Behind the snark lurks a valid point. If it takes me 20hrs to download the materials, but it takes you 15mins, then yes, you could finish faster and move on to something else.
But if it takes > 20 hours to actually read and understand the material, then your download speed is trivial and not an issue, I believe was his point.
If you don't want the same objection to be valid a decade from now, consider making your views known at the Cabinet Office Standards Hub. The deadline is February 26.
The documents are on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."
Since he's already said he's in the UK, is it that much of a stretch to just assume that over here we call them brake pipes? A quick google search will confirm that, with UK based retailers selling brake pipes.
News to me. Since I don't live or work in the UK, is it that much of a stretch to just assume we use different terminology, and not feel compelled to make snarky comments about google? Since OP used the wrong form of the word "brakes," is it that much of a stretch to assume he didn't know the rest of the proper term for the part he was talking about?
That said, rust in your brake lines is a serious safety hazard, and will cause a vehicle to fail inspection here in the USA as well.
Considering the number of people who used to be killed by unsafe cars
Better than "considering," go look up the stats. You might be surprised when you discover that, throughout the history of the automobile, the majority of crashes has always been caused by operator error, rather than a mechanical failure.
This seems easy to fix. Most (all?) states have some sort of annual safety inspection requirement for keeping a car on the road.
Nope, most states say it's too much of a pain, and don't do any of that. In most of the US, if the car runs and you don't get pulled over it's good to go.
Perhaps that goes some way to explain the much higher vehicular fatality rates in the USA then. The idea of socio-paths getting a free ticket to drive dangerous wrecks around is just nuts.
No, it's mainly the lack of training required prior to being handed a license to operate 2,500 lbs of rolling steel death. Most states have a decent inspection system, OH and IL seemingly the exceptions to the rule, but few of the places I've been appear to have a driving test that consists of more than "OK, take it around the block | now parallel park | here's your license/learner's permit!"
rusting break pipes
OK, I've been working on cars since the 1990's, and I have no idea what part you're talking about here... even knowing that you meant "rusting brake pipes," I still have zero clue what a "brake pipe" would be, since I nor any mechanic I know has ever used that term.
Do you mean brake lines? i.e., the little metal "pipes" that connect to the little nylon "pipes" that subsequently connect to your brake calipers?
", "I have a vested interest in making sure my neighbors aren't cooking meth," " You do.
Mayhaps, but my "vested interest" does not trump their right to be free from search and seizure without warrant.
" implying that they (which implies all citizens) don't have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure in their (our) own homes." it does not. It implies that under some circumstances you can take some action i.e. lawful investigation.
Define "Lawful investigation" in this scenario. Am I supposed to go peek in their windows? Oh, wait, nope, can't do that, that's trespassing at least.
Call the cops and say "I think my neighbors are cooking meth, go search their house?" Nope, still illegal without probably cause and a warrant.
I do have a right to be sure vehicles have a minimum safety standard.
You have a right to be sure the vehicles you purchase meet a minimum safety standard.
If the state passes a law mandating minimum safety standards, then the state has a right to ensure that all vehicles on public roads meet said standard. This is usually achieved via the existing inspection systems.
but no, you do not have any right to pop the hood on someone else's car and start digging around to "make sure it's safe." No more than I have a right to do the same to your vehicle.
By your argument, I should be able to careen down the road at 100 miles an hour, drinking whisky and driving the wrong way.
Hey, you don't want a law against that, it's a slippery slope that leads right to Hitler.
That strawman is so poorly constructed, I'm not even going to bother torching it; it'll fall apart on it's own in no time flat.
The *manufacturer* has a vested interest in making sure your car has a safety update--it's a bit different than just the neighbor's concern. Think about it. If you make a product that *will* kill a few hundred people over its lifetime unless you fix it, and only half of the owners will bring it in for an upgrade, wouldn't you rather be able to push the upgrade out?
Well, assuming I'm an auto manufacturer, I'd respond, "that depends - which is cheaper, doing a recall and fixing the issue, or paying out settlements to X number of people who will be hurt if we don't issue a recall?"
Because that is how recall decisions are made - it has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with money.
Obviously the update should not be applied while the car is turned on... car companies are not that stupid.
Just so we're clear... you're saying that the companies that brought us such gems as the Corvair, Pinto, Daytona, Monza, et. al., aren't stupid? Or just not stupid enough to send OTA updates while the vehicle is in drive?
I have a vested interest in your car getting a safety update
This statement sums up exactly what's wrong with society today, IMO.
Believe me, dude, that's a slope you don't want to go slipping down. Because I could respond with, "I have a vested interest in making sure my neighbors aren't cooking meth," implying that they (which implies all citizens) don't have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure in their (our) own homes.
For $1,500 you could buy an Oculus Rifts, small form factor PC, battery rig, and a couple of EyeToys, and have a real augmented reality display, with money left over.
And, you know, look like a complete idiot, instead of an 80% idiot.
Anti-stalking laws? Yes, we are certainly wallowing in false equivalence. Seeing someone I recognize and mentioning it to my wife is stalking now? "Many states"? I don't know which state you're in, but I'd hate to be there if I can be charged for failing to pretend not to recognize somebody.
False equivalence indeed - how does a single instance of recognizing a person in public equate to the government tracking a person's location? It doesn't; however, if you were to do the same thing, i.e. follow a person around, keeping track of their whereabouts, you could run afoul of anti-stalking laws.
My mistake for assuming you would understand this concept with having to have it spelled out for you to the letter.
One thing you did get right:
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
Absolutely - None of this does. Which is why it has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Because none of this restricts free travel.
I was responding to OP, who asked where the right to freely travel is enshrined; I correctly pointed out that the 10th Amendment ensures that any right not specifically mentioned in the previous 9 Amendments nor the Constitution is still considered a right of the people.
Whether you disagree or just plain ol' don't get it is notwithstanding.
Yes, the 10th Ammendment says that you can move from state to state. But it doesn't say that everyone you pass has to close their eyes and pretend not to see or recognize you. Heck, I can even go home and tell my wife, "You know, I saw CanHasDIY in the park today." Or to go even further, "I was taking pictures in the park today. Is that CanHasDIY?" None of those things restricts your movement, it just means you don't turn invisible when you're in public unless you're somewhere that you can reasonably expect a "right to privacy" (e.g. using a public toilet, not driving across a bridge.)
False equivalence.
You are not the government, and thus, the Constitution does not specifically restrict your rights in regard to surveillance of other citizens; however, many states and municipalities have anti-stalking laws that do cover such activities.
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
... so that you can buy or try any app just like you would download apps for linux distros, without having to register or give an app access to all my stored info? Why does a calculator app need to access my contact list or location data? Will the results vary based on my contacts or location?
And while you're at it an open source version of Android. I'm happy to pay for apps that I really want but lets at least have a layer of security between applications and stored data, location, call history etc etc
You could always install xPrivacy, which can be set up to selectively feed false info to apps.
What they really shelved was the public acknowledgement of the desire for the program, I doubt they shelved the plans.
This.
When the government says, "OK, we're going to stop doing this program you're pissed about," what they really mean is "OK, we're going to stop doing this program that you're pissed about... openly."
The false equivalence between tracking someone's location while they are in public and illegal search and seizure makes your comment hardly worth replying to.
Kind of reminds me of the country side of my family complaining about city folk who move out their way.
Ugh, don't get me started on that crowd; where I grew up used to be a nice, idyllic chunk of good ol' American farm land, but now? McMansions as far as the eye can see.
Slashdot Mirror
Behind the snark lurks a valid point. If it takes me 20hrs to download the materials, but it takes you 15mins, then yes, you could finish faster and move on to something else.
But if it takes > 20 hours to actually read and understand the material, then your download speed is trivial and not an issue, I believe was his point.
If you don't want the same objection to be valid a decade from now, consider making your views known at the Cabinet Office Standards Hub. The deadline is February 26.
The documents are on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."
Make sure you bring a torch.
Since he's already said he's in the UK, is it that much of a stretch to just assume that over here we call them brake pipes? A quick google search will confirm that, with UK based retailers selling brake pipes.
News to me. Since I don't live or work in the UK, is it that much of a stretch to just assume we use different terminology, and not feel compelled to make snarky comments about google? Since OP used the wrong form of the word "brakes," is it that much of a stretch to assume he didn't know the rest of the proper term for the part he was talking about?
That said, rust in your brake lines is a serious safety hazard, and will cause a vehicle to fail inspection here in the USA as well.
Considering the number of people who used to be killed by unsafe cars
Better than "considering," go look up the stats. You might be surprised when you discover that, throughout the history of the automobile, the majority of crashes has always been caused by operator error, rather than a mechanical failure.
This seems easy to fix. Most (all?) states have some sort of annual safety inspection requirement for keeping a car on the road.
Nope, most states say it's too much of a pain, and don't do any of that. In most of the US, if the car runs and you don't get pulled over it's good to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And yet, the main cause of car crashes the world over is still driver error, not mechanical failure.
Perhaps that goes some way to explain the much higher vehicular fatality rates in the USA then. The idea of socio-paths getting a free ticket to drive dangerous wrecks around is just nuts.
No, it's mainly the lack of training required prior to being handed a license to operate 2,500 lbs of rolling steel death. Most states have a decent inspection system, OH and IL seemingly the exceptions to the rule, but few of the places I've been appear to have a driving test that consists of more than "OK, take it around the block | now parallel park | here's your license/learner's permit!"
rusting break pipes
OK, I've been working on cars since the 1990's, and I have no idea what part you're talking about here... even knowing that you meant "rusting brake pipes," I still have zero clue what a "brake pipe" would be, since I nor any mechanic I know has ever used that term.
Do you mean brake lines? i.e., the little metal "pipes" that connect to the little nylon "pipes" that subsequently connect to your brake calipers?
", "I have a vested interest in making sure my neighbors aren't cooking meth," "
You do.
Mayhaps, but my "vested interest" does not trump their right to be free from search and seizure without warrant.
" implying that they (which implies all citizens) don't have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure in their (our) own homes."
it does not. It implies that under some circumstances you can take some action i.e. lawful investigation.
Define "Lawful investigation" in this scenario. Am I supposed to go peek in their windows? Oh, wait, nope, can't do that, that's trespassing at least.
Call the cops and say "I think my neighbors are cooking meth, go search their house?" Nope, still illegal without probably cause and a warrant.
I do have a right to be sure vehicles have a minimum safety standard.
You have a right to be sure the vehicles you purchase meet a minimum safety standard.
If the state passes a law mandating minimum safety standards, then the state has a right to ensure that all vehicles on public roads meet said standard. This is usually achieved via the existing inspection systems.
but no, you do not have any right to pop the hood on someone else's car and start digging around to "make sure it's safe." No more than I have a right to do the same to your vehicle.
By your argument, I should be able to careen down the road at 100 miles an hour, drinking whisky and driving the wrong way.
Hey, you don't want a law against that, it's a slippery slope that leads right to Hitler.
That strawman is so poorly constructed, I'm not even going to bother torching it; it'll fall apart on it's own in no time flat.
The *manufacturer* has a vested interest in making sure your car has a safety update--it's a bit different than just the neighbor's concern. Think about it. If you make a product that *will* kill a few hundred people over its lifetime unless you fix it, and only half of the owners will bring it in for an upgrade, wouldn't you rather be able to push the upgrade out?
Well, assuming I'm an auto manufacturer, I'd respond, "that depends - which is cheaper, doing a recall and fixing the issue, or paying out settlements to X number of people who will be hurt if we don't issue a recall?"
Because that is how recall decisions are made - it has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with money.
what's your point?
Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing.
Or better yet, why can't the manufacturer just email everybody a flash drive
Channeling Morbo...
EMAIL DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!
Obviously the update should not be applied while the car is turned on... car companies are not that stupid.
Just so we're clear... you're saying that the companies that brought us such gems as the Corvair, Pinto, Daytona, Monza, et. al., aren't stupid? Or just not stupid enough to send OTA updates while the vehicle is in drive?
How would that work, anyway?
I have a vested interest in your car getting a safety update
This statement sums up exactly what's wrong with society today, IMO.
Believe me, dude, that's a slope you don't want to go slipping down. Because I could respond with, "I have a vested interest in making sure my neighbors aren't cooking meth," implying that they (which implies all citizens) don't have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure in their (our) own homes.
Many cars come with onstar capabilities. which means they have a phone in them.
... and it's a serious pain in the ass to disable. At least, in my truck it is (have to remove the gauge cluster to get to the module).
GG isn't and doesn't purport to be augmented reality.
I never said it did, was merely pointing out that a person could have a real AR setup for less than what GG costs.
Some folks are calling GG augmented reality, this was directed at them.
For $1,500 you could buy an Oculus Rifts, small form factor PC, battery rig, and a couple of EyeToys, and have a real augmented reality display, with money left over.
And, you know, look like a complete idiot, instead of an 80% idiot.
Anti-stalking laws? Yes, we are certainly wallowing in false equivalence. Seeing someone I recognize and mentioning it to my wife is stalking now? "Many states"? I don't know which state you're in, but I'd hate to be there if I can be charged for failing to pretend not to recognize somebody.
False equivalence indeed - how does a single instance of recognizing a person in public equate to the government tracking a person's location? It doesn't; however, if you were to do the same thing, i.e. follow a person around, keeping track of their whereabouts, you could run afoul of anti-stalking laws.
My mistake for assuming you would understand this concept with having to have it spelled out for you to the letter.
One thing you did get right:
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
Absolutely - None of this does. Which is why it has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Because none of this restricts free travel.
I was responding to OP, who asked where the right to freely travel is enshrined; I correctly pointed out that the 10th Amendment ensures that any right not specifically mentioned in the previous 9 Amendments nor the Constitution is still considered a right of the people.
Whether you disagree or just plain ol' don't get it is notwithstanding.
Yes, the 10th Ammendment says that you can move from state to state. But it doesn't say that everyone you pass has to close their eyes and pretend not to see or recognize you. Heck, I can even go home and tell my wife, "You know, I saw CanHasDIY in the park today." Or to go even further, "I was taking pictures in the park today. Is that CanHasDIY?" None of those things restricts your movement, it just means you don't turn invisible when you're in public unless you're somewhere that you can reasonably expect a "right to privacy" (e.g. using a public toilet, not driving across a bridge.)
False equivalence.
You are not the government, and thus, the Constitution does not specifically restrict your rights in regard to surveillance of other citizens; however, many states and municipalities have anti-stalking laws that do cover such activities.
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
... so that you can buy or try any app just like you would download apps for linux distros, without having to register or give an app access to all my stored info? Why does a calculator app need to access my contact list or location data? Will the results vary based on my contacts or location?
And while you're at it an open source version of Android. I'm happy to pay for apps that I really want but lets at least have a layer of security between applications and stored data, location, call history etc etc
You could always install xPrivacy, which can be set up to selectively feed false info to apps.
Or - blah blah blah, something about a volcano...
What they really shelved was the public acknowledgement of the desire for the program, I doubt they shelved the plans.
This.
When the government says, "OK, we're going to stop doing this program you're pissed about," what they really mean is "OK, we're going to stop doing this program that you're pissed about... openly."
The proof is in the COINTELPRO.
So just what element is private about a plate openly displayed in public
What's private is the history of where that plate has been - tracking a person's car without a warrant is illegal, per the SCOTUS.
Shit, man, in these days of parallel construction it amazes me I have to respond to questions like this...
The RIGHT of free travel between the states is guaranteed in the constitution.
Where?
Here.
Unless the state you live in has a law against free travel, of course. In which case I recommend moving to a different one ASAP, if they'll let you.
The false equivalence between tracking someone's location while they are in public and illegal search and seizure makes your comment hardly worth replying to.
It's not false equivalence, it's perfectly in line with the SCOTUS ruling that "tracking someone's location" constitutes a search.
Are you suggesting that when you are in a public park, being filmed by security cameras is a violation of your 4th amendment rights?
Now, you want to talk about false equivalence...
Then it's not freedom of the press IMO, if the laws only protect people who happen to be employed by a media outlet.
Kind of reminds me of the country side of my family complaining about city folk who move out their way.
Ugh, don't get me started on that crowd; where I grew up used to be a nice, idyllic chunk of good ol' American farm land, but now? McMansions as far as the eye can see.
It's downright nauseating.