Hand distractions = no problem. I drive a manual-shift car.
All four limbs are engaged during most circumstances when I need to be the most aware of my vehicle's surroundings, and I have no limbs free to engage any eye distractions. Environmental controls or the radio have to wait until I have time for them.:)
Now, concentration distractions, OK, those can be tricky. But I find the mechanical engagement of driving a stick forces more concentration on the act of driving, at least for me. When I'm driving my truck (automatic transmission) I find driving is a lot less distracting.
So if you want to solve the distraction problem, banning automatic transmissions is no more or less sensible than trying to come up with a technological solution to ban distractions.
So, without meaning offense, what would you do if you were appointed "Distracted Driver Czar"? I'd honestly love to hear a good, workable solution.
A technical solution is simply not possible - if you try to block the signal it can be easily circumvented with a repeater, and repeaters are highly portable and nearly invisible, and banning repeaters is impractical because they are useful in many other non-automotive situations. Or by simply opening the car window. Unless you're proposing putting active jammers in all cars, at which point (ignoring the incredible expense) cell phones become pretty much useless anywhere a car is within a few hundred feet.
Laws against distracted driving as a primary offense go unenforced because it's hard to catch someone at it, and hard to prove if you do. You can increase enforcement consequences if you can prove that a distraction contributed to or was the primary cause of an accident (like Maine does), but again - hard to prove.
Education and tough enforcement will both miss a good chunk of the populace, but they are really the only practical tools we have.
Then the idiots will roll down a window to drive down the highway so they can get a signal, and have the additional distraction of highway wind noise while they are texting, which they will drown out by turning up the radio so they can't hear the horn of the person they are about to wipe out. And if someone does have an emergency on the highway, they'll have to step out of their car or roll down the window to call for help, meaning they're either creating a larger hazard or can't be heard when calling.
Or, more likely, someone who likes to talk in their car will simply spend $50 on a passive waveguide antenna. Cell signal is now available inside the faraday cage. Ten minute install. Back to distractionland.
"Eliminating the distractions" is a great concept, but cell-connected distractions are the latest in a very VERY long list of distractions, are very expensive to fix, and the fixes are very easy to bypass.
Ever been cut off or close-buzzed by someone shaving? Adjusting the radio or environmental controls? Reading the paper spread across the steering wheel? Trying to figure out where they are on a paper map spread out across the steering wheel and dash? Eating a hoagie/grinder/sub or other 2-hands-required food? Reaching into the bag to dig out that last french fry? Tipping their head back to slurp down that last drop of coffee, or struggling with the lid to get scalded by the first drop? Squinting through a 3" x 3" square of visibility in their windshield because they were too lazy to scrape off the rest of the snow/ice? Lighting a ciggie or putting one out? Not to mention drunk, sleep-deprived, or simply angry at something (note that the last three are almost impossible to differentiate from the point of view of another driver).
Ever accidentally drifted off-lane or while doing any of those things, or any action that didn't involve continuous "hands in 2-10, eyes on road, occasional dash/mirror scan"?
Calling and texting are the big panic now because they are new. I'm not saying they aren't real distractions, just that they are just one more distraction and that a technical solution to them isn't going to be effective.
We've got those in Maine, they're called "rumble strips" and they are a grooved strip of pavement that runs just outside the white lines on either side of the pavement. Maine did a BIG push for them a number of years back when a Wal-Mart truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and wiped out a car in the breakdown lane full of teenagers and a couple of good samaritans who had stopped to help them change their flat tire.
And, man, you drive out of your lane and onto one of those things, you KNOW IT. The vibrations feel like an electric shock in the arse.
Now they just need to put those along more roads and in the median.
Not a perfect solution, but it does at least help people stay where they belong in the lane.
I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue that Windows 7 is inferior to Windows Vista.
Well, OK, you will. I still have a few friends who insist that Windows ME was the finest product Redmond ever came out with, and have refused to migrate to that newfangled Windows 2000 nonsense everyone's spouting off about.:)
In any case, I know little about Sophos, but it occurred to me after my first diatribe that "wait a minute, I'm reading an article written by an AntiVirus vendor telling me that everyone needs to run AntiVirus software." Which is certainly true, but is also just a tad self-serving to make me completely trust every claim made.
Someone who, as you so eloquently put it, "let slip their violent nature" is going to have a greater predisposition to do it again. If rehabilitation can even be effective, then you're going to need a hell of a lot of it to be able to control that violent nature. And that nature is always there, so rehab is going to include anger control techniques and a clear demonstration of mastery of them before release. In other words, you either have to change their nature or give them tools to control it.
Whereas someone who lacks that predisposition and acted against their nature probably also feels remorse over the act or had some level of self-justification under circumstances that are less likely to be repeated (violent crime due to frustration/desperation, for example). For someone like that, you identify the circumstances and work with the criminal to prevent those circumstances. So if the crime was based on trying to win some dough to pay for drugs, rehab would include getting cleaned up and learning a job skill. Theirs is a change of environment or circumstances, which is a lot easier.
As someone is proven to be more and more predisposed toward violence, it seems to me that incarcerating them for longer periods is appropriate as well, because I would assume that (a) it would be harder to rehabilitate that person, and (b) that person stands a much higher chance of recidivism. The incarceration should be based on severity of the crime and the likelihood that the person will commit a similar or more violent crime in the future. If we have accurate genetic markers to identify someone predisposed toward violence (and I think we might have a bit to go yet before we've got the genome tackled to that level of confidence) then we'd want to make sure they get more rehab and society is protected from them longer. And the stronger the markers are, the further we'd want to go with that, up to and including permanent incarceration for true sociopaths for which there is little to no chance of ensuring the safety of people in their vicinity.
However, punishing them MORE harshly for a genetic "defect" is going to raise all manner of difficult issues, as well. First, the science needs to be really solid, second, how do we avoid "prepunishment" (detecting and punishing criminals for crimes not committed, yet) or is that a direction we want to go in?
But, certainly, punishing them LESS harshly is both counterproductive and dangerous.
And I answer in seriousness that it's as compatible with Atheism as it is with Theism. If we are nothing more than the creations of an omnipotent and omnipresent God, then where does personal responsibility come into play? I am the raw creation I was built as, influenced by external factors beyond my control. I would never blame a computer for a programmer's error. How do we blame a person for the flaws that Almighty God created them with?
It's simple - whether we are simple biological creations or skin stretched over an immortal soul, we as a species have compassion. No one can say for sure what source that compassion comes from, whether it's a biological advantage for survival of a species and therefore a result of evolution or whether we were imbued with it by an immortal being who created us. That compassion allows us to see that those around us are largely like ourselves, and in general desire to be treated much as we would treat ourselves.
Whether innate compassion created the Golden Rule, or the other way around, is a "chicken and the egg" problem. No mortal has access to that information.
What gets dangerous is when individuals or groups set aside that compassion or lack it entirely, because we are a very clever species at killing one another. When one group, be it a religion, a skin color, a political group, or even fans of a sporting team, sees another group as something below fully human, very evil results almost invariably follow. Differing or lack of religion is merely another "us and them" factor that can and sadly does result in interruptions in our awareness of other human beings as, well, human beings - flawed, mistake-prone people who are prone to self-delusion and self-centeredness. Just like us.
No, it's not obvious at all. Which is why a bunch of people are posting instructions on how to do it. Actually, did either of the posts you were replying to use the term "obvious" or "user error"? I sure didn't see it.
I saw people posting relatively clear instructions to protect yourself until a proper fix is released.
I see the same thing on a lot of bugs, be they Windows or Linux or Mac or iOS or whatever. Someone comes up with a way to mitigate the risk and publishes that method to reduce the number of infections until the vendor/author can release a better solution. People can either take the step to mitigate the risk, or run the risk of infection. It doesn't change the fact that there is an underlying flaw in the code, it just gives you a way to mitigate your risk until a patch comes out.
If you are running a possibly vulnerable version of the operating system in question, and the fix doesn't break something you need to do, then it's in your best interests to implement it. If you choose not to, well, you choose not to. The vendor/author still shares some blame for releasing buggy stuff in the first place, but you've also made your own decision on whether the temporary fix is worth the effort to you.
Garmin made a unit in the US called a "Gecko" if I remember correctly. It used the FRS radio system (non-licensed short-range radio here in the US) to "share" location between multiple Gecko GPS receivers, and they all had a screen where you could see yourself and all the Geckos in range. I remember Garmin monitoring a small durable version without a screen for attaching to your pet as well.
GPSr (GPS Receivers) do not have a return path to the GPS satellite, that's true. They have a receive-only radio that reads very accurate timestamps from satellites in orbit and use the differential in those timestamps and some very cool triangulation math to determine position. So you basically know where you are and what time it is.
Devices that use GPS can, however, have other radios on board that can communicate over other frequencies. For example, you could put a CDMA/EDGE or EVDO radio onboard and use a cell tower to send the data up (requires payment to a cell provider, of course). You could put a WiFi transmitter in it and have the signals sent to your WLAN, assuming you had a computer ready to receive the data and the unit stayed in range.
I suspect that, since the companies that make this have gone to market with a working and marketable product, they've added another radio.
And, if misunderstandings about technology get you red-visioned, I'd respectfully suggest stepping away from the keyboard for a few hours a day and going for a nice walk.:)
Side thought: Of course, this WAS written by Sophos, an AntiVirus marketer. One could hardly expect them to choose viruses/worms that cast "naked Windows 7" in a good light, now could they?
Sophos was testing Windows 7 in its default configuration. I don't know if the Firewall is enabled on a default install, but I suspect it probably is based on the defaults in XP Service Pack 3. If it's not, then the firewall is going to be irrelevant to a good number of users who are also likely to run Windows without AntiVirus on board. If it is, then it's not providing any protection to speak of, apparently.
One of the tests failed, not because Windows provided protection, but because the virus itself wasn't Win32 code. I'm sure the developers of Bredo-M are on it and will have a fix out soon.
Particularly disappointing in this test, however, was UAC's failure to protect against all but one of the eight buggers that did try to run in Windows 7. That is/was supposed to be Microsoft's response to allowing most applications to run as Administrator rather than a limited user (thereby enabling or even encouraging the existence of a large base of applications that REQUIRE Administrator access).
I think you've got the cart before the horse... An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority. He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.
Ratification always goes through a country's law-making body. The Ambassador is given the document, which he then forwards to (in the case of the US) Congress, who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law, then gets the President to sign it (or not).
Of course, the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can agree on can get far more complex, but the Ambassador cannot unilaterally accept or reject anything. They can negotiate, but they must go back to the Congress for approval. In some cases, Congress gives them parameters within which approval is pretty much guaranteed on a particular subject, but the Ambassador is only trying to get the "best deal" within the stated parameters.
The US, by the way, is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol, and we're not because the Protocol as agreed on by the signatories could not get through the US Congress at the time, and the rest of the signatories would not accept the changes that the US wanted.
(closes eyes) "It wasn't real. It never happened." "It wasn't real. It never happened." "It wasn't real. It never happened." "It wasn't real. It never happened." "It wasn't real. It never happened." "It wasn't real. It never happened." "It wasn't real. It never happened." (puts fingers in ears) "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-La-La-la-l-.." (sobs uncontrollably)
Similar to the ads about "if you do drugs, you're supporting terrorism"?
Odd, that, since the only money going to terrorist nations is their share of any fuel you might have burned while driving to the street corner. So, ride your bicycle to get your fix and the link is broken.
"Terrorism" is the new obedience card.
Oh, yeah, that reminds me. I'm low on sheet plastic and duct tape. Gotta go...
No, you're thinking inside the box. This isn't rocket science. Take a look at a 50,000 foot view to rightsize your comprehension. This is synergy between alternative downstream partners because the alpha dog just got eaten by the wolves.
At the end of the day, what we have here is a classic case of vertical integration. Due to a disconnect between law and TPB's established best practices, a way needed to be found to realign the conflicting priorities. In an attempt to realign the siloed legal conflict, TPB is ghostsourced and found involuntary closure as their exit strategy. Their former customers see a need and fill a need by taking it to the next level of self-enabling their own Torrent service, thereby eating their own dog food, while leveraging a market gap and filling it with customer-centric organic growth. Each new value-added Torrent site utilizes the existing low-hanging fruit of recycled TPB torrents, gains a lot of eyeballs in their attempt to win mindshare from a market that's really co-opetition. If they touch base and act open kimono with each other, it's a new new economy win-win scenario.
OK, I know this is not going to be a popular opinion, but it seems to me that she had a serious lapse of judgment followed by an exercise in pretty good judgment. Even in an inebriated state, she recognized that she shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Certainly, she could have handled it a lot better (not driving in the first place, pulling over somewhere safe and calling a cab instead, at least pulling over before she called police), but certain drinks have a cumulative effect that is not felt right away. She may well have left the final bar feeling relatively sober, then realized later that she was not even close. At least she didn't try to get the rest of the way home.
She still deserves punishment, but some small recognition should be acknowledged that, in the end, she did the right thing. Or at least pretty close to it.
...some of us are sure that there are only three Indy films.
Wait a second, there ARE only three Indy films. Why do you mention that fact like it's some sort of controversy? But I can understand how people could get confused. Lead actors occasionally play other roles.
I do remember the MacGyver spinoff that Harrison Ford starred in, "crystal head" or something. I understand that some people think that had something to do with the Jones franchise, since Ford was the lead character in all the Indy films.
But that's just confusion on their part, same as someone thinking that there was more than one "Die Hard" movie just because Willis starred in some other flicks, or that there are more than three Star Wars movies.
PS: I'm not sure what they are selling off. There are really two Terminator films.
Maybe they are trying to sell off "Summer Glau Show" off as part of the Terminator franchise (in which, if I could understand the plot, has something to do with her being a Terminator. I'm not entirely sure, though, because people keep blathering and getting on screen and sometimes blocking a clear view of her.) If so, that show can come back. Keep her and the mom, drop the young dude who appears to be Anakin Skywalker as a kid or something (boy genius who whines a lot about some destiny). Might sell a few ads on an off night and pay for itself if they don't try to spend too much time developing a cohesive plot or special effects that aren't wardrobe-related.
Slashdot Mirror
"I find driving is a lot less distracting." = poorly chosen phrasing. I meant "I find driving a lot less ENGAGING."
Hand distractions = no problem. I drive a manual-shift car.
All four limbs are engaged during most circumstances when I need to be the most aware of my vehicle's surroundings, and I have no limbs free to engage any eye distractions. Environmental controls or the radio have to wait until I have time for them. :)
Now, concentration distractions, OK, those can be tricky. But I find the mechanical engagement of driving a stick forces more concentration on the act of driving, at least for me. When I'm driving my truck (automatic transmission) I find driving is a lot less distracting.
So if you want to solve the distraction problem, banning automatic transmissions is no more or less sensible than trying to come up with a technological solution to ban distractions.
So, without meaning offense, what would you do if you were appointed "Distracted Driver Czar"? I'd honestly love to hear a good, workable solution.
A technical solution is simply not possible - if you try to block the signal it can be easily circumvented with a repeater, and repeaters are highly portable and nearly invisible, and banning repeaters is impractical because they are useful in many other non-automotive situations. Or by simply opening the car window. Unless you're proposing putting active jammers in all cars, at which point (ignoring the incredible expense) cell phones become pretty much useless anywhere a car is within a few hundred feet.
Laws against distracted driving as a primary offense go unenforced because it's hard to catch someone at it, and hard to prove if you do. You can increase enforcement consequences if you can prove that a distraction contributed to or was the primary cause of an accident (like Maine does), but again - hard to prove.
Education and tough enforcement will both miss a good chunk of the populace, but they are really the only practical tools we have.
Then the idiots will roll down a window to drive down the highway so they can get a signal, and have the additional distraction of highway wind noise while they are texting, which they will drown out by turning up the radio so they can't hear the horn of the person they are about to wipe out. And if someone does have an emergency on the highway, they'll have to step out of their car or roll down the window to call for help, meaning they're either creating a larger hazard or can't be heard when calling.
Or, more likely, someone who likes to talk in their car will simply spend $50 on a passive waveguide antenna. Cell signal is now available inside the faraday cage. Ten minute install. Back to distractionland.
"Eliminating the distractions" is a great concept, but cell-connected distractions are the latest in a very VERY long list of distractions, are very expensive to fix, and the fixes are very easy to bypass.
Ever been cut off or close-buzzed by someone shaving? Adjusting the radio or environmental controls? Reading the paper spread across the steering wheel? Trying to figure out where they are on a paper map spread out across the steering wheel and dash? Eating a hoagie/grinder/sub or other 2-hands-required food? Reaching into the bag to dig out that last french fry? Tipping their head back to slurp down that last drop of coffee, or struggling with the lid to get scalded by the first drop? Squinting through a 3" x 3" square of visibility in their windshield because they were too lazy to scrape off the rest of the snow/ice? Lighting a ciggie or putting one out? Not to mention drunk, sleep-deprived, or simply angry at something (note that the last three are almost impossible to differentiate from the point of view of another driver).
Ever accidentally drifted off-lane or while doing any of those things, or any action that didn't involve continuous "hands in 2-10, eyes on road, occasional dash/mirror scan"?
Calling and texting are the big panic now because they are new. I'm not saying they aren't real distractions, just that they are just one more distraction and that a technical solution to them isn't going to be effective.
We've got those in Maine, they're called "rumble strips" and they are a grooved strip of pavement that runs just outside the white lines on either side of the pavement. Maine did a BIG push for them a number of years back when a Wal-Mart truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and wiped out a car in the breakdown lane full of teenagers and a couple of good samaritans who had stopped to help them change their flat tire.
And, man, you drive out of your lane and onto one of those things, you KNOW IT. The vibrations feel like an electric shock in the arse.
Now they just need to put those along more roads and in the median.
Not a perfect solution, but it does at least help people stay where they belong in the lane.
Whew! Thank goodness I use ibuprofen! ;)
Good point, I'd better get off /. and back to work.
I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue that Windows 7 is inferior to Windows Vista.
Well, OK, you will. I still have a few friends who insist that Windows ME was the finest product Redmond ever came out with, and have refused to migrate to that newfangled Windows 2000 nonsense everyone's spouting off about. :)
In any case, I know little about Sophos, but it occurred to me after my first diatribe that "wait a minute, I'm reading an article written by an AntiVirus vendor telling me that everyone needs to run AntiVirus software." Which is certainly true, but is also just a tad self-serving to make me completely trust every claim made.
Someone who, as you so eloquently put it, "let slip their violent nature" is going to have a greater predisposition to do it again. If rehabilitation can even be effective, then you're going to need a hell of a lot of it to be able to control that violent nature. And that nature is always there, so rehab is going to include anger control techniques and a clear demonstration of mastery of them before release. In other words, you either have to change their nature or give them tools to control it.
Whereas someone who lacks that predisposition and acted against their nature probably also feels remorse over the act or had some level of self-justification under circumstances that are less likely to be repeated (violent crime due to frustration/desperation, for example). For someone like that, you identify the circumstances and work with the criminal to prevent those circumstances. So if the crime was based on trying to win some dough to pay for drugs, rehab would include getting cleaned up and learning a job skill. Theirs is a change of environment or circumstances, which is a lot easier.
As someone is proven to be more and more predisposed toward violence, it seems to me that incarcerating them for longer periods is appropriate as well, because I would assume that (a) it would be harder to rehabilitate that person, and (b) that person stands a much higher chance of recidivism. The incarceration should be based on severity of the crime and the likelihood that the person will commit a similar or more violent crime in the future. If we have accurate genetic markers to identify someone predisposed toward violence (and I think we might have a bit to go yet before we've got the genome tackled to that level of confidence) then we'd want to make sure they get more rehab and society is protected from them longer. And the stronger the markers are, the further we'd want to go with that, up to and including permanent incarceration for true sociopaths for which there is little to no chance of ensuring the safety of people in their vicinity.
However, punishing them MORE harshly for a genetic "defect" is going to raise all manner of difficult issues, as well. First, the science needs to be really solid, second, how do we avoid "prepunishment" (detecting and punishing criminals for crimes not committed, yet) or is that a direction we want to go in?
But, certainly, punishing them LESS harshly is both counterproductive and dangerous.
And I answer in seriousness that it's as compatible with Atheism as it is with Theism. If we are nothing more than the creations of an omnipotent and omnipresent God, then where does personal responsibility come into play? I am the raw creation I was built as, influenced by external factors beyond my control. I would never blame a computer for a programmer's error. How do we blame a person for the flaws that Almighty God created them with?
It's simple - whether we are simple biological creations or skin stretched over an immortal soul, we as a species have compassion. No one can say for sure what source that compassion comes from, whether it's a biological advantage for survival of a species and therefore a result of evolution or whether we were imbued with it by an immortal being who created us. That compassion allows us to see that those around us are largely like ourselves, and in general desire to be treated much as we would treat ourselves.
Whether innate compassion created the Golden Rule, or the other way around, is a "chicken and the egg" problem. No mortal has access to that information.
What gets dangerous is when individuals or groups set aside that compassion or lack it entirely, because we are a very clever species at killing one another. When one group, be it a religion, a skin color, a political group, or even fans of a sporting team, sees another group as something below fully human, very evil results almost invariably follow. Differing or lack of religion is merely another "us and them" factor that can and sadly does result in interruptions in our awareness of other human beings as, well, human beings - flawed, mistake-prone people who are prone to self-delusion and self-centeredness. Just like us.
No, it's not obvious at all. Which is why a bunch of people are posting instructions on how to do it. Actually, did either of the posts you were replying to use the term "obvious" or "user error"? I sure didn't see it.
I saw people posting relatively clear instructions to protect yourself until a proper fix is released.
I see the same thing on a lot of bugs, be they Windows or Linux or Mac or iOS or whatever. Someone comes up with a way to mitigate the risk and publishes that method to reduce the number of infections until the vendor/author can release a better solution. People can either take the step to mitigate the risk, or run the risk of infection. It doesn't change the fact that there is an underlying flaw in the code, it just gives you a way to mitigate your risk until a patch comes out.
If you are running a possibly vulnerable version of the operating system in question, and the fix doesn't break something you need to do, then it's in your best interests to implement it. If you choose not to, well, you choose not to. The vendor/author still shares some blame for releasing buggy stuff in the first place, but you've also made your own decision on whether the temporary fix is worth the effort to you.
Garmin made a unit in the US called a "Gecko" if I remember correctly. It used the FRS radio system (non-licensed short-range radio here in the US) to "share" location between multiple Gecko GPS receivers, and they all had a screen where you could see yourself and all the Geckos in range. I remember Garmin monitoring a small durable version without a screen for attaching to your pet as well.
Actually, if these were cheap, I'd buy one just out of curiosity - I do wonder where my cat gets to when I let him out.
But it'd have to be down in the $50 range for me to buy a gizmo just to satisfy my curiosity. :)
GPSr (GPS Receivers) do not have a return path to the GPS satellite, that's true. They have a receive-only radio that reads very accurate timestamps from satellites in orbit and use the differential in those timestamps and some very cool triangulation math to determine position. So you basically know where you are and what time it is.
Devices that use GPS can, however, have other radios on board that can communicate over other frequencies. For example, you could put a CDMA/EDGE or EVDO radio onboard and use a cell tower to send the data up (requires payment to a cell provider, of course). You could put a WiFi transmitter in it and have the signals sent to your WLAN, assuming you had a computer ready to receive the data and the unit stayed in range.
I suspect that, since the companies that make this have gone to market with a working and marketable product, they've added another radio.
And, if misunderstandings about technology get you red-visioned, I'd respectfully suggest stepping away from the keyboard for a few hours a day and going for a nice walk. :)
Side thought: Of course, this WAS written by Sophos, an AntiVirus marketer. One could hardly expect them to choose viruses/worms that cast "naked Windows 7" in a good light, now could they?
Sophos was testing Windows 7 in its default configuration. I don't know if the Firewall is enabled on a default install, but I suspect it probably is based on the defaults in XP Service Pack 3. If it's not, then the firewall is going to be irrelevant to a good number of users who are also likely to run Windows without AntiVirus on board. If it is, then it's not providing any protection to speak of, apparently.
One of the tests failed, not because Windows provided protection, but because the virus itself wasn't Win32 code. I'm sure the developers of Bredo-M are on it and will have a fix out soon.
Particularly disappointing in this test, however, was UAC's failure to protect against all but one of the eight buggers that did try to run in Windows 7. That is/was supposed to be Microsoft's response to allowing most applications to run as Administrator rather than a limited user (thereby enabling or even encouraging the existence of a large base of applications that REQUIRE Administrator access).
In order to get the rhyme and meter to work, I'd change "Ethiopia" to "Ethiopians". Other than that, well done, sir!
I think you've got the cart before the horse... An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority. He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.
Ratification always goes through a country's law-making body. The Ambassador is given the document, which he then forwards to (in the case of the US) Congress, who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law, then gets the President to sign it (or not).
Of course, the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can agree on can get far more complex, but the Ambassador cannot unilaterally accept or reject anything. They can negotiate, but they must go back to the Congress for approval. In some cases, Congress gives them parameters within which approval is pretty much guaranteed on a particular subject, but the Ambassador is only trying to get the "best deal" within the stated parameters.
The US, by the way, is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol, and we're not because the Protocol as agreed on by the signatories could not get through the US Congress at the time, and the rest of the signatories would not accept the changes that the US wanted.
(closes eyes)
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
(puts fingers in ears)
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-La-La-la-l-.."
(sobs uncontrollably)
Similar to the ads about "if you do drugs, you're supporting terrorism"?
Odd, that, since the only money going to terrorist nations is their share of any fuel you might have burned while driving to the street corner. So, ride your bicycle to get your fix and the link is broken.
"Terrorism" is the new obedience card.
Oh, yeah, that reminds me. I'm low on sheet plastic and duct tape. Gotta go...
No, you're thinking inside the box. This isn't rocket science. Take a look at a 50,000 foot view to rightsize your comprehension. This is synergy between alternative downstream partners because the alpha dog just got eaten by the wolves.
At the end of the day, what we have here is a classic case of vertical integration. Due to a disconnect between law and TPB's established best practices, a way needed to be found to realign the conflicting priorities. In an attempt to realign the siloed legal conflict, TPB is ghostsourced and found involuntary closure as their exit strategy. Their former customers see a need and fill a need by taking it to the next level of self-enabling their own Torrent service, thereby eating their own dog food, while leveraging a market gap and filling it with customer-centric organic growth. Each new value-added Torrent site utilizes the existing low-hanging fruit of recycled TPB torrents, gains a lot of eyeballs in their attempt to win mindshare from a market that's really co-opetition. If they touch base and act open kimono with each other, it's a new new economy win-win scenario.
OK, I know this is not going to be a popular opinion, but it seems to me that she had a serious lapse of judgment followed by an exercise in pretty good judgment. Even in an inebriated state, she recognized that she shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Certainly, she could have handled it a lot better (not driving in the first place, pulling over somewhere safe and calling a cab instead, at least pulling over before she called police), but certain drinks have a cumulative effect that is not felt right away. She may well have left the final bar feeling relatively sober, then realized later that she was not even close. At least she didn't try to get the rest of the way home.
She still deserves punishment, but some small recognition should be acknowledged that, in the end, she did the right thing. Or at least pretty close to it.
...some of us are sure that there are only three Indy films.
Wait a second, there ARE only three Indy films. Why do you mention that fact like it's some sort of controversy? But I can understand how people could get confused. Lead actors occasionally play other roles.
I do remember the MacGyver spinoff that Harrison Ford starred in, "crystal head" or something. I understand that some people think that had something to do with the Jones franchise, since Ford was the lead character in all the Indy films.
But that's just confusion on their part, same as someone thinking that there was more than one "Die Hard" movie just because Willis starred in some other flicks, or that there are more than three Star Wars movies.
PS: I'm not sure what they are selling off. There are really two Terminator films.
Maybe they are trying to sell off "Summer Glau Show" off as part of the Terminator franchise (in which, if I could understand the plot, has something to do with her being a Terminator. I'm not entirely sure, though, because people keep blathering and getting on screen and sometimes blocking a clear view of her.) If so, that show can come back. Keep her and the mom, drop the young dude who appears to be Anakin Skywalker as a kid or something (boy genius who whines a lot about some destiny). Might sell a few ads on an off night and pay for itself if they don't try to spend too much time developing a cohesive plot or special effects that aren't wardrobe-related.
I'll start the bidding at -$10,000,000, because removing all but the first two movies would actually ADD to the franchise's value.