What it states is:
"...in the case of a food service or drinking establishment...no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers..."
and also:
"...communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work... no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers..."
...so unless you live in a restaurant, and the Superbowl is pre-empted by a Mahler concert, you are probably pretty safe...
If I have a choice between hitting a pedestrian or a utility pole..."
You failed to mention who the pedestrian is. Consider:
Mother-in-law vs. pole
Jessica Alba vs. pole
Zombie vs. pole
Trysting wife's gardener vs. pole
Hitler vs. pole
Hitler vs. Pole
(a little WWII humor there...)
Correct.
If you were trapped in the rubble of a 7-11 in Haiti for 15 days, with nothing to eat but Dr. Pepper and Cheetos, you would out-survive the guy who eats nothing but organic foods.
You are correct sir.
And for those of you who don't like maths, if someone were thrown thru the air from a bullet impact, the shooter (thanks to Newton) would also be thrown thru the air...
How about glass spheres (melting point 2300C) and fill with aluminum (melting point 660C) ?
The glass is fairly light, even a little flexible, and cheaper than steel.
Well, you can't 'steal' what another guy can't patent.
Generally, The USPO won't issue a patent on something that does not have a working model:
"...II. UTILITY
A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion..."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm
So without holding a patent - anyone could copy what they like from it. (legally, if not morally)
Of course, if you base your invention on non-working technology....:)
They compared accident rates before and after the legislation!!?? Oh, good lord, that's even worse. So I guess that this study has proven conclusively that people don't have any idea what the legislature is doing.
...I can see how this might lead to a lot of phone calls to 911. Follow me:
I'm in a place where one person starts committing a crime. There are 5 people (A,B,C,D & E) standing around who DON'T call 911.
So I have to call (by law) to report the criminal. Now, I also have to call 911 to report that A,B,C,D & E are now committing a crime by not calling 911!
And, I have to call again to say that A,B,C,D & E are committing another crime by not calling on each other, and that the original criminal is also committing the crime of: "not calling 911 on himself, and on A,B,C,D & E for not calling 911 on him"
OK,
I get the impression this study is flawed. Here's how:
It's data set is based on "Comparing insurance claims for crash damage..."
So the crash data would be mostly self reported. Now - before the ban - someone might report, "I was talking on my phone, and I hit the tree."
However, after the ban, they wouldn't admit doing anything illegal during the crash (since this could be a cause for non-payment) like talking on the phone, so they would be motivated not to report the phone call.
Some of you thought that there is a 'right' to drive. That is not a right found in the constitution. However, the federal & state governments do have the ability to: protect us from others, and protect us from ourselves. Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists, they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like: having a license, not being drunk, and not driving while distracted.
The use of 'Apple' by Apple Computer was first challenged as trademark infringement by the Beatles 'Apple Corps' back in 1978.
They finally allowed Apple Computer to use it for a cash payoff and a promise that Apple Computer would never get into the music distribution business... something that Apple Computer has never...DOH!
And some of us are mature and secure enough in our raw, testosterone-gushing, brutal, masculinity to not give a shit if someone sees us out in public carrying a purse full of tampons and pads, while wearing a chiffon tiered, floral print, summer dress with a crisp white cotton bandeau and delicate lace trim. That's how gawdamm masculine we are!!
In order to know what the 'answer' is we will have to define the 'question'.
If the question is, "How do we turn career criminals into trustworthy, productive members of open society?" then you are probably correct, and the answer may not be a punitive style prison system.
But if the question is, "How do we keep criminals from killing, robbing, cheating, beating, raping, molesting, and otherwise harming honest, law-abiding members of open society?" then the 'answer' may very well be to: lock them away where they do not have any access to harm honest citizens.
There is an old saying:
"You can spend taxes on schools for the boys or jails and gallows for the men."
...which may be the real solution...
Not to be contrary - but it doesn't seem to be enough:
"A 2002 study survey showed that among nearly 275,000 prisoners released in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, and 51.8% were back in prison."
Slashdot Mirror
The actual law has nothing to do with your home:
...so unless you live in a restaurant, and the Superbowl is pre-empted by a Mahler concert, you are probably pretty safe...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html
What it states is:
"...in the case of a food service or drinking establishment...no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers..."
and also:
"...communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work... no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers..."
"So happy to hear that I'll be "gently deflected flipping me up and over your roof". You make it sound like a positive experience..."
:)
It's even more relaxing if you're listening to Enya on your iPod and burning a violet aromatherapy candle, too.
If I have a choice between hitting a pedestrian or a utility pole..."
You failed to mention who the pedestrian is. Consider:
Mother-in-law vs. pole
Jessica Alba vs. pole
Zombie vs. pole
Trysting wife's gardener vs. pole
Hitler vs. pole
Hitler vs. Pole
(a little WWII humor there...)
Correct.
...until he eats you.
If you were trapped in the rubble of a 7-11 in Haiti for 15 days, with nothing to eat but Dr. Pepper and Cheetos, you would out-survive the guy who eats nothing but organic foods.
...it made me think of bird bones: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1391/548392054_0a1d20612b_o.jpg
You are correct sir.
And for those of you who don't like maths, if someone were thrown thru the air from a bullet impact, the shooter (thanks to Newton) would also be thrown thru the air...
"Do you put up with some bruising......for the possibility that it will save your life?"
Uh.... yeah.
How about glass spheres (melting point 2300C) and fill with aluminum (melting point 660C) ?
The glass is fairly light, even a little flexible, and cheaper than steel.
Yeah,
I used to have just the one pre-cog in the car with me, and all she ever said was, "Don't go home. He knows."
Well, you can't 'steal' what another guy can't patent.
:)
Generally, The USPO won't issue a patent on something that does not have a working model:
"...II. UTILITY
A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion..."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm
So without holding a patent - anyone could copy what they like from it. (legally, if not morally)
Of course, if you base your invention on non-working technology....
They compared accident rates before and after the legislation!!?? Oh, good lord, that's even worse. So I guess that this study has proven conclusively that people don't have any idea what the legislature is doing.
...I can see how this might lead to a lot of phone calls to 911. Follow me:
:)
I'm in a place where one person starts committing a crime. There are 5 people (A,B,C,D & E) standing around who DON'T call 911.
So I have to call (by law) to report the criminal. Now, I also have to call 911 to report that A,B,C,D & E are now committing a crime by not calling 911!
And, I have to call again to say that A,B,C,D & E are committing another crime by not calling on each other, and that the original criminal is also committing the crime of: "not calling 911 on himself, and on A,B,C,D & E for not calling 911 on him"
I could go on all night!!!!
Q. What did Jerry Garcia say when he finally kicked all drugs and booze?
A. "These guys SUCK!"
Yeah, she's been doing this for quite a while.
...and, she's a rocket scientist!
Also, she's smokin' hot (well, she was when I met her) http://blackmadonna2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fiorella.jpeg
OK,
If driving while on the phone is like coding LINUX, and driving drunk is like...
There is already a law in some states prohibiting "distracted" driving.
...you mean "Mormon" ...right?
OK,
I get the impression this study is flawed. Here's how:
It's data set is based on "Comparing insurance claims for crash damage..."
So the crash data would be mostly self reported. Now - before the ban - someone might report, "I was talking on my phone, and I hit the tree."
However, after the ban, they wouldn't admit doing anything illegal during the crash (since this could be a cause for non-payment) like talking on the phone, so they would be motivated not to report the phone call.
Some of you thought that there is a 'right' to drive. That is not a right found in the constitution. However, the federal & state governments do have the ability to: protect us from others, and protect us from ourselves. Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists, they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like: having a license, not being drunk, and not driving while distracted.
Well, I'd say the chicken you had for lunch is pretty extinct right now... no?
Come to think of it...
The use of 'Apple' by Apple Computer was first challenged as trademark infringement by the Beatles 'Apple Corps' back in 1978.
They finally allowed Apple Computer to use it for a cash payoff and a promise that Apple Computer would never get into the music distribution business... something that Apple Computer has never...DOH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Right on Nimey!!
...or is that TMI?
And some of us are mature and secure enough in our raw, testosterone-gushing, brutal, masculinity to not give a shit if someone sees us out in public carrying a purse full of tampons and pads, while wearing a chiffon tiered, floral print, summer dress with a crisp white cotton bandeau and delicate lace trim. That's how gawdamm masculine we are!!
Actually - one of the rejected names was:
Maxi-Pod
I was going to make a "...right off the bat." joke, but have chosen not to.
Carry on.
That's an interesting turn of the phrase...
...which may be the real solution...
In order to know what the 'answer' is we will have to define the 'question'.
If the question is, "How do we turn career criminals into trustworthy, productive members of open society?" then you are probably correct, and the answer may not be a punitive style prison system.
But if the question is, "How do we keep criminals from killing, robbing, cheating, beating, raping, molesting, and otherwise harming honest, law-abiding members of open society?" then the 'answer' may very well be to: lock them away where they do not have any access to harm honest citizens.
There is an old saying:
"You can spend taxes on schools for the boys or jails and gallows for the men."
Not to be contrary - but it doesn't seem to be enough:
"A 2002 study survey showed that among nearly 275,000 prisoners released in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, and 51.8% were back in prison."
Source: Langan, Patrick A.; Levin, David J. (June 2, 2002). "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994" (pdf). Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf