"Freedom of the press" refers to the actual printing press machine, not the profession of journalism. This person's blog is, in effect, a modern form of the printing press. Not sure how a judge could miss that.
Agreed. If you're going to tack a life-long punishment to somebody for a "sex offense" then just send them to prison for life. I thought that once you've paid your debt to society you are no longer in debt, these registries are basically just modern day scarlet letters.
Why is it that whenever a non technology article is submitted to slashdot, the comments devolve into childish name-calling and strongman arguments? Why don't we just stop calling each other stupid and offer an intelligent explanation of our position? Why not debate opposing views in a civil manner? Why not try to learn something from the opposing side?
The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now.
-GiH
The "auto insurance" canard. There is a big difference between compelling someone (with force) to purchase a product as a condition of exercising a privilege (driving) and compelling someone to purchase a product as a condition of being alive.
You cant gyro stabilize a motorcycle... it needs to lean to turn to generate the camber thrust necessary to turn.
That's not entirely correct. Gyroscopic forces are what keep the bike from falling over at speed. In fact you control the bike by manipulating the front gyroscope (wheel) in relation to the rear through a process known as counter-steering (to turn the bike left you turn the handlebars to the right, causing the bike to lean to the left; the gyroscopic forces of the wheels, crankshaft and mainshaft keep the bike from falling over completely while you're leaning into the turn).
The bike already has at least 4 gyroscopes: 2 wheels, the crankshaft, and the transmission mainshaft. You could make a case for the counter shaft also being a gyroscope but that depends on the type of transmission used. I doubt you'd be able to realistically get a machine that size to stand on it's own thought it would be something I've never seen before.
I'm not convinced that this handles poorly. The "stability" of a motorcycle is almost entirely dependent on the trail calculation (relationship between steering axis to front axle). With all that bodywork on the thing I couldn't even guess what the trail would be and I've been building bikes my entire adult life. Generally, if the bike is "squirrelly" at low speeds it would tend to be more stable at high speeds (excessive trail, think a modern chopper) and vice versa.
I have to agree. For some reason success is demonized in our society. If you're not poor like the rest of us then you must be one of the evil "rich" who spends their entire day trying to figure out how to steal money from poor people... Unless you're on TV, then you're okay. Celebrity wealth doesn't count.
Why can't anybody just make a moderately successful product any more without having to "change the industry" with their "new paradigm"?
Because unless it's an immanent-threattoyourlife-OMFG-terroristattack or an industry-changing ultra-mega-blockbuster-paradigmshifting-neweconomycreating-widget, it's not sensational enough to make it into the newstainmentblogosphere.
Competitive mechanisms favor the group that cuts costs, reduces quality and undercuts the higher quality competitors.
If by "Competitive mechanisms" you mean "consumers" then you are sometimes correct. What opposite troll here doesn't realize is that there are two dimensions to a free market, the suppliers AND consumers. Suppliers don't just get away with whatever they can to increase revenue, they get away with what the market will bear. If consumers want lower prices then suppliers will figure out a way to lower prices. Business is not 100% to blame for sacrifices in quality.
I contest that the reason some addicts do "whatever they can to obtain the substance in question" is because the substance in question is cost-prohibitive precisely because of its legal status. Prohibition drives up prices significantly, that is not debatable.
How many food addicts knocked over a liquor store last year to feed their twinkie addiction? How much violent crime is committed alcoholics specifically for the purpose of obtaining more alcohol? I don't have either of these numbers, but I would bet they agree.
So go ahead, attempt to equate the parties, but on issues like this, the truth is absolutely clear, them dems are definitely the lesser of two evils.
You mean like the one who signed this into law? Like the one who promised to close Gitmo? Like the one who based his entire political campeign on peace? Like the one who promised Federal resources wouldn't be spent on prosecuting individuals who abide by state laws? I'm so sick of this "the democrats are the lesser of two evils" nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a good article on the subject: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de
"Freedom of the press" refers to the actual printing press machine, not the profession of journalism. This person's blog is, in effect, a modern form of the printing press. Not sure how a judge could miss that.
Legalize, tax, and regulate the Internet!
Agreed. If you're going to tack a life-long punishment to somebody for a "sex offense" then just send them to prison for life. I thought that once you've paid your debt to society you are no longer in debt, these registries are basically just modern day scarlet letters.
Not going to disagree with you there, but just because our elected officials are acting like toddlers doesn't give us an excuse to follow suit.
Why is it that whenever a non technology article is submitted to slashdot, the comments devolve into childish name-calling and strongman arguments? Why don't we just stop calling each other stupid and offer an intelligent explanation of our position? Why not debate opposing views in a civil manner? Why not try to learn something from the opposing side?
The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now. -GiH
Your strawman is boring.
Cable TV? Is that thing still around?
The "auto insurance" canard. There is a big difference between compelling someone (with force) to purchase a product as a condition of exercising a privilege (driving) and compelling someone to purchase a product as a condition of being alive.
Here's the obligatory wikipedia article on my point. Note the "gyroscopic effects" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering
You cant gyro stabilize a motorcycle... it needs to lean to turn to generate the camber thrust necessary to turn.
That's not entirely correct. Gyroscopic forces are what keep the bike from falling over at speed. In fact you control the bike by manipulating the front gyroscope (wheel) in relation to the rear through a process known as counter-steering (to turn the bike left you turn the handlebars to the right, causing the bike to lean to the left; the gyroscopic forces of the wheels, crankshaft and mainshaft keep the bike from falling over completely while you're leaning into the turn).
The bike already has at least 4 gyroscopes: 2 wheels, the crankshaft, and the transmission mainshaft. You could make a case for the counter shaft also being a gyroscope but that depends on the type of transmission used. I doubt you'd be able to realistically get a machine that size to stand on it's own thought it would be something I've never seen before. I'm not convinced that this handles poorly. The "stability" of a motorcycle is almost entirely dependent on the trail calculation (relationship between steering axis to front axle). With all that bodywork on the thing I couldn't even guess what the trail would be and I've been building bikes my entire adult life. Generally, if the bike is "squirrelly" at low speeds it would tend to be more stable at high speeds (excessive trail, think a modern chopper) and vice versa.
Bonus points for the reason.com reference.
I have to agree. For some reason success is demonized in our society. If you're not poor like the rest of us then you must be one of the evil "rich" who spends their entire day trying to figure out how to steal money from poor people... Unless you're on TV, then you're okay. Celebrity wealth doesn't count.
I need to grab some popcorn.
Now that's what I call freedumb!
Why can't anybody just make a moderately successful product any more without having to "change the industry" with their "new paradigm"?
Because unless it's an immanent-threattoyourlife-OMFG-terroristattack or an industry-changing ultra-mega-blockbuster-paradigmshifting-neweconomycreating-widget, it's not sensational enough to make it into the newstainmentblogosphere.
Using the tax code to "influence" behavior is not the government's business. This is why our tax code is 72,000 pages.
I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them.
I'm glad you're not an elected official.....Wait a minute, are you an elected official?
Competitive mechanisms favor the group that cuts costs, reduces quality and undercuts the higher quality competitors.
If by "Competitive mechanisms" you mean "consumers" then you are sometimes correct. What opposite troll here doesn't realize is that there are two dimensions to a free market, the suppliers AND consumers. Suppliers don't just get away with whatever they can to increase revenue, they get away with what the market will bear. If consumers want lower prices then suppliers will figure out a way to lower prices. Business is not 100% to blame for sacrifices in quality.
8) Purchase (GASP!) an individual health insurance plan (Yes, that is possible and in many cases affordable).
obvious troll is obvious
I think the more appropriate statement is that college is a waste of time, for some people.
I contest that the reason some addicts do "whatever they can to obtain the substance in question" is because the substance in question is cost-prohibitive precisely because of its legal status. Prohibition drives up prices significantly, that is not debatable. How many food addicts knocked over a liquor store last year to feed their twinkie addiction? How much violent crime is committed alcoholics specifically for the purpose of obtaining more alcohol? I don't have either of these numbers, but I would bet they agree.
So go ahead, attempt to equate the parties, but on issues like this, the truth is absolutely clear, them dems are definitely the lesser of two evils.
You mean like the one who signed this into law? Like the one who promised to close Gitmo? Like the one who based his entire political campeign on peace? Like the one who promised Federal resources wouldn't be spent on prosecuting individuals who abide by state laws? I'm so sick of this "the democrats are the lesser of two evils" nonsense.