Not sure if it applies to bikes, but with a car, unless you're generating a significant amount of downforce, you want a fair amount of weight on the tires during cornering. Especially on the control (steering) wheels.
Hmm, can't find where I ever said we should stop enforcing existing laws, so I guess I'll have to chalk this comment up in the "emotionally charged, hperbolic bullshit."
"Punishment" implies that someone did something wrong, which is not necessarily true of all gunshot victims. Like the unarmed homeless guy my local PD shot in the back last week.
Unless, of course, we consider being homeless as a punishable offense.
My cane is made of carbon fiber, so I would say carbon fiber is already "mainstream". What they are talking about is it becoming a commodity. Not just mainstream, but ubiquitous.
This.
Some of us remember when the only carbon fiber you could find in an automobile were the dashboards and whale-tails of somebody's run-down Honda Civic.
Remember, when the law is passed requiring all guns be 'smart', only criminals will possess the unlocked guns and will use them to do great bodily harm to your children.
If you're trying to imply that the introduction of "smart" gun mandates will magically cause the cops (who won't be required to have them) will instantly become a pack of criminals... I'd say that horse has already left the barn.
Until I see someone cite an actual statistic of how many people are disarmed and shot with their own weapons, I'm going to continue to see these sorts of claims as hyperbole, and rightfully so.
"Wait, hang on"... [he pulls out soldering iron]... "I'm gonna shoot you".... [soldering].... "hey where are you going?"
I think OP's contention is that the criminal is going to steal the gun and, at some later point, disable the disabling mechanism, at his leisure. Hell, mayhaps someday there will be groups of criminals that specialize in de-smarting firearms, presuming there's ever an actual market for the damn things to begin with.
Should that battery die, the gun could fail to fire. In fact, most models designed for civilian use are designed to fail if the battery dies. It's been suggested that smart guns designed for law enforcement should automatically disable the safety if the battery dies.
If a government agent won't carry a default-LOCKED "smart" weapon, why should anyone else have to? The people pushing for such mandates apparently slept through Civics class.
How about this: If a person wants to buy a "smart" gun, let them; if a person wants to buy a regular gun, let them. If a person wants to use any weapon of any kind to harm another in a non-defensive manner, let them suffer the previously agreed-upon social consequences (i.e., jail time, fines, death, etc.). Thus freedom is preserved, and only those who are actually guilty of harming others are punished, rather than the population as a whole.
They would have been far better off requiring that mines have some form of self destruct when not used in a designated area.
... and it would be equally as effective as requiring that mines be made from rainbows and unicorn farts.
Let's face reality here: The sort of people who start wars,plant mines, and want armies of automated killing machines don't really give a shit how many children they cripple over the next couple of decades, because they know it won't be their children getting crippled.
Hmm, a perfectly relevant post that calls out large numbers of powerful, wealthy, self-proclaimed "liberals" for not putting their money where there mouths are is modded "Offtopic," and thus hidden for a majority of visitors....
Nothing suspicious about that, surely it's just a local groupthink effect.
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
Where are there any politicians actually doing any of those things? Well, the first two, anyway - I'd bet dollars against salmon that, were I to bother looking into it, I could find plenty of uber-wealthy people spending boo-koo bucks supporting Democrats (or rather, their corporate sponsors).
See, you've made the classic blunder of listening to what politicians say, rather than watching what they do.
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
Ah, I see, the other poster misread my comment as some sort of dig at Democrats... I guess presuming that's what I meant by "devil?"
Not particularly - in fact, my point was that both parties are equally devilish, and this divisive, he-said-she-said, partisan rhetoric (like what I presume was his point in responding) does nothing positive for us regular folks.
Didn't mean to start a pissing contest among the extremists who can't see past their obsessive hatred of "the other guys."
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
True, but it matters because not everyone knows or believes that; even here on Slashdot, there's a fair amount of folks living in denial, who insist that one half of the One Party is somehow less evil/avaricious/etc than the other, by virtue of what members of that half have said. Thus, I feel it's important to point out when their actions counter their words, so maybe a fraction of the delusional who read this will realize their mistake, and stop making it.
Outward racism seems to be the bailiwick of the Repubs, but that's not to say the Dems are innocent in that regard - Al Sharpton being a prime example, and I seem to recall a certain former Presidential candidate who was caught making disparaging remarks about Midwestern white folks, and how we 'cling to [our] guns and religion.'
Same deal with the poor - rhetoric-wise, it appears that Repubs don't care about uplifting people out of poverty, but one has to wonder; if the ultra-wealthy Democrats really cared about helping the poor, why don't they ever reach into their own deep pockets? Claiming to donate to some organization that spends 80% on 'administrative costs' might be good election year politics, but it achieves fuck-all in regards to helping America's impoverished.
Can't honestly say I disagree with anything you've said here. Any apparent bias between the different 'news' agencies seems to be purely for show, and achieves nothing but furthering divisions among us.
Considering that "cyber" has been taken over to be a sexual term, they might think it is some sort of BDSM play.
Think you've got that backwards, mate. I haven't heard/seen someone use "cyber" as a sexual reference in a solid decade, whereas it seems to be the government's new favorite militaristic buzzword (cyberterrorism, cyberdefenses, cyberoffenses, cyberborders, et.al.)
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.
By your own argument you should see the irony I was pointing out. If law is messed up by being unreasonably large (hard to know) and ambiguous, there is no redress against government and the ruled are always at fault. But I think there should (thus suing government back).
Well sure - environmental law is a great example of this.
However, "if you're going to operate a vehicle commercially, you have to have a commercial license" is really fairly simple. Now, it can get rather complex once you start considering the different types of commercial licenses (chauffer's, CDL-B, CDL-A, et. al.), but the basic concept is simple, not obscure, and well established. You might as well be trying to argue that child labor laws are too 'obscure' to be followed.
Since law is supposed to be known, please cite 3 laws that you read before you took your first job (selling your labor for money would be "commercial" for you wouldn't it, and you surely educated yourself as to the laws relevant to your engaging in a commercial activity, didn't you?).
I read the FLSA and FMLA before starting my first job. Didn't you? How else would you know what the minimum wage / working age was, or what rights you have to medical leave?
If you are interested in this topic (complexity of law), you should read "Three Felonies a Day". If that doesn't bother you because "the law is known and clear" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", then nothing I tell you will convince you. http://kottke.org/13/06/you-co...
Look , I understand the concept of overcriminalization, probably better than you do, considering that I've been advocating against it for over a decade now. But that's not to say that I disagree with all law, nor does it indicate that commercial licensing is obscure or unnecessary.
Finally, your point about people having to know the law and the law being clear have nothing to do with commercial or non-commercial activities. However the ambiguity of what counts as commercial is resolved (you still assume that what counts as "commerce" is clear, but didn't say why even when I pointed you to the definition of "commerce"), that is irrelevant to whether people should know the law or it is ambiguous or whether there should be redress against government for making bad law.
Well, part of your problem is that you're insisting on using your preferred definition of the term, rather than the only definition that matters in this case - the legal one.
"Commerce" is defined in American law as,
1 The exchange of goods, products, or any type of Personal Property. 2 Trade and traffic carried on between different peoples or states and its inhabitants, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities but also the instrumentalities, agencies, and means by which business is accomplished. 3 The transportation of persons and goods, by air, land, and sea. 4 The exchange of merchandise on a large scale between different places or communities.
So, unless your next argument involves you insisting that Congress is a place people go to have sex, you should probably drop that line of reasoning.
You should have stopped one paragraph sooner - I can't count the logical fallacies in that last one. Reductio ad absurdum, non sequitur, false equivalence, strawman argument... the list goes on and on.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy - it is a form of argument, analogous to proof by contradiction, not that I'm claiming that any argument like this is equivalent to the precision of a mathematical proof.
I'll agree that it isn't a perfect analogy, but I don't think it is far off.
It's a terrible analogy, namely because "machete which additionally comes with legal immunity" refers to a legal concept and not an actual, physical feature of the device. It would only be relevant if we were talking about an automated car with legal immunity, which we are not.
If you really have such a problem with other people having the freedom to choose to put their own livelihood above that of others, I recommend moving to some other country, one that does not have a constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom. England would be a good first choice, one would think
Are you referring to that "constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom" that explicitly gives the government the right to punish people for treason? What an infringement of the right of individuals to take up arms with the enemy! Next thing you know they'll amend the constitution to permit the collection of taxes - then you can go to the great walled institutions of personal liberty when you exercise your right to refuse to pay!
Sure, one might think that's what I meant, if they failed to read the last sentence of the previous paragraph for context: "See, the way I was taught about the American system of governance, individual liberty takes top priority, outside the obvious that one does not have the liberty to intentionally and directly deny liberty to others."
You're bordering dangerously close to jackass territory at this point. Stop now before you destroy any credibility you might still have.
The very nature of government involves the restriction of individual liberty for the sake of collective security. As you point out there are already regulations regarding "protocols for non-occupant safety measures" so these laws would be just one more.
"Just one more law?" Pretty sure that's how the National Socialists went from taking power to exterminating Jews. No, that's not a Godwin.
Is that a bit hyperbolic? Yes. Is it true, though? The answer is, "also yes." Now granted, I'm not equating traffic safety laws to genocide, but rather pointing out that "just one more law" tends to have farther reaching consequences than what you're considering, especially in this age of overcriminalization.
I guess the elimination of the 35k people killed every year due to auto accidents will just be something we have to endure when we finally get rid of manually-driven cars.
Yup; society considers those acceptable losses, since nobody ever thought to actually educate people before handing them a license to pilot heavy machinery at high rates of speed. But hey, look at the bright side: you're actually safer driving than going to the doctor. If you're so adamant about preserving life, why are you here, bothering me about cars, when you should be riding the AMA's ass for killing a quarter-million people every year?
Slashdot Mirror
Roughly, on the same amount of stored electrical energy.
So carbon fibre body components have a lot of potential to help make EVs range-competitive with fossil fuel cars.
Provided, of course, that the technology is exclusively implemented on EVs.
Not sure if it applies to bikes, but with a car, unless you're generating a significant amount of downforce, you want a fair amount of weight on the tires during cornering. Especially on the control (steering) wheels.
Hmm, can't find where I ever said we should stop enforcing existing laws, so I guess I'll have to chalk this comment up in the "emotionally charged, hperbolic bullshit."
Hyperbole never fixes anything.
"Punishment" implies that someone did something wrong, which is not necessarily true of all gunshot victims. Like the unarmed homeless guy my local PD shot in the back last week.
Unless, of course, we consider being homeless as a punishable offense.
My cane is made of carbon fiber, so I would say carbon fiber is already "mainstream". What they are talking about is it becoming a commodity. Not just mainstream, but ubiquitous.
This.
Some of us remember when the only carbon fiber you could find in an automobile were the dashboards and whale-tails of somebody's run-down Honda Civic.
Suburban households with kids present.
If those people are that concerned about it, why buy a gun at all?
Note to self - start proofreading your own proofreading, dork.
Remember, when the law is passed requiring all guns be 'smart', only criminals will possess the unlocked guns and will use them to do great bodily harm to your children.
If you're trying to imply that the introduction of "smart" gun mandates will magically cause the cops (who won't be required to have them) will instantly become a pack of criminals... I'd say that horse has already left the barn.
[bad guy disarms person with smart gun]
Until I see someone cite an actual statistic of how many people are disarmed and shot with their own weapons, I'm going to continue to see these sorts of claims as hyperbole, and rightfully so.
"Wait, hang on"... [he pulls out soldering iron]... "I'm gonna shoot you".... [soldering].... "hey where are you going?"
I think OP's contention is that the criminal is going to steal the gun and, at some later point, disable the disabling mechanism, at his leisure. Hell, mayhaps someday there will be groups of criminals that specialize in de-smarting firearms, presuming there's ever an actual market for the damn things to begin with.
Should that battery die, the gun could fail to fire. In fact, most models designed for civilian use are designed to fail if the battery dies. It's been suggested that smart guns designed for law enforcement should automatically disable the safety if the battery dies.
If a government agent won't carry a default-LOCKED "smart" weapon, why should anyone else have to? The people pushing for such mandates apparently slept through Civics class.
How about this: If a person wants to buy a "smart" gun, let them; if a person wants to buy a regular gun, let them. If a person wants to use any weapon of any kind to harm another in a non-defensive manner, let them suffer the previously agreed-upon social consequences (i.e., jail time, fines, death, etc.). Thus freedom is preserved, and only those who are actually guilty of harming others are punished, rather than the population as a whole.
They would have been far better off requiring that mines have some form of self destruct when not used in a designated area.
... and it would be equally as effective as requiring that mines be made from rainbows and unicorn farts.
Let's face reality here: The sort of people who start wars,plant mines, and want armies of automated killing machines don't really give a shit how many children they cripple over the next couple of decades, because they know it won't be their children getting crippled.
Hmm, a perfectly relevant post that calls out large numbers of powerful, wealthy, self-proclaimed "liberals" for not putting their money where there mouths are is modded "Offtopic," and thus hidden for a majority of visitors....
Nothing suspicious about that, surely it's just a local groupthink effect.
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
Where are there any politicians actually doing any of those things? Well, the first two, anyway - I'd bet dollars against salmon that, were I to bother looking into it, I could find plenty of uber-wealthy people spending boo-koo bucks supporting Democrats (or rather, their corporate sponsors).
See, you've made the classic blunder of listening to what politicians say, rather than watching what they do.
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
Ah, I see, the other poster misread my comment as some sort of dig at Democrats... I guess presuming that's what I meant by "devil?"
Not particularly - in fact, my point was that both parties are equally devilish, and this divisive, he-said-she-said, partisan rhetoric (like what I presume was his point in responding) does nothing positive for us regular folks.
Didn't mean to start a pissing contest among the extremists who can't see past their obsessive hatred of "the other guys."
I fail to see the relevance of that comment, care to expound?
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
True, but it matters because not everyone knows or believes that; even here on Slashdot, there's a fair amount of folks living in denial, who insist that one half of the One Party is somehow less evil/avaricious/etc than the other, by virtue of what members of that half have said. Thus, I feel it's important to point out when their actions counter their words, so maybe a fraction of the delusional who read this will realize their mistake, and stop making it.
Outward racism seems to be the bailiwick of the Repubs, but that's not to say the Dems are innocent in that regard - Al Sharpton being a prime example, and I seem to recall a certain former Presidential candidate who was caught making disparaging remarks about Midwestern white folks, and how we 'cling to [our] guns and religion.'
Same deal with the poor - rhetoric-wise, it appears that Repubs don't care about uplifting people out of poverty, but one has to wonder; if the ultra-wealthy Democrats really cared about helping the poor, why don't they ever reach into their own deep pockets? Claiming to donate to some organization that spends 80% on 'administrative costs' might be good election year politics, but it achieves fuck-all in regards to helping America's impoverished.
Can't honestly say I disagree with anything you've said here. Any apparent bias between the different 'news' agencies seems to be purely for show, and achieves nothing but furthering divisions among us.
Just like Lincoln warned us about.
"Cyberterrorism"... sounds scarier.
Considering that "cyber" has been taken over to be a sexual term, they might think it is some sort of BDSM play.
Think you've got that backwards, mate. I haven't heard/seen someone use "cyber" as a sexual reference in a solid decade, whereas it seems to be the government's new favorite militaristic buzzword (cyberterrorism, cyberdefenses, cyberoffenses, cyberborders, et.al.)
Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats,
Link broke:
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.
Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop.
Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats.
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."
the ISPs have argued that it is not their responsibility to police users
Hey, would y'all mind exporting that attitude to us here in the US?
By your own argument you should see the irony I was pointing out. If law is messed up by being unreasonably large (hard to know) and ambiguous, there is no redress against government and the ruled are always at fault. But I think there should (thus suing government back).
Well sure - environmental law is a great example of this.
However, "if you're going to operate a vehicle commercially, you have to have a commercial license" is really fairly simple. Now, it can get rather complex once you start considering the different types of commercial licenses (chauffer's, CDL-B, CDL-A, et. al.), but the basic concept is simple, not obscure, and well established. You might as well be trying to argue that child labor laws are too 'obscure' to be followed.
Since law is supposed to be known, please cite 3 laws that you read before you took your first job (selling your labor for money would be "commercial" for you wouldn't it, and you surely educated yourself as to the laws relevant to your engaging in a commercial activity, didn't you?).
I read the FLSA and FMLA before starting my first job. Didn't you? How else would you know what the minimum wage / working age was, or what rights you have to medical leave?
If you are interested in this topic (complexity of law), you should read "Three Felonies a Day". If that doesn't bother you because "the law is known and clear" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", then nothing I tell you will convince you. http://kottke.org/13/06/you-co...
Look , I understand the concept of overcriminalization, probably better than you do, considering that I've been advocating against it for over a decade now. But that's not to say that I disagree with all law, nor does it indicate that commercial licensing is obscure or unnecessary.
Finally, your point about people having to know the law and the law being clear have nothing to do with commercial or non-commercial activities. However the ambiguity of what counts as commercial is resolved (you still assume that what counts as "commerce" is clear, but didn't say why even when I pointed you to the definition of "commerce"), that is irrelevant to whether people should know the law or it is ambiguous or whether there should be redress against government for making bad law.
Well, part of your problem is that you're insisting on using your preferred definition of the term, rather than the only definition that matters in this case - the legal one.
"Commerce" is defined in American law as,
1 The exchange of goods, products, or any type of Personal Property.
2 Trade and traffic carried on between different peoples or states and its inhabitants, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities but also the instrumentalities, agencies, and means by which business is accomplished.
3 The transportation of persons and goods, by air, land, and sea.
4 The exchange of merchandise on a large scale between different places or communities.
So, unless your next argument involves you insisting that Congress is a place people go to have sex, you should probably drop that line of reasoning.
You should have stopped one paragraph sooner - I can't count the logical fallacies in that last one. Reductio ad absurdum, non sequitur, false equivalence, strawman argument... the list goes on and on.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy - it is a form of argument, analogous to proof by contradiction, not that I'm claiming that any argument like this is equivalent to the precision of a mathematical proof.
I'll agree that it isn't a perfect analogy, but I don't think it is far off.
It's a terrible analogy, namely because "machete which additionally comes with legal immunity" refers to a legal concept and not an actual, physical feature of the device. It would only be relevant if we were talking about an automated car with legal immunity, which we are not.
If you really have such a problem with other people having the freedom to choose to put their own livelihood above that of others, I recommend moving to some other country, one that does not have a constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom. England would be a good first choice, one would think
Are you referring to that "constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom" that explicitly gives the government the right to punish people for treason? What an infringement of the right of individuals to take up arms with the enemy! Next thing you know they'll amend the constitution to permit the collection of taxes - then you can go to the great walled institutions of personal liberty when you exercise your right to refuse to pay!
Sure, one might think that's what I meant, if they failed to read the last sentence of the previous paragraph for context: "See, the way I was taught about the American system of governance, individual liberty takes top priority, outside the obvious that one does not have the liberty to intentionally and directly deny liberty to others."
You're bordering dangerously close to jackass territory at this point. Stop now before you destroy any credibility you might still have.
The very nature of government involves the restriction of individual liberty for the sake of collective security. As you point out there are already regulations regarding "protocols for non-occupant safety measures" so these laws would be just one more.
"Just one more law?" Pretty sure that's how the National Socialists went from taking power to exterminating Jews. No, that's not a Godwin.
Is that a bit hyperbolic? Yes. Is it true, though? The answer is, "also yes." Now granted, I'm not equating traffic safety laws to genocide, but rather pointing out that "just one more law" tends to have farther reaching consequences than what you're considering, especially in this age of overcriminalization.
I guess the elimination of the 35k people killed every year due to auto accidents will just be something we have to endure when we finally get rid of manually-driven cars.
Yup; society considers those acceptable losses, since nobody ever thought to actually educate people before handing them a license to pilot heavy machinery at high rates of speed. But hey, look at the bright side: you're actually safer driving than going to the doctor. If you're so adamant about preserving life, why are you here, bothering me about cars, when you should be riding the AMA's ass for killing a quarter-million people every year?
As if a BMW owner will live in a place with a "car port" and not a garage....
No joke. See how the HOA feels about building this carport on your property...
"But the article called it 'stunning functional art!"
"Yea, well, it looks like a big ugly spider to us; request denied, beeotch."