Since it doesn't take that many violations to have your license suspended in most states, and traffic enforcers are in super-abundant supply, testing is redundant to begin with.
So that you can exercise your "right to oversleep" and "universal of right of way" millions of people should be denied access to transportation and livelihood? If the technology is done right traffic flow should increase--and you should be able to take part in the meeting on the road as you head to the beach.
don't really need to worried about the practical implications day by day
Normal activities like traveling or opening a bank account are quite noticeably affected by government surveillance of the financial and transport systems. Any practical limitation of government capabilities can be made up for by requisitioning private resources or by simply blocking events that are difficult to monitor from happening at all.
A lot more harm is done and a lot more money is made by denying access to medication. Your mommy may have spanked you for eating a cookie without permission, but it's time to grow up.
Helping people access cheap medication seems very non-evil. Don't think there were many reports of people being harmed. The FDA is 90% about controlling the market for profit and 10% about safety.
Since stylized depictions of the the editors' genitalia or skin diseases would not be horrifying they would also clearly not be accurate. Don't see why Wikipedia should design levels of filters to obscure knowledge when users can just instruct their web browsers not to load images from the site.
There is another type of mob--Reichsparteitag kind. Courts that violate the rights of the individual to free speech and fair punishment only give the appearance of morality and order while producing the opposite.
Every cellphone transmitter only exists as a "courtesy". You think it's OK for the various owners to turn them on and off, re-route calls, etc. for any reason?
If a citizen is with an associate who commits a crime he is usually charged identically "under the theory of joint venture". Cops and prosecutors always throw the maximum number and most severe charges against average defendants. The police department and prosecutors response in this case is the absolute minimum they can get away with, and they are sending a strong message that they will support cops who commit crimes, though there may need to be a "fall guy".
Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
Even the smallest occasion is an opportunity to brutally assert "authority". Collateral damage is of no concern.
The USA has a lot higher traffic fatalities too. Is that a reason to restrict vehicle-use as much as the UK does? Sure freedom has it's price, but gun crime is mostly criminal-on-criminal. There would probably be a lot fewer rioters on the street if they had had more opportunities to get shot and arrested for illegal gun possession (though I guess in England you can get them for pocket knifes and letter-openers).
Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?
Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals, typically stronger, younger, and more numerous males who have spent their whole lives learning to take and administer beatings. Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them. On the other hand, burglary is a very unprofitable crime so the average burglar is not armed since guns cost hundreds of dollars. Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights).
How can it be a "CCTV network" if the "cameras aren't hooked up to a central network"? And of course most cameras are privately run: a supermarket might have 50, while you can suppress democracy in the town square with 5. You'd need a dozen cameras to secure your house, while the government can secure itself from you with 2 pointed at the doors.
In other words, you're going to have to take the position that Walmart and Amazon.com should be able to print up all the copies of books, movies, software, and music that they want, and pay no money to anyone.
Yet Amazon doesn't print up public domain works, instead selling them for the high prices set by parasitic publishers.
On a practical level the author probably can't even remember after years of writing, editing, and moving on to the next thing. And while hints from the author, his other work, his biography, etc. can illuminate, an undergrad class doesn't have time for more than textual analysis.
The only "progress" most areas of the US see are increasing bills and new bandwidth rationing schemes. My internet has been 10/1 for the past 6 years during which time it has increased in 30% in price to $60 and dropped usenet. In order to pay for such an enormously innovative product, metered pricing is "inevitable" says TWC's CEO.
How is a 12-year-old required to look at an online assignment, research online, and type a paper going to be able to work to pay for the equipment? Yes, the schools are filled with million-dollar computer labs, but they close when all the teachers rush out the door in the early afternoon. And since Comcast is already rationing customers to a few meager percent of the connections' capacity (in preparation for their merger with a TV/movie company) bandwidth can hardly be a problem.
This program probably won't cost Comcast anything--it might even turn a profit. The politicians could have just rubber-stamped the merger like they normally do, but throwing out a little bread to the pauper children is hard to resist, not because the corrupt representatives have socialist convictions (or any convictions at all) but because it is fun.
Slashdot Mirror
He pretended he didn't have a daughter and made her live on welfare when he was (only) a millionaire. He has a problem.
I wouldn't care, but Firefox becomes unusable once it hits 2GB or so.
It's against the rules to criticize a woman's business performance.
Since it doesn't take that many violations to have your license suspended in most states, and traffic enforcers are in super-abundant supply, testing is redundant to begin with.
So that you can exercise your "right to oversleep" and "universal of right of way" millions of people should be denied access to transportation and livelihood? If the technology is done right traffic flow should increase--and you should be able to take part in the meeting on the road as you head to the beach.
don't really need to worried about the practical implications day by day
Normal activities like traveling or opening a bank account are quite noticeably affected by government surveillance of the financial and transport systems. Any practical limitation of government capabilities can be made up for by requisitioning private resources or by simply blocking events that are difficult to monitor from happening at all.
A lot more harm is done and a lot more money is made by denying access to medication. Your mommy may have spanked you for eating a cookie without permission, but it's time to grow up.
Including you once you're used to almost everybody stopping at the lights and let your guard down.
Helping people access cheap medication seems very non-evil. Don't think there were many reports of people being harmed. The FDA is 90% about controlling the market for profit and 10% about safety.
Because "they wasn't" sounds illiterate.
Since stylized depictions of the the editors' genitalia or skin diseases would not be horrifying they would also clearly not be accurate. Don't see why Wikipedia should design levels of filters to obscure knowledge when users can just instruct their web browsers not to load images from the site.
There is another type of mob--Reichsparteitag kind. Courts that violate the rights of the individual to free speech and fair punishment only give the appearance of morality and order while producing the opposite.
With no phone you are cut off from a lot of more basic services.
Every cellphone transmitter only exists as a "courtesy". You think it's OK for the various owners to turn them on and off, re-route calls, etc. for any reason?
If a citizen is with an associate who commits a crime he is usually charged identically "under the theory of joint venture". Cops and prosecutors always throw the maximum number and most severe charges against average defendants. The police department and prosecutors response in this case is the absolute minimum they can get away with, and they are sending a strong message that they will support cops who commit crimes, though there may need to be a "fall guy".
Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
Even the smallest occasion is an opportunity to brutally assert "authority". Collateral damage is of no concern.
The USA has a lot higher traffic fatalities too. Is that a reason to restrict vehicle-use as much as the UK does? Sure freedom has it's price, but gun crime is mostly criminal-on-criminal. There would probably be a lot fewer rioters on the street if they had had more opportunities to get shot and arrested for illegal gun possession (though I guess in England you can get them for pocket knifes and letter-openers).
Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?
Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals, typically stronger, younger, and more numerous males who have spent their whole lives learning to take and administer beatings. Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them. On the other hand, burglary is a very unprofitable crime so the average burglar is not armed since guns cost hundreds of dollars. Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights).
How can it be a "CCTV network" if the "cameras aren't hooked up to a central network"? And of course most cameras are privately run: a supermarket might have 50, while you can suppress democracy in the town square with 5. You'd need a dozen cameras to secure your house, while the government can secure itself from you with 2 pointed at the doors.
Could use a monitor arm.
[Posted from my bed]
In other words, you're going to have to take the position that Walmart and Amazon.com should be able to print up all the copies of books, movies, software, and music that they want, and pay no money to anyone.
Yet Amazon doesn't print up public domain works, instead selling them for the high prices set by parasitic publishers.
On a practical level the author probably can't even remember after years of writing, editing, and moving on to the next thing. And while hints from the author, his other work, his biography, etc. can illuminate, an undergrad class doesn't have time for more than textual analysis.
The only "progress" most areas of the US see are increasing bills and new bandwidth rationing schemes. My internet has been 10/1 for the past 6 years during which time it has increased in 30% in price to $60 and dropped usenet. In order to pay for such an enormously innovative product, metered pricing is "inevitable" says TWC's CEO.
How is a 12-year-old required to look at an online assignment, research online, and type a paper going to be able to work to pay for the equipment? Yes, the schools are filled with million-dollar computer labs, but they close when all the teachers rush out the door in the early afternoon. And since Comcast is already rationing customers to a few meager percent of the connections' capacity (in preparation for their merger with a TV/movie company) bandwidth can hardly be a problem.
This program probably won't cost Comcast anything--it might even turn a profit. The politicians could have just rubber-stamped the merger like they normally do, but throwing out a little bread to the pauper children is hard to resist, not because the corrupt representatives have socialist convictions (or any convictions at all) but because it is fun.