy that person's self-assessment, since such an assessment has an inherent bias with an impact that cannot be objectively measured.
So, I think your overall conclusion is valid... That absolutely nobody can be trusted to make an objective and rational choice about themselves.
I know that I sure don't. And I won't get into a car that somebody else is driving if they've had anything to drink either. As I do not personally drink any alcohol, I am perfectly happy to be a designated driver when I'm in the company of people who do drink.
While in theory, this is good... in practice, very few people actually realize just how much their performance actually is really affected by alcohol unless they have actually been personally involved in an experiment which has its own controls and objective measurements.
If they didn't want people to drink and drive home, then they'd NOT have all those nice large parking lots outside of the bars.
Presumably, you are with somebody who *CAN* drive you home... and the next time you are there, it'll be your turn to drive.
The excuse that they have parking lots in bars should be an excuse to drive home after drinking is about as lame as "she was dressed like a prostitute" is an excuse to commit rape. And before anybody brings it up, I'm not comparing the severity of the two actions (drinking and driving to rape)... only the feebleness of the excuse, and all it shows is an immature reluctance to assume responsibility and accountability for one's own choices.
In theory, there should be no more latency than there is with double buffering... you are still only ever drawing the frame that is one frame ahead of what you see at any given instant, just like double buffering. The third buffer is used to clear the drawing area and simply prepare it for being drawn on so that the logic that incorporates drawing offscreen does not need to deal with that, and could therefore potentially execute faster.
The issue of RAM copies being subject to the permissions applicable for copyrighted works is highly questionable, since a copy made into RAM is necessary for the work to simply be USED. Since usage is not governed by copyright, it follows that copies that are made merely as a consequence of trying to use the work normally cannot be either.
Admittedly, in some jurisdictions, this is a fairly hot issue. Again, it depends on whether or not regional laws have determined that EULA's have any legal weight to them.
Go ahead and try to interpret that statement figuratively... it doesn't work. You have to change the wording to get it to mean anything that makes some figurative sense (such as changing the word "too" to "so").
You can't lie about agreeing to a Eula - you can only click on a button without agreeing, in which case you usually have no rights to the software in question, which makes every single use of the software copyright infringement
While I know that some companies would like to push this notion on everybody, this probably depends on where a person lives, and whether or not violating terms of an EULA is considered to be against the law. In most places, afaik, it is not... and *CERTAINLY* does not cause every use to be copyright infringement... it only causes the usages to be unauthorized. Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copies, not unauthorized use.
While I could understand *THAT*... go ahead and try to parse the sentence I mentioned as saying that. It doesn't... they are either using "too" before an adjective instead of the word "enough" after it, or else they seem to have the words "young" and "old" backwards in the sentence.
"Thirteen years old is not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing"
What does that even mean?
I've tried to parse that sentence five or six times now, and I keep getting confused because I end up with something that contradicts common sense or at least what seems reasonable.
One notion behind the ordering of the first laws was so that they could (easily) not be used to commit crimes on behalf of human beings that could or would injure other people. It was essentially unthinkable that a robot could deliberately murder a person, for example... even if it was so ordered to.
First of all, copyright infringement actually is a criminal offense in Canada.
In matters of criminal cases in Canada, the crown (police) can press charges against an individual even if the injured party does not express any interest.
That said, however, the police in Canada have long since stated that they will not pursue cases of "private copyright infringement".
Retail clerks aren't expected to enforce bans. They *ARE* expected to obey the law. Since helping another person to commit a crime is against the law, and exporting a product that is legally prohibited for export is against the law, providing such a prohibited product in the first place to someone who is knowingly going to use it to break the law, is, in fact illegal. This follows directly from the notion of what an accessory to a crime actually *IS*. If the clerk had not heard where the product was going, then he wouldn't have been breaking the law to sell her the product. Since he did know, he would have been. He happened to hear her say this, and rightly refused to sell it to her. To have done otherwise, if somebody else had happened to overhear the conversation, would have landed him in no end of legal hot water.
Knowingly helping another person to commit a crime is also illegal. It's called "being an accessory" And it like any other crime, it's applicable whether or not you knew that the action really was a crime... you just had to be aware that you were helping them to do the act.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to violate it.
If you help a person to do something, and you are aware of what it is that they are doing, and that something happens to be illegal, unless there are extenuating circumstances where someone's life or safety is imminently at risk if you do not cooperate (or if you had reason to believe that was the case), it does not matter whether or not you knew that it was illegal, you can be held liable as an accessory to the crime.
Actually, a retail seller that receives no subsides or benefits that come from of any type of public taxation can refuse to sell anything to any would-be buyer even for discriminatory reasons.... it's just not usually in their best commercial interests to do so.
On private property, the proprietor can refuse service to an individual for *ANY* reason. Doing so for reasons that are considered discriminatory, however, would probably draw immediate suspicion and most likely an investigation into the employer's hiring practices, and if a single example of discrimination could be found, they would be shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken clearly by a person who has never needed it.
When the unexpected unfortunate incident happens to an otherwise perfectly healthy individual... the insurance pays for itself many thousands of times over.
Why? Does Texas have no public transit, and laws prohibiting bicycles?
Now if you had said that it is simply *impractical* to not own a car in Texas, you may have had a point. But there's a big difference between that and it being an actual requirement.
Ultimately one who claims to be okay to drive after drinking some amount of alcohol is gauging, for themselves, the impact that alcohol appears to have on oneself by their own perceptions, which, when they've had alcohol, have *already* been affected, and can be very easily misled To what degree they may be actually effected is irrelevant, unless one has also been subject to scientific experimentation with controls and measures, because a person's who's had too much to drink and doesn't realize it can be just as confident in their own abilities and can express the exact same sentiment as a person who claims, however rightly, that they haven't had too much to drink in the first place. They are objectively indistinguishable without resorting to scientific study, so unless a person has actually had NOTHING alcoholic, I simply don't trust anyone in that regard.
But that's hardly the same thing as advocating a nanny state. So I'm really not sure what you're talking about... unless you were just wanting to argue with me about something that I never actually said.
Would you mind terribly if I ask what your problem is?
I mean, what difference does it make to you if somebody likes something that you don't?
Do y'all really have nothing better to do than criticize somebody's passion just because it isn't all shiny and new?
As you started to allude to, but I think kind of glossed over, even asking people around the driver if the person is good to drive is not a reliable indicator of whether they really are okay to drive, since if they really didn't think so, they wouldn't be getting in the car with them in the first place.
And as you pointed out, results prove that at least some drivers are wrong about their own ability to drive safely when they've been drinking.
Even if certain specific people are genuinely capable of making sensible choices in such circumstances, it's typically impossible for anybody else to objectively known the accuracy that person's self-assessment, since such an assessment has an inherent bias with an impact that cannot be objectively measured.
So, I think your overall conclusion is valid... That absolutely nobody can be trusted to make an objective and rational choice about themselves.
I know that I sure don't. And I won't get into a car that somebody else is driving if they've had anything to drink either. As I do not personally drink any alcohol, I am perfectly happy to be a designated driver when I'm in the company of people who do drink.
While in theory, this is good... in practice, very few people actually realize just how much their performance actually is really affected by alcohol unless they have actually been personally involved in an experiment which has its own controls and objective measurements.
Presumably, you are with somebody who *CAN* drive you home... and the next time you are there, it'll be your turn to drive.
The excuse that they have parking lots in bars should be an excuse to drive home after drinking is about as lame as "she was dressed like a prostitute" is an excuse to commit rape. And before anybody brings it up, I'm not comparing the severity of the two actions (drinking and driving to rape)... only the feebleness of the excuse, and all it shows is an immature reluctance to assume responsibility and accountability for one's own choices.
In theory, there should be no more latency than there is with double buffering... you are still only ever drawing the frame that is one frame ahead of what you see at any given instant, just like double buffering. The third buffer is used to clear the drawing area and simply prepare it for being drawn on so that the logic that incorporates drawing offscreen does not need to deal with that, and could therefore potentially execute faster.
The issue of RAM copies being subject to the permissions applicable for copyrighted works is highly questionable, since a copy made into RAM is necessary for the work to simply be USED. Since usage is not governed by copyright, it follows that copies that are made merely as a consequence of trying to use the work normally cannot be either.
Admittedly, in some jurisdictions, this is a fairly hot issue. Again, it depends on whether or not regional laws have determined that EULA's have any legal weight to them.
Not much. Why... are you wanting to test to see if *I'M* a bot?
Go ahead and try to interpret that statement figuratively... it doesn't work. You have to change the wording to get it to mean anything that makes some figurative sense (such as changing the word "too" to "so").
While I know that some companies would like to push this notion on everybody, this probably depends on where a person lives, and whether or not violating terms of an EULA is considered to be against the law. In most places, afaik, it is not... and *CERTAINLY* does not cause every use to be copyright infringement... it only causes the usages to be unauthorized. Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copies, not unauthorized use.
... is a lot like asking what size of running shoe your goldfish takes.
Actually 13 years is PLENTY old enough to *THINK* you know everything. I've raised 4 boys through teenagehood. I know.
While I could understand *THAT*... go ahead and try to parse the sentence I mentioned as saying that. It doesn't... they are either using "too" before an adjective instead of the word "enough" after it, or else they seem to have the words "young" and "old" backwards in the sentence.
For crying out loud, I asked "How old are you?" It said, as expected, "Thirteen".
But when I said "When is your birthday?" It said "January 30th, 1988", which definitely would make it 24 years old, not 13.
What does that even mean?
I've tried to parse that sentence five or six times now, and I keep getting confused because I end up with something that contradicts common sense or at least what seems reasonable.
One notion behind the ordering of the first laws was so that they could (easily) not be used to commit crimes on behalf of human beings that could or would injure other people. It was essentially unthinkable that a robot could deliberately murder a person, for example... even if it was so ordered to.
Ah... you do not understand law in Canada.
First of all, copyright infringement actually is a criminal offense in Canada.
In matters of criminal cases in Canada, the crown (police) can press charges against an individual even if the injured party does not express any interest.
That said, however, the police in Canada have long since stated that they will not pursue cases of "private copyright infringement".
Retail clerks aren't expected to enforce bans. They *ARE* expected to obey the law. Since helping another person to commit a crime is against the law, and exporting a product that is legally prohibited for export is against the law, providing such a prohibited product in the first place to someone who is knowingly going to use it to break the law, is, in fact illegal. This follows directly from the notion of what an accessory to a crime actually *IS*. If the clerk had not heard where the product was going, then he wouldn't have been breaking the law to sell her the product. Since he did know, he would have been. He happened to hear her say this, and rightly refused to sell it to her. To have done otherwise, if somebody else had happened to overhear the conversation, would have landed him in no end of legal hot water.
Knowingly helping another person to commit a crime is also illegal. It's called "being an accessory" And it like any other crime, it's applicable whether or not you knew that the action really was a crime... you just had to be aware that you were helping them to do the act.
Try using the excuse of "I didn't know it was illegal" to not pay taxes... or go over the speed limit. See how far that gets you.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to violate it.
If you help a person to do something, and you are aware of what it is that they are doing, and that something happens to be illegal, unless there are extenuating circumstances where someone's life or safety is imminently at risk if you do not cooperate (or if you had reason to believe that was the case), it does not matter whether or not you knew that it was illegal, you can be held liable as an accessory to the crime.
Actually, a retail seller that receives no subsides or benefits that come from of any type of public taxation can refuse to sell anything to any would-be buyer even for discriminatory reasons.... it's just not usually in their best commercial interests to do so.
On private property, the proprietor can refuse service to an individual for *ANY* reason. Doing so for reasons that are considered discriminatory, however, would probably draw immediate suspicion and most likely an investigation into the employer's hiring practices, and if a single example of discrimination could be found, they would be shut down.
If the employee from Target knows before selling it, then yes.