But on the back of each ticket...it says clearly that "this is not a moving violation and will not go on your record".
Yeah, I can only assume they do that because they ticket the *owner* of the car rather than the driver. If you let a friend borrow it, he can blow through as many of those as he wants and you are somehow liable for his activities.
Well... technically they pay a greater percentage of the taxes that make that infrastructure...
If you paid $50 every time you went to the go-kart track and some other schmuck was only paying $15 wouldn't you ask for them to make it more fun for you by taking off the limiter?
I'm not saying it's right, but that's why you see nicer roads, street signage, sidewalks, etc. in high income areas. The cities want to keep those folks happy so the upkeep is directed closer to those high income areas. If you run a town, wouldn't you want to keep them happy?
Allegedly, the fine is supposed to be a deterrent, because speeding is allegedly unsafe. If we did this, we'd be recognizing that it's not at all a deterrent, and not at all related to safety. If we no longer had that as a justification, what exactly *would* be the justification for fining people?
Presumably many if not most of the speeding tickets are from people just passing through. Like those occasional little towns along state highways where they drop the speed limit by ~20mph for about a mile long stretch. Cops camp there and rake in easy money.
My "wow" wasn't over the size of the budget, but of the percentage that was paid for by speeding tickets alone. I mean, what if nobody speeds some year, which is what you want anyways, right?
Because speed limits and enforcement are about *safety*, not about *revenue*..... riiight. It's what they've always told me when I get pulled over for speeding. One time, I had even sped up to pass a guy more quickly, because I was being tailgated. Speeding a little bit permitted me to get out of the passing lane and let the unsafe driver pass me, but the cop still told me they were cracking down on speeding to "improve safety". Bullshit.
Does it? Personally, I think it's treated nothing like stealing. If I steal a CD from Best Buy, I'm not liable for 35,000 in damages. If anything, I think it's treated as worse than stealing. If it were merely stealing, maybe the penalty would be reasonable.
It serves one other purpose. Sometimes people unknowingly have inconsistent stances. A good analogy can force a person to face such an inconsistency and either change their opinion or accept their hypocrisy. But it does require a *good* analogy.
You can repeat this 'til death, downloading is not stealing, you can only steal physical things, no matter what the M.A.F.I.A. is trying to buy as law.
No, you can steal all sorts of things. You can steal an idea, you can steal a woman's heart (figuratively), you can even steal a fucking glance. Why are people so sensitive about copyright infringement being referred to as stealing? Yeah, we know it's different in some significant ways. It's also very similar in spirit. I think it's fine to use the word.
And yet when a person casually says "They stole my idea!" there isn't an army of people who descends on them to tell them they're misusing the word "stole". Yeah, ok, it's not exactly the same thing as shoplifting a sweater. We get it. But we're going to keep using the word.
I don't much care for your condescending tone. It's also possible that the death of my Xbox affects my life more than the death of 10k random people. But if it would save 10,000 people, I'd go buy a dog, fall in love with it, and then beat it to death with my Xbox. No matter how much you may personally value something, there are some things that are less valuable than human life. Especially 10,000 human lives. So yes. I've thought about it.
I think you might have missed his point. He's not talking about the quality of the work. He's talking about how even a show like Scooby Doo (which I'm sure he didn't expect to resemble Dostoevsky), is trying to write ambiguous, gray characters with complex motivations. In other words, he's trying to make the point that media are saturated with these sorts of nebulous gray-area dramas.
Also, it was kinda bullshit. I mean, in real life, would I save 10,000 people or my dog? 10,000 people, no contest. But Fable instead presents you with a choice between saving 10,000 imaginary people who don't have any actual impact on the game world or your dog, which is a fundamental gameplay mechanic. Not fair, Lionhead. Hard not to metagame there. It was made all the worse, in fact, by the fact that I had romanced Lady Grey and Lucien killed her too. A fundamental game mechanic and a unique love interest vs a meaningless number with no impact on the game.
I played it evil on my second time through, but I don't think that really counts. I mean, at that point, you're just fooling around to see more content. And it definitely wasn't as fulfilling as playing my "sheltered scientist turned western folk hero" character. Let's be honest. That was pure geek fantasy there.
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water.
Never said it was. I was even careful to avoid the term "illegal" when referring to modifying play-station hardware.
then its not relevent, if you modify something that causes it to break the law (like extracting DMT from plant bark) you get in trouble by the police. the owner of the DMT plant has no need to pursue you in court and in fact this would be a conflict of interest. Its a 3rd party enforcing the law, not the first party, this is important.
Eh, if the distinction matters to you, it's important. The way things are going these days it wouldn't shock me if Sony could purchase themselves a law that would remove the distinction (I kid.... sort of). Whether it's enforced in criminal or civil court doesn't really matter to me (though it would if I were being prosecuted), but I wouldn't presume to tell you what should matter to you.
Ok, and the next time I describe a handgun you can legally own, I'll call it a weapon you can conceal.
this is fair enough, if your legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon, then there should be no problem having or making a saw off shotgun. and ideally this is how the system would work.
Well actually, I'm not legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon, but I am legally entitled to purchase a handgun. So, analogously, I should be entitled to saw off a shotgun, just not carry it concealed.
however as there is no legitimate reason to change the class of your weapon retrospectively and that policing the changes is much more difficult than policing the release of concield weapons, then they have a legitimate reason to justify disallowing modifications.
Retrospectively? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean prospectively? And if you do, maybe you aren't sawing off the shotgun in order to conceal it on your person. Saying that there's no legitimate reason to modify a shotgun sounds an awful lot, to me, like those people who say there's no legitimate reason to mod a PS3. A modded PS3 could add Other OS functionality back rather than be used for piracy/cheating. A person might prefer a sawed off shotgun for home defense if he finds it easier to navigate close quarters.
don't get me wrong, i have the same personal stance, but i certainly understand the EXCEPTION to being able to modify in the case of a shotgun, where as there is simply NO REASON to have the EXCEPTION for a PS3.
I wouldn't say there's no reason. A lot of people *are* going to mod their consoles in order to pirate games. Other people are going to cheat (which, incidentally, makes playing online less fun for people like me who stay honest). So, there's a reason. Just not a good enough one to justify what they're doing.
You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
"device that supports piracy" I like it. next time I'm talking about a computer, That's what I'm going to refer to it as.
Ok, and the next time I describe a handgun you can legally own, I'll call it a weapon you can conceal.
the problem with the shotgun analogy is that the modification rule would have been set as a safety exception. there are reasonable safety grounds why the shotguns modification should be limited, this does not indicate that everything should have a limited modification allowance. Weapons are the exception to the rule of "your equipment is yours to do what you like with" for a very good reason. Is piracy really a good enough reason to have an exception?
Absurd. I don't need a nanny state telling me it's illegal for me to fuck around with some device I own because it might be dangerous. I'm arguing that it should be fine to modify your PS3, but that it should also be fine to modify your shotgun. I'm taking the principled stance that both should be ok, because they're your property to do with as you wish.
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water.
Never said it was. I was even careful to avoid the term "illegal" when referring to modifying playstation hardware.
It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
Doesn't basically every modern toy support piracy in some sense? Should Microsoft be allowed to kill my computer since I have a torrent client installed, what about Apple, can they go brick my home built PC because I have iTunes and said torrent client? Should my car manufacture take my car away because the fuzzy dice I just put on my mirror makes it a speeding machine? My iPod doesn't have a single song from the iTunes Music Store, can Apple delete it all at whim?
Who cares if Sony doesn't like what I do to my hardware. I bought the damn thing, I didn't sign an agreement saying "this hardware, and everything you ever do to it is property of Sony.". If I want to take it apart, then that is my business.
Yes. I suggest you read the rest of my post before responding. Particularly the part where I said:
You know, I actually tend to agree that people should have the right to modify their consoles. I also don't see a problem with modifying your shotgun. [...] Making it capable of being concealed is not the crime any more than making your PS3 capable of pirating should be the issue.
It wasn't illegal to modify the shotgun - it was illegal to modify the shotgun beyond established parameters which changes that weapon from a "shotgun" to a concealable weapon, ie, a "pistol".
And, analogously, it's not illegal to modify your PS3 either. You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
The shotgun owner has every right to change out the firing pin, to change the magazine, to put riflings in the barrel, to change the sites, or even to mount a laser pointer on the shotgun. He is prohibited from using it as a concealed weapon. So, your analogy falls short.
You know, I actually tend to agree that people should have the right to modify their consoles. I also don't see a problem with modifying your shotgun. If it's illegal to conceal a shotgun, fine, arrest someone for concealing a sawed off shotgun, but don't arrest them for sawing it off in the first place. Making it capable of being concealed is not the crime any more than making your PS3 capable of pirating should be the issue.
So.... I guess I think it *is* a good analogy, but otherwise I agree with you
So Microsoft bans users with modded consoles. They don't sue them. And honestly, I'm glad they ban those people. I'm sure they think it's hilarious and fun to cheat up their gamerscore or to cheat in multiplayer games, but it diminishes the experience of players who want to do it honestly. It's intellectually dishonest to say this is the same thing.
I didn't look at your Nintendo links because.... I kinda don't care about Nintendo. So you may or may not have a point there for all I know.
They sell their hardware at a loss to suck you into paying exhorbitant prices for the software (games) that you'd use on it, then they sue you for using it in a way THEY didn't intend for it to be used.
I'll decide for myself what I think is exorbitant. And as for the latter point, since I have no particular desire to use it in a way they didn't intend, the only reason for me to boycott this is to show solidarity with the persecuted (also prosecuted) few who do.
You're fools for putting up with crap like this.
Putting up with crap like what? I haven't been sued. I have no interest in modding my consoles. Apart from the removal of the Other OS functionality, which I dicked around with but never really used, I've not been personally affected in any way.
In other words, because he made an ad hominem argument, I was perfectly fine calling attention to the fact that those that do so, him being one example, do instantly lose their argument because it is insufficient a nail to hang an argument on.
Ad hominem is insufficient, yes, but it could be accompanied by another argument that is sufficient. Similarly, use of the word "sheeple" is insufficient. In fact, use of the word sheeple is, itself, ad hominem. I'll leave you to connect the dots.
I don't see a single racial slur or homophobic remark in there.... unless "aiauiieuuoauoieaaeaauiaaaeiiooaoieaoouieuo" is a disparaging remark aimed at Hawaiians or something.
Slashdot Mirror
But on the back of each ticket...it says clearly that "this is not a moving violation and will not go on your record".
Yeah, I can only assume they do that because they ticket the *owner* of the car rather than the driver. If you let a friend borrow it, he can blow through as many of those as he wants and you are somehow liable for his activities.
Well... technically they pay a greater percentage of the taxes that make that infrastructure...
If you paid $50 every time you went to the go-kart track and some other schmuck was only paying $15 wouldn't you ask for them to make it more fun for you by taking off the limiter?
I'm not saying it's right, but that's why you see nicer roads, street signage, sidewalks, etc. in high income areas. The cities want to keep those folks happy so the upkeep is directed closer to those high income areas. If you run a town, wouldn't you want to keep them happy?
Allegedly, the fine is supposed to be a deterrent, because speeding is allegedly unsafe. If we did this, we'd be recognizing that it's not at all a deterrent, and not at all related to safety. If we no longer had that as a justification, what exactly *would* be the justification for fining people?
Presumably many if not most of the speeding tickets are from people just passing through. Like those occasional little towns along state highways where they drop the speed limit by ~20mph for about a mile long stretch. Cops camp there and rake in easy money.
My "wow" wasn't over the size of the budget, but of the percentage that was paid for by speeding tickets alone. I mean, what if nobody speeds some year, which is what you want anyways, right?
Because speed limits and enforcement are about *safety*, not about *revenue*..... riiight. It's what they've always told me when I get pulled over for speeding. One time, I had even sped up to pass a guy more quickly, because I was being tailgated. Speeding a little bit permitted me to get out of the passing lane and let the unsafe driver pass me, but the cop still told me they were cracking down on speeding to "improve safety". Bullshit.
Does it? Personally, I think it's treated nothing like stealing. If I steal a CD from Best Buy, I'm not liable for 35,000 in damages. If anything, I think it's treated as worse than stealing. If it were merely stealing, maybe the penalty would be reasonable.
It serves one other purpose. Sometimes people unknowingly have inconsistent stances. A good analogy can force a person to face such an inconsistency and either change their opinion or accept their hypocrisy. But it does require a *good* analogy.
You can repeat this 'til death, downloading is not stealing, you can only steal physical things, no matter what the M.A.F.I.A. is trying to buy as law.
No, you can steal all sorts of things. You can steal an idea, you can steal a woman's heart (figuratively), you can even steal a fucking glance. Why are people so sensitive about copyright infringement being referred to as stealing? Yeah, we know it's different in some significant ways. It's also very similar in spirit. I think it's fine to use the word.
And yet when a person casually says "They stole my idea!" there isn't an army of people who descends on them to tell them they're misusing the word "stole". Yeah, ok, it's not exactly the same thing as shoplifting a sweater. We get it. But we're going to keep using the word.
Able to leap tall buildings, that is any vertical structure with a height of 2,000 meters or less
Not much of a limitation. That's more than twice the height of the Burj Khalifa.
That's fairly compelling. I'd mod you up if I could.
It's certainly cheaper.
I don't much care for your condescending tone. It's also possible that the death of my Xbox affects my life more than the death of 10k random people. But if it would save 10,000 people, I'd go buy a dog, fall in love with it, and then beat it to death with my Xbox. No matter how much you may personally value something, there are some things that are less valuable than human life. Especially 10,000 human lives. So yes. I've thought about it.
I think you might have missed his point. He's not talking about the quality of the work. He's talking about how even a show like Scooby Doo (which I'm sure he didn't expect to resemble Dostoevsky), is trying to write ambiguous, gray characters with complex motivations. In other words, he's trying to make the point that media are saturated with these sorts of nebulous gray-area dramas.
Or maybe you're immersing yourself in the fantasy of the game world.
Also, it was kinda bullshit. I mean, in real life, would I save 10,000 people or my dog? 10,000 people, no contest. But Fable instead presents you with a choice between saving 10,000 imaginary people who don't have any actual impact on the game world or your dog, which is a fundamental gameplay mechanic. Not fair, Lionhead. Hard not to metagame there. It was made all the worse, in fact, by the fact that I had romanced Lady Grey and Lucien killed her too. A fundamental game mechanic and a unique love interest vs a meaningless number with no impact on the game.
I played it evil on my second time through, but I don't think that really counts. I mean, at that point, you're just fooling around to see more content. And it definitely wasn't as fulfilling as playing my "sheltered scientist turned western folk hero" character. Let's be honest. That was pure geek fantasy there.
Would it be 18 years old if it *was* a pentium 1, not on steroids, but in a different box?
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water. Never said it was. I was even careful to avoid the term "illegal" when referring to modifying play-station hardware.
then its not relevent, if you modify something that causes it to break the law (like extracting DMT from plant bark) you get in trouble by the police. the owner of the DMT plant has no need to pursue you in court and in fact this would be a conflict of interest. Its a 3rd party enforcing the law, not the first party, this is important.
Eh, if the distinction matters to you, it's important. The way things are going these days it wouldn't shock me if Sony could purchase themselves a law that would remove the distinction (I kid.... sort of). Whether it's enforced in criminal or civil court doesn't really matter to me (though it would if I were being prosecuted), but I wouldn't presume to tell you what should matter to you.
Ok, and the next time I describe a handgun you can legally own, I'll call it a weapon you can conceal.
this is fair enough, if your legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon, then there should be no problem having or making a saw off shotgun. and ideally this is how the system would work.
Well actually, I'm not legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon, but I am legally entitled to purchase a handgun. So, analogously, I should be entitled to saw off a shotgun, just not carry it concealed.
however as there is no legitimate reason to change the class of your weapon retrospectively and that policing the changes is much more difficult than policing the release of concield weapons, then they have a legitimate reason to justify disallowing modifications.
Retrospectively? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean prospectively? And if you do, maybe you aren't sawing off the shotgun in order to conceal it on your person. Saying that there's no legitimate reason to modify a shotgun sounds an awful lot, to me, like those people who say there's no legitimate reason to mod a PS3. A modded PS3 could add Other OS functionality back rather than be used for piracy/cheating. A person might prefer a sawed off shotgun for home defense if he finds it easier to navigate close quarters.
don't get me wrong, i have the same personal stance, but i certainly understand the EXCEPTION to being able to modify in the case of a shotgun, where as there is simply NO REASON to have the EXCEPTION for a PS3.
I wouldn't say there's no reason. A lot of people *are* going to mod their consoles in order to pirate games. Other people are going to cheat (which, incidentally, makes playing online less fun for people like me who stay honest). So, there's a reason. Just not a good enough one to justify what they're doing.
You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
"device that supports piracy" I like it. next time I'm talking about a computer, That's what I'm going to refer to it as.
Ok, and the next time I describe a handgun you can legally own, I'll call it a weapon you can conceal.
the problem with the shotgun analogy is that the modification rule would have been set as a safety exception. there are reasonable safety grounds why the shotguns modification should be limited, this does not indicate that everything should have a limited modification allowance. Weapons are the exception to the rule of "your equipment is yours to do what you like with" for a very good reason. Is piracy really a good enough reason to have an exception?
Absurd. I don't need a nanny state telling me it's illegal for me to fuck around with some device I own because it might be dangerous. I'm arguing that it should be fine to modify your PS3, but that it should also be fine to modify your shotgun. I'm taking the principled stance that both should be ok, because they're your property to do with as you wish.
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water.
Never said it was. I was even careful to avoid the term "illegal" when referring to modifying playstation hardware.
It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
Doesn't basically every modern toy support piracy in some sense? Should Microsoft be allowed to kill my computer since I have a torrent client installed, what about Apple, can they go brick my home built PC because I have iTunes and said torrent client? Should my car manufacture take my car away because the fuzzy dice I just put on my mirror makes it a speeding machine? My iPod doesn't have a single song from the iTunes Music Store, can Apple delete it all at whim?
Who cares if Sony doesn't like what I do to my hardware. I bought the damn thing, I didn't sign an agreement saying "this hardware, and everything you ever do to it is property of Sony.". If I want to take it apart, then that is my business.
Yes. I suggest you read the rest of my post before responding. Particularly the part where I said:
You know, I actually tend to agree that people should have the right to modify their consoles. I also don't see a problem with modifying your shotgun. [...] Making it capable of being concealed is not the crime any more than making your PS3 capable of pirating should be the issue.
It wasn't illegal to modify the shotgun - it was illegal to modify the shotgun beyond established parameters which changes that weapon from a "shotgun" to a concealable weapon, ie, a "pistol".
And, analogously, it's not illegal to modify your PS3 either. You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
The shotgun owner has every right to change out the firing pin, to change the magazine, to put riflings in the barrel, to change the sites, or even to mount a laser pointer on the shotgun. He is prohibited from using it as a concealed weapon. So, your analogy falls short.
You know, I actually tend to agree that people should have the right to modify their consoles. I also don't see a problem with modifying your shotgun. If it's illegal to conceal a shotgun, fine, arrest someone for concealing a sawed off shotgun, but don't arrest them for sawing it off in the first place. Making it capable of being concealed is not the crime any more than making your PS3 capable of pirating should be the issue.
So.... I guess I think it *is* a good analogy, but otherwise I agree with you
So Microsoft bans users with modded consoles. They don't sue them. And honestly, I'm glad they ban those people. I'm sure they think it's hilarious and fun to cheat up their gamerscore or to cheat in multiplayer games, but it diminishes the experience of players who want to do it honestly. It's intellectually dishonest to say this is the same thing.
I didn't look at your Nintendo links because.... I kinda don't care about Nintendo. So you may or may not have a point there for all I know.
They sell their hardware at a loss to suck you into paying exhorbitant prices for the software (games) that you'd use on it, then they sue you for using it in a way THEY didn't intend for it to be used.
I'll decide for myself what I think is exorbitant. And as for the latter point, since I have no particular desire to use it in a way they didn't intend, the only reason for me to boycott this is to show solidarity with the persecuted (also prosecuted) few who do.
You're fools for putting up with crap like this.
Putting up with crap like what? I haven't been sued. I have no interest in modding my consoles. Apart from the removal of the Other OS functionality, which I dicked around with but never really used, I've not been personally affected in any way.
In other words, because he made an ad hominem argument, I was perfectly fine calling attention to the fact that those that do so, him being one example, do instantly lose their argument because it is insufficient a nail to hang an argument on.
Ad hominem is insufficient, yes, but it could be accompanied by another argument that is sufficient. Similarly, use of the word "sheeple" is insufficient. In fact, use of the word sheeple is, itself, ad hominem. I'll leave you to connect the dots.
I don't see a single racial slur or homophobic remark in there.... unless "aiauiieuuoauoieaaeaauiaaaeiiooaoieaoouieuo" is a disparaging remark aimed at Hawaiians or something.