The media eventually got this data on Tim Murray's car after he had a crash. He was the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. He was driving way too fast on public roads and tried to lie about it. It's obscene how much effort the media had to put in to get the data, but they got it.
Keep your hands out of my wallet and you can do whatever you like as well.
Why even bother replying? Your claim about eligibility was wrong. It's an often repeated lie from the forked tongues of our politicians. We have to see past the lies.
Selfish? I worked hard to get where I am. I started with little, and yes, I'm doing quite fine now. I have no issue with paying taxes and working for living. I do have a problem with folks like you who suggest that some should be entitled to more and more without limit at my expense, and at the expense of all those likely that did the right things through life to make something of themselves. Selfish is expecting rewards without earning them. Ego is assuming that others will be willing to be leached off of, and that you can control the narrative. Society is fine, we all benefit.. if we all pitch in. I'd like to see some more people pitching in rather than offering nothing and demanding more.
I find the whole concept of a social contract absurd. Contracts are only valid if the parties involved agree to it. You want Internet? Go earn it or get your ass to the library. Show some willingness to make an effort. You can't live a life of luxury and at the same time cry "poor me". Go too far and the tides will turn and things will sway too far the other way. Which is likely going to be on display tomorrow, election day.
Where do you think the money for state benefits comes from? A lot of it comes from the feds and is left to the states to come up with rules for dispersal of benefits. And no, a citizen should not have to move because of illegal immigration. The illegals should move back to their country of origin. I have friends trying to come here legally and cannot, meanwhile they flood in from our southern border and are promised amnesty by political hacks. It's disgraceful. If this country now runs on anarchy, surely the rest of us can start choosing laws that we'd like to break. Maybe we should all start by declining federal income tax. It's not illegal to break the law, right?
I'd rather round up the people who know nothing of being poor but are hell bent on "helping" thereby perpetuating the problem across generations. You don't help someone in team sports by having them sit on the sidelines and having others play for them. Same is true of life.
We already have the universal service fee. Internet access is available at libraries, free to the public.
Being poor is also generally inconvenient. That provides incentive to people to work their way out of being poor. You give them all their basic needs, what incentive do they have to not be a societal leach? Isn't that part of the "social contract"?
Not eligible doesn't mean the same thing as not receiving. A lot of states, like Massachusetts, have rules against asking about immigration status when processing applications for benefits. Obama's own aunt Z lived in Boston public housing as an illegal alien while US citizens were wait-listed. There are laws against being in the country illegally, yet an estimated thirty million are here. Laws don't mean shit anymore.
I think you're arguing with emotion rather than logic. There is no level of certainty with evolution. There may be evidence of an evolutionary process at work in various species, but that's a huge leap away from explaining how we came from the primordial soup. Let alone dipping into the realm of self-conscious and the ultimate question of what happens to the mind when the body ceases to function. There are a whole lot of things that science has no explanation for.
I don't really care much about the creationism vs evolution debate, but it's very wrong to look down on people who are trying to find meaning to their existence. Especially considering the huge holes in our scientific understanding of ourselves. It seems almost evil to berate people that want to believe there's something more by stating that there is not, but we can't prove or disprove it either. Religion doesn't exist to overturn science. Perhaps some religions, and perhaps some followers of other religions, but that's a gross blanket statement. Does science exist to eradicate God?
you cannot spend your life always defending science just because some uneducated red neck decides to challenge science's credidability.....it never ends....
Why not? If it's based in fact, it should be easily defended. If science can't be challenged, we'd all still believe we live on a flat planet or that the planets orbit the Earth and not the sun. Suggesting that the Holy scripture of science cannot be challenged sounds like an argument from the church, not academia.
Obviously it's more complex than a few lines of text can address. Regardless, there is no absolute way to prove the theory of evolution end to end. There are plenty of successful, repeatable experiments that defend evolution dealing with certain aspects of it. That taken as a whole defends the overall theory, but like I said, it's not absolute proof. It requires an individual to accept some elements that cannot be proven through experimentation.
I'm really not intending to argue either evolution or religion, I just think that it's wrong to shun religion outright. Science should stand on science. If there's a scientific basis for the theory, use that to argue against the religious arguments. We have a lot of disagreements over science here on/., but the response isn't to ban those user accounts. It seems that some academics want to do to the religious what the church used to do with scientists centuries ago. That's not progress.
Neither side has a testable theory. Has there been a successful experiment that shows an amoeba evolving into a sentient being? The scientific basis for evolution does require an element of faith to believe that we are the result of that process.
Columbia can invite Ahmadinejad to speak and that's okay even though he is a horrible dictator. But a group with an alternative theory of human existence is the end of the world for academia?
Whether you agree with their point of view or not, it's irrelevant. If you have faith that your argument is correct, then their argument should be a non-issue. It almost seems as if folks can't be bothered to defend their science. Science the shit out of them, that's a far better strategy then trying to get the talks shut down. Maybe the science geeks can ask Ahmadinejad about how to deal with inconvenient people that won't follow the party line.
Not sure about the scanner part. Every car radio I've ever had had a "scan" button on it. I doubt the individual states would make a carve-out for certain frequencies. There may be such laws, but they're probably not enforceable.
Legally, yes. I not only stopped for the red, I stopped at the stop line which is much further back than where most motorists stop. The annoying part is that if I drove as badly as everyone else, nothing would have happened.
Now whenever I stop, I end up questioning whether I'm doing the right thing.
Unless things have changed dramatically*, there are rules that make it harder to use commercial cloud computing, as not all can guarantee that the services will only be hosted in the U.S.
Private cloud, or in this case.. federal government cloud. When this administration took over, one of their initiatives was to reduce the vast number of government data centers that existed across the country. Granted some were really just data closets, but many were actual data centers. Part of this effort could have been to use virtualization to allow for services to spread over more boxes or to contract. The federal government has more than enough various online services to account for the idle load problem. The problem is, it's the federal government. I'm sure that cross-agency bureaucracy would stand in the way of change, as would labor unions if this crosses their path.
Imagine what the NSA can do or the scale of the data center that was built in Utah, but then sites like healthcare.gov (yes, please troll mod me again) and safecar.gov fail due to overload. The fed's priorities are warped. If it invades your personal life, the project gets whatever it needs and then some. If it might save your life, it goes to the cheapest bidder and we end up with infrastructure that fails. This issue needs a leader in a time when there is no leadership.
Exactly. That's what makes automated enforcement such a nightmare. If people had to honor the speed limits as posted, it would be hilariously awful. All it takes is for one genius to travel at the speed limit and it can foul all lanes. People change lanes left or right to get around them and it eventually trickles back for miles to the point where traffic is at a dead stop.
The more I drive, the more I hope that self driving cars become a reality soon. But considering the many challenges of driving, I doubt it.
If it still reduces accidents as well as red light running, does it matter if 'more' people run the yellow?
I don't see how it could reduce accidents unless the yellow was too short to allow all vehicle types time to stop. The problem I see is that people will hit the gas to "make" the light and if they time it wrong, they end up with cross traffic. Too many people don't look before proceeding when they get green. If the longer yellow allows time for more vehicles, it's also going to allow time for a straggler to get going even faster to fly through from further away. If the stats don't pan out, that's interesting.
I don't think fatalities is the big issue here. Drunk driving is its own problem that won't be solved with traffic signals. No one wants to deal with collision damage from lower speed accidents.
I understand the issue with red light cameras and rear-end accidents. I'm not in favor of automated enforcement of any type.
I had a collision recently and it was because I stopped at a red on a right turn-out. The genius behind me was going to run it thinking she could beat the cross traffic, assuming I had already run the light. The odd thing there is that to be safe, meaning to not cause a collision, I should have run the light. I think the way we design intersections needs a rethink.
Slashdot Mirror
What is it with governments and putting hackers in high security prisons and solitary confinement?
They probably wouldn't last long in the prison's general population. Would you want to be mixed with violent offenders?
Was it okay to push Mozilla's CEO out of a job because he donated to a political cause? That was all about public shame, and illegal under CA law.
Everyone should have a work license then. Any company could be employing underage persons.
Yes, I do. Internet at home is a luxury. If you want it for free, go to the library. That's what the universal service fee is for.
The media eventually got this data on Tim Murray's car after he had a crash. He was the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. He was driving way too fast on public roads and tried to lie about it. It's obscene how much effort the media had to put in to get the data, but they got it.
Sure, either that or reckless driving.
Police generally have a track or other private area to train on. Public roads aren't it.
Keep your hands out of my wallet and you can do whatever you like as well.
Why even bother replying? Your claim about eligibility was wrong. It's an often repeated lie from the forked tongues of our politicians. We have to see past the lies.
Selfish? I worked hard to get where I am. I started with little, and yes, I'm doing quite fine now. I have no issue with paying taxes and working for living. I do have a problem with folks like you who suggest that some should be entitled to more and more without limit at my expense, and at the expense of all those likely that did the right things through life to make something of themselves. Selfish is expecting rewards without earning them. Ego is assuming that others will be willing to be leached off of, and that you can control the narrative. Society is fine, we all benefit.. if we all pitch in. I'd like to see some more people pitching in rather than offering nothing and demanding more.
I'm for giving them play time. It's called a job.
I find the whole concept of a social contract absurd. Contracts are only valid if the parties involved agree to it. You want Internet? Go earn it or get your ass to the library. Show some willingness to make an effort. You can't live a life of luxury and at the same time cry "poor me". Go too far and the tides will turn and things will sway too far the other way. Which is likely going to be on display tomorrow, election day.
Where do you think the money for state benefits comes from? A lot of it comes from the feds and is left to the states to come up with rules for dispersal of benefits. And no, a citizen should not have to move because of illegal immigration. The illegals should move back to their country of origin. I have friends trying to come here legally and cannot, meanwhile they flood in from our southern border and are promised amnesty by political hacks. It's disgraceful. If this country now runs on anarchy, surely the rest of us can start choosing laws that we'd like to break. Maybe we should all start by declining federal income tax. It's not illegal to break the law, right?
I'd rather round up the people who know nothing of being poor but are hell bent on "helping" thereby perpetuating the problem across generations. You don't help someone in team sports by having them sit on the sidelines and having others play for them. Same is true of life.
We already have the universal service fee. Internet access is available at libraries, free to the public.
Being poor is also generally inconvenient. That provides incentive to people to work their way out of being poor. You give them all their basic needs, what incentive do they have to not be a societal leach? Isn't that part of the "social contract"?
I worked my way up, why can't you? You want something? Earn it. You're not entitled to pick my pockets just because you exist.
Not eligible doesn't mean the same thing as not receiving. A lot of states, like Massachusetts, have rules against asking about immigration status when processing applications for benefits. Obama's own aunt Z lived in Boston public housing as an illegal alien while US citizens were wait-listed. There are laws against being in the country illegally, yet an estimated thirty million are here. Laws don't mean shit anymore.
Not being able to afford luxuries used to be one symptom of being poor.
This is redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. The parent comment is correct.
I think you're arguing with emotion rather than logic. There is no level of certainty with evolution. There may be evidence of an evolutionary process at work in various species, but that's a huge leap away from explaining how we came from the primordial soup. Let alone dipping into the realm of self-conscious and the ultimate question of what happens to the mind when the body ceases to function. There are a whole lot of things that science has no explanation for.
I don't really care much about the creationism vs evolution debate, but it's very wrong to look down on people who are trying to find meaning to their existence. Especially considering the huge holes in our scientific understanding of ourselves. It seems almost evil to berate people that want to believe there's something more by stating that there is not, but we can't prove or disprove it either. Religion doesn't exist to overturn science. Perhaps some religions, and perhaps some followers of other religions, but that's a gross blanket statement. Does science exist to eradicate God?
you cannot spend your life always defending science just because some uneducated red neck decides to challenge science's credidability.....it never ends....
Why not? If it's based in fact, it should be easily defended. If science can't be challenged, we'd all still believe we live on a flat planet or that the planets orbit the Earth and not the sun. Suggesting that the Holy scripture of science cannot be challenged sounds like an argument from the church, not academia.
Obviously it's more complex than a few lines of text can address. Regardless, there is no absolute way to prove the theory of evolution end to end. There are plenty of successful, repeatable experiments that defend evolution dealing with certain aspects of it. That taken as a whole defends the overall theory, but like I said, it's not absolute proof. It requires an individual to accept some elements that cannot be proven through experimentation.
I'm really not intending to argue either evolution or religion, I just think that it's wrong to shun religion outright. Science should stand on science. If there's a scientific basis for the theory, use that to argue against the religious arguments. We have a lot of disagreements over science here on /., but the response isn't to ban those user accounts. It seems that some academics want to do to the religious what the church used to do with scientists centuries ago. That's not progress.
Neither side has a testable theory. Has there been a successful experiment that shows an amoeba evolving into a sentient being? The scientific basis for evolution does require an element of faith to believe that we are the result of that process.
Columbia can invite Ahmadinejad to speak and that's okay even though he is a horrible dictator. But a group with an alternative theory of human existence is the end of the world for academia?
Whether you agree with their point of view or not, it's irrelevant. If you have faith that your argument is correct, then their argument should be a non-issue. It almost seems as if folks can't be bothered to defend their science. Science the shit out of them, that's a far better strategy then trying to get the talks shut down. Maybe the science geeks can ask Ahmadinejad about how to deal with inconvenient people that won't follow the party line.
Not sure about the scanner part. Every car radio I've ever had had a "scan" button on it. I doubt the individual states would make a carve-out for certain frequencies. There may be such laws, but they're probably not enforceable.
Legally, yes. I not only stopped for the red, I stopped at the stop line which is much further back than where most motorists stop. The annoying part is that if I drove as badly as everyone else, nothing would have happened.
Now whenever I stop, I end up questioning whether I'm doing the right thing.
Unless things have changed dramatically*, there are rules that make it harder to use commercial cloud computing, as not all can guarantee that the services will only be hosted in the U.S.
Private cloud, or in this case.. federal government cloud. When this administration took over, one of their initiatives was to reduce the vast number of government data centers that existed across the country. Granted some were really just data closets, but many were actual data centers. Part of this effort could have been to use virtualization to allow for services to spread over more boxes or to contract. The federal government has more than enough various online services to account for the idle load problem. The problem is, it's the federal government. I'm sure that cross-agency bureaucracy would stand in the way of change, as would labor unions if this crosses their path.
Imagine what the NSA can do or the scale of the data center that was built in Utah, but then sites like healthcare.gov (yes, please troll mod me again) and safecar.gov fail due to overload. The fed's priorities are warped. If it invades your personal life, the project gets whatever it needs and then some. If it might save your life, it goes to the cheapest bidder and we end up with infrastructure that fails. This issue needs a leader in a time when there is no leadership.
Exactly. That's what makes automated enforcement such a nightmare. If people had to honor the speed limits as posted, it would be hilariously awful. All it takes is for one genius to travel at the speed limit and it can foul all lanes. People change lanes left or right to get around them and it eventually trickles back for miles to the point where traffic is at a dead stop.
The more I drive, the more I hope that self driving cars become a reality soon. But considering the many challenges of driving, I doubt it.
If it still reduces accidents as well as red light running, does it matter if 'more' people run the yellow?
I don't see how it could reduce accidents unless the yellow was too short to allow all vehicle types time to stop. The problem I see is that people will hit the gas to "make" the light and if they time it wrong, they end up with cross traffic. Too many people don't look before proceeding when they get green. If the longer yellow allows time for more vehicles, it's also going to allow time for a straggler to get going even faster to fly through from further away. If the stats don't pan out, that's interesting.
I don't think fatalities is the big issue here. Drunk driving is its own problem that won't be solved with traffic signals. No one wants to deal with collision damage from lower speed accidents.
I understand the issue with red light cameras and rear-end accidents. I'm not in favor of automated enforcement of any type.
I had a collision recently and it was because I stopped at a red on a right turn-out. The genius behind me was going to run it thinking she could beat the cross traffic, assuming I had already run the light. The odd thing there is that to be safe, meaning to not cause a collision, I should have run the light. I think the way we design intersections needs a rethink.