I wasn't suggesting it is the first time it's been proposed... I just think that the whole proposal is idiotic.
Good mufflers make the engine on most modern cars are silent enough that a pedestrian is not generally liable to hear the engine on a moving car at all unless the driver is revving the engine.
In my experience, the loudest sound on a moving automobile is the sound of the tires on the road, and as a pedestrian, that's almost always what I hear first, unless the car is an older one or else the muffler is bad.
And hey... even at best, installing noisemakers in electric cars just wastes electricity that can be better used to get a person to their destination.
While I agree entirely on your point #1, as a cyclist, I find myself taking some offense to your point #2. It is not the high speed traffic that is desirable, it is the efficiency of the road itself. Side roads, in general, do not typically go for more than a few blocks, and in my own experience are usually unsuitable for commuter use even for bicycles for all but near the departure and destination points.
FWIW, I usually cycle quite close to the curb, so I am easily and safely passed by other vehicles. I only move fully into the lane if I am intending to turn left.
Because last time I checked, on most new cars you can't really hear a gasoline engine either unless it is actively being revved up.
The sound of tires on the road is *FAR* louder than the engine, in general... unless the car's muffler is bad, or unless the car is simply very old.
Should people on electric wheelchairs also install noisemakers to alert blind people of their approach? (some of them are capable of quite a clip, and can do serious damage to someone when it is moving at full speed).
Permanence is wholly irrelevant to theft. stealing is the act of taking away something from somebody that the taker had no lawfully recognized right to do. That's all there is to it.
A copyright infringer is depriving the copyright holder of some measure of the exclusivity that they were supposedly going to have by utilizing copyright in the first place. Since exclusivity, by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, when somebody else does, that exclusivity is compromised. (Permanently, even.)
Of course, one might want to counter with the notion that this exclusivity is intangible and therefore not eligible to be equated with any real value. Ultimately, however, the tangibility of something is irrelevant to its perceived value by a given individual. You can rightfully be expected to receive compensation for somebody else expecting use of your own time, for example... as time is definitely intangible, and one's own time is often of great value to them. Admittedly, the analogy to time breaks down quickly, because about the only way your time can be taken from you is if you are murdered... which is such an exponentially more serious crime than the theft of any property as to render the argument on whether that time which was taken has any value to be moot. Nonetheless, the only real finicky issue with something that is intangible is that its measure of value is going to be very subjective. At best, you might be able to argue that such intangible things are not really "property"... but that does not mean that they cannot be taken away from somebody. And if they are taken by somebody who has no lawfully recognized right to do so, then it's entirely reasonable to call such an action "theft".
Children aren't really property either (not in any sense of real "ownership", at least)... but they can definitely be stolen... Admittedly, there is another lawfully recognized term for the act, "kidnapping", but that does not mean that it is not a type of theft.
Being fictitious does not alter the point I was making, above... as I was describing what it is most widely understood that Robin Hood made a practice of doing only as exposition to the real point that I was trying to make.
And while it might have been more literally correct to have started with "Robin Hood is alleged to..." instead of simply saying that he did, it does not impact what I was ultimately driving at. So at best, you are nitpicking over a choice of words that is wholly irrelevant to my main point. At worst, deliberately misunderstanding to incite an argument so that what I was actually saying is completely obscured.
But hey... this is slashdot. I probably should have known better than to submit a comment without first checking it against possible pedantry on literal correctness. So I'll take some of the blame too in that regard.
I wasn't pretending to know anything... if you re-read what I said above, I stated that there are absolutely no known adverse effects to the elimination of the mosquito on mankind, other than the possible implications it might have for people who work for companies that make mosquito repellant. This much is entirely true.
Again, though... that is based only on what we know so far... if we always procrastinated with everything that we tried just because we were afraid of things that we might not happen to know about yet, we would still be living in caves.
Who, exactly, are they proposing to give anything to?
Bear in mind that knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime.
And the fact that they've announced their intent preempts almost any excuse that a person who accepts something from them in the future didn't know it was stolen.... even at best, recipients who get funds electronically without knowing where it came from might just believe it to be a bank error, which account holders are fully responsible for anyways (that is, if a bank makes an error in your favor you cannot freely utilize any extra funds you might appear to have).
This isn't stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It is ensnaring poor people who don't know any better into doing something that is just going to land them in deeper financial trouble than they are in right now.
The immediate side effect is that there will not be any mosquitoes.
No serious negative repercussions are known to exist for such an event beyond that the diet of certain types of insect predators would be affected (fortunately for such predators, their diet is not exclusively dependent on the species of mosquito that this concept intends to render extinct). The net effect upon mankind should be positive, other than possibly causing companies that make mosquito repellent to possibly go out of business.
But seriously.... did you *NEED* somebody to have to spell that all out for you? They're mosquitoes, for crying out loud... and not some vital part of the food chain on which we ourselves are part of.
... the simple fact that somebody else has already accomplished it ensures that it will be discovered elsewhere as well. The only thing they will gain by not publishing it now is a bit of time to research it before somebody else figures it out. Eventually, someone with nefarious intent will manufacture it.
Historically, it's been shown that often simply knowing that something is possible ends up being the greatest hurdle to actually accomplishing it.
So now, it is only a matter of time... the only question is will it be enough time for a treatment to have been discovered?
If you want something repeatable... sorry. There isn't one.
A degree or higher education will not guarantee you a job, but it will, at least, maximize your chances of somebody recognizing what you have to offer a company. Without it, your resume/CV will likely only be destined for the round file... and probably not even actually read by the people who make hiring decisions.
The "poor" is closer to about 90%, not 99, as you suggest.
With regards to elections, there are a vast number of people who feel that voting for a party that does not really represent any significant threat in terms of its poll numbers to the major partiess will not prevent a party that they do not want to be in power from actually winning the election. They therefore might compromise on selecting the party they would actually like to see in power and instead select the "lesser of two evils" as it were.
The purist in me has a problem with the wording in the summary and first article.... I mean, it's one thing to say that the resultant circuits are too slow for any practical application as computers, but speed would have absolutely no bearing on whether or not computations can actually be performed with it, making the notion of the circuits being too slow to function as a computer a wholly worthless statement that even at best is very misleading, and at worst outright false.
Sort of... ultimately the evidence that is used to support their position is anecdotal.
Creationism is technically based on anecdotal evidence as well, but the people who are alleged to have initially relayed their accounts have been dead for thousands of years, giving reasonable rise to question if they even ever existed at all, and definitely a strong cause for skepticism. At least the anti-vaccine people are still alive and can be directly questioned.
... only two OSes have ever been prone to viruses -- DOS and Windows.
Uh... no
I seem to recall a "spread-by-floppy" infection that existed on Apple 2 computers back in the 1980's... all the end user had to do was execute a "CATALOG" command, which listed the files on his disk, from a machine that had been booted from an infected disk, and if the disk it was listing was "clean" it would surreptitiously patch one of the boot sectors so that in addition to appearing to execute the command normally, the disk would actually become infected as well After a certain number of boots after the infection, the floppy disk would be rendered unreadable. I remember having to deal with this when I was in high school.
Have you completely misinterpreted what I was saying, or are you suggesting that my choice had everything to do with lawsuits in spite of the fact that I clearly stated what the reasons for my choices were?
I took a good hard look at the requirements for 386bsd 0.0 when it first came out in '92, having already been experimenting with Linux for a few months already. The only factor that kept me from experimenting with 386BSD at that point as well was the fact that it required its own physical drive, and could not be installed on a separate partition of a drive that had been set up by the fdisk utility that came with DOS. If it had, I probably would have ended up utilizing it, because I could plainly see just from the descriptions that it had far more functionality.
I may have been only a "tinkerer", as you put it, but the factors that guided my choices were ultimately about interoperability with the hardware/software configuration that I actually had at the time, not lawsuits.
Besides... there weren't even any lawsuits at that point yet to *have* influenced my decision.
In 1992, the ability to put Linux on its own partitiion and have it coexist with DOS on a single physical drive was the *ENTIRE* reason why I originally decided to go with Linux instead of 386BSD, which was also freely available at the time, even though BSD offered considerably more functionality than Linux during that period.
Seriously... that's what it is. Bullshit. While the electric engine itself is silent, when the vehicle is moving, the tires make PLENTY of noise on the pavement. Also, with some newer cars with conventional engines, you can just *BARELY* hear the engine running anyways because it runs so quiet, and the first clue that a pedestrian is going to get that there is a car there is, again, the sound of the tires on the road.
This whole idea of needing to add noise to electric cars so people can hear them is the very antithesis of why the muffler was invented for regular automobiles.
You can't easily hear all types of bicycles either... should artificial noisemakers be added to them?
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't suggesting it is the first time it's been proposed... I just think that the whole proposal is idiotic.
Good mufflers make the engine on most modern cars are silent enough that a pedestrian is not generally liable to hear the engine on a moving car at all unless the driver is revving the engine.
In my experience, the loudest sound on a moving automobile is the sound of the tires on the road, and as a pedestrian, that's almost always what I hear first, unless the car is an older one or else the muffler is bad.
And hey... even at best, installing noisemakers in electric cars just wastes electricity that can be better used to get a person to their destination.
While I agree entirely on your point #1, as a cyclist, I find myself taking some offense to your point #2. It is not the high speed traffic that is desirable, it is the efficiency of the road itself. Side roads, in general, do not typically go for more than a few blocks, and in my own experience are usually unsuitable for commuter use even for bicycles for all but near the departure and destination points.
FWIW, I usually cycle quite close to the curb, so I am easily and safely passed by other vehicles. I only move fully into the lane if I am intending to turn left.
Oh... and I *never* wear spandex.
Are they going to eliminate mufflers as well?
Because last time I checked, on most new cars you can't really hear a gasoline engine either unless it is actively being revved up.
The sound of tires on the road is *FAR* louder than the engine, in general... unless the car's muffler is bad, or unless the car is simply very old.
Should people on electric wheelchairs also install noisemakers to alert blind people of their approach? (some of them are capable of quite a clip, and can do serious damage to someone when it is moving at full speed).
Citation, please. What section of the criminal code covers this?
Permanence is wholly irrelevant to theft. stealing is the act of taking away something from somebody that the taker had no lawfully recognized right to do. That's all there is to it.
A copyright infringer is depriving the copyright holder of some measure of the exclusivity that they were supposedly going to have by utilizing copyright in the first place. Since exclusivity, by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, when somebody else does, that exclusivity is compromised. (Permanently, even.)
Of course, one might want to counter with the notion that this exclusivity is intangible and therefore not eligible to be equated with any real value. Ultimately, however, the tangibility of something is irrelevant to its perceived value by a given individual. You can rightfully be expected to receive compensation for somebody else expecting use of your own time, for example... as time is definitely intangible, and one's own time is often of great value to them. Admittedly, the analogy to time breaks down quickly, because about the only way your time can be taken from you is if you are murdered... which is such an exponentially more serious crime than the theft of any property as to render the argument on whether that time which was taken has any value to be moot. Nonetheless, the only real finicky issue with something that is intangible is that its measure of value is going to be very subjective. At best, you might be able to argue that such intangible things are not really "property"... but that does not mean that they cannot be taken away from somebody. And if they are taken by somebody who has no lawfully recognized right to do so, then it's entirely reasonable to call such an action "theft".
Children aren't really property either (not in any sense of real "ownership", at least)... but they can definitely be stolen... Admittedly, there is another lawfully recognized term for the act, "kidnapping", but that does not mean that it is not a type of theft.
What law, exactly?
Being fictitious does not alter the point I was making, above... as I was describing what it is most widely understood that Robin Hood made a practice of doing only as exposition to the real point that I was trying to make.
And while it might have been more literally correct to have started with "Robin Hood is alleged to..." instead of simply saying that he did, it does not impact what I was ultimately driving at. So at best, you are nitpicking over a choice of words that is wholly irrelevant to my main point. At worst, deliberately misunderstanding to incite an argument so that what I was actually saying is completely obscured.
But hey... this is slashdot. I probably should have known better than to submit a comment without first checking it against possible pedantry on literal correctness. So I'll take some of the blame too in that regard.
I wasn't pretending to know anything... if you re-read what I said above, I stated that there are absolutely no known adverse effects to the elimination of the mosquito on mankind, other than the possible implications it might have for people who work for companies that make mosquito repellant. This much is entirely true.
Again, though... that is based only on what we know so far... if we always procrastinated with everything that we tried just because we were afraid of things that we might not happen to know about yet, we would still be living in caves.
Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
Who, exactly, are they proposing to give anything to?
Bear in mind that knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime.
And the fact that they've announced their intent preempts almost any excuse that a person who accepts something from them in the future didn't know it was stolen.... even at best, recipients who get funds electronically without knowing where it came from might just believe it to be a bank error, which account holders are fully responsible for anyways (that is, if a bank makes an error in your favor you cannot freely utilize any extra funds you might appear to have).
This isn't stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It is ensnaring poor people who don't know any better into doing something that is just going to land them in deeper financial trouble than they are in right now.
The immediate side effect is that there will not be any mosquitoes.
No serious negative repercussions are known to exist for such an event beyond that the diet of certain types of insect predators would be affected (fortunately for such predators, their diet is not exclusively dependent on the species of mosquito that this concept intends to render extinct). The net effect upon mankind should be positive, other than possibly causing companies that make mosquito repellent to possibly go out of business.
But seriously.... did you *NEED* somebody to have to spell that all out for you? They're mosquitoes, for crying out loud... and not some vital part of the food chain on which we ourselves are part of.
Historically, it's been shown that often simply knowing that something is possible ends up being the greatest hurdle to actually accomplishing it.
So now, it is only a matter of time... the only question is will it be enough time for a treatment to have been discovered?
One word: Luck.
If you want something repeatable... sorry. There isn't one.
A degree or higher education will not guarantee you a job, but it will, at least, maximize your chances of somebody recognizing what you have to offer a company. Without it, your resume/CV will likely only be destined for the round file... and probably not even actually read by the people who make hiring decisions.
With regards to elections, there are a vast number of people who feel that voting for a party that does not really represent any significant threat in terms of its poll numbers to the major partiess will not prevent a party that they do not want to be in power from actually winning the election. They therefore might compromise on selecting the party they would actually like to see in power and instead select the "lesser of two evils" as it were.
How is this different from anything else in real life?
The purist in me has a problem with the wording in the summary and first article.... I mean, it's one thing to say that the resultant circuits are too slow for any practical application as computers, but speed would have absolutely no bearing on whether or not computations can actually be performed with it, making the notion of the circuits being too slow to function as a computer a wholly worthless statement that even at best is very misleading, and at worst outright false.
Sort of... ultimately the evidence that is used to support their position is anecdotal.
Creationism is technically based on anecdotal evidence as well, but the people who are alleged to have initially relayed their accounts have been dead for thousands of years, giving reasonable rise to question if they even ever existed at all, and definitely a strong cause for skepticism. At least the anti-vaccine people are still alive and can be directly questioned.
I think that the correct term is "sports geek", actually. "nerd" connotes a particular type of intellectual geek.
And I use "geek" in the commonly understood modern sense, not the sense of a certain type of circus performer.
Turing Halting Problem, anyone?
Uh... no
I seem to recall a "spread-by-floppy" infection that existed on Apple 2 computers back in the 1980's... all the end user had to do was execute a "CATALOG" command, which listed the files on his disk, from a machine that had been booted from an infected disk, and if the disk it was listing was "clean" it would surreptitiously patch one of the boot sectors so that in addition to appearing to execute the command normally, the disk would actually become infected as well After a certain number of boots after the infection, the floppy disk would be rendered unreadable. I remember having to deal with this when I was in high school.
Have you completely misinterpreted what I was saying, or are you suggesting that my choice had everything to do with lawsuits in spite of the fact that I clearly stated what the reasons for my choices were?
I took a good hard look at the requirements for 386bsd 0.0 when it first came out in '92, having already been experimenting with Linux for a few months already. The only factor that kept me from experimenting with 386BSD at that point as well was the fact that it required its own physical drive, and could not be installed on a separate partition of a drive that had been set up by the fdisk utility that came with DOS. If it had, I probably would have ended up utilizing it, because I could plainly see just from the descriptions that it had far more functionality.
I may have been only a "tinkerer", as you put it, but the factors that guided my choices were ultimately about interoperability with the hardware/software configuration that I actually had at the time, not lawsuits.
Besides... there weren't even any lawsuits at that point yet to *have* influenced my decision.
And I know I wasn't the only one.
In 1992, the ability to put Linux on its own partitiion and have it coexist with DOS on a single physical drive was the *ENTIRE* reason why I originally decided to go with Linux instead of 386BSD, which was also freely available at the time, even though BSD offered considerably more functionality than Linux during that period.
It had absolutely squat to do with lawsuits.
Seriously... that's what it is. Bullshit. While the electric engine itself is silent, when the vehicle is moving, the tires make PLENTY of noise on the pavement. Also, with some newer cars with conventional engines, you can just *BARELY* hear the engine running anyways because it runs so quiet, and the first clue that a pedestrian is going to get that there is a car there is, again, the sound of the tires on the road.
This whole idea of needing to add noise to electric cars so people can hear them is the very antithesis of why the muffler was invented for regular automobiles.
You can't easily hear all types of bicycles either... should artificial noisemakers be added to them?
Damn you!!!
Do you know how many weeks I'll have to live with that idiotic tune running through my head all over again?
Prove that, please.
Or do you mean nowhere else that we know of?
Because those are two *VERY* different things.
Unless you possess omniscience, or or claiming that earth scientists do, I'd put money on you being wrong about that.