"Only where speed limits are set to raise money, not to make roads safe."
Hardly. The class action suit will be brought against the insurance company by some enterprising law firm on behalf of those whose rates were raised for going the speed limit. Class action suits challenging targeted rate increases are not terribly unusual.
85th percentile speed drivers are often going above the posted limit. So, on most highways they would be giving a rate break to those who speed and penalizing those who obey the speed limit?
That'll be fun to hear them argue in court during the inevitable class action suit.
Prison is for dangerous people, but I suspect many are adding a few caveats.
Let me alter it so that it's more accurate:
"Prison is for people who are dangerous, or don't represent my political views and break into computers. i.e. If someone breaks into the Tea Party's computers, they don't deserve jail. That would be just vengeance and totally unjust. But if a person broke into the computers of Occupy and damaged them to stop coordinating of a protest that should be punished with jail time."
I see this attitude with abortion protestors that I've met, too. They think those arrested for damaging abortion clinics or blocking access shouldn't be jailed because it's a good cause. They often also think that anyone who uses similar tactics against them should be jailed.
It's all in the definition of "activism" as opposed to "vandalism". One person's vandal is another persons activist. It gets to be a political line drawing game.
Frankly, I'll worry more about some poor gleek stuck in jail for a lengthy stay after getting caught smoking pot.
I mostly agree with you, but the example of the colonies in the Americas isn't a good one.
The initial settlers absolutely needed Spain, Britain or other established powers. The continent had challenges that were far more tenacious than those on the moon. Specifically, the weakened, but still much stronger than a few colonist, existing civilizations.
The Native Americans didn't always appreciate the Europeans moving into their territory and it often had to be accomplished via force of arms, wealth and people coming from Europe.
Ask the Vikings how easy it was to maintain New World colonies in the face of opposition from existing civilizations. They tried, and had significant technological advantages, but didn't have the brute power to maintain their colonies in the face of bad weather and the people already there.
Oh no. They haven't broken any laws, not only because secret people in a secret room said so, but also because highly public people in both the administration and on both sides of the aisle in congress very publicly said they didn't.
Actually what they meant to say was: "The NSA pays AT&T and others millions every year for data, and the GCHQ didn't even offer us a damn dime! Wankers."
It didn't seem "robust and strong" in the case of beating out the West economically. It however was seen to be reasonably stable for the near term due to the internal apparatus for keeping the dissent in check. There were two Soviet economies. The military one seemed to be sufficient to maintain itself and the control the Party kept over the state. The civilian side of the economy was a joke by comparison, but seemed to be good enough to keep outright rebellion in check. Many had said that the Soviet Army would perform well if it kept winning, but if it ran into stalemate or defeat in a protracted war, it would have a lot of internal division.
Now, people interpret that as overall weakness with the advantage of hindsight. It wasn't the general opinion at the time. There's a lot of 20/20 hindsight going on in this discussion.
I'll give you that if you were in the USSR itself, you may well have seen enough of the problems that you thought that. (We had people here who were convinced the US and the industrialized West were collapsing during that same period. But, that's always the case. Some Romans were convinced Rome was on the brink of collapse during the time of Augustus. Maybe they were right, but it took another 500 years or more.)
I was seeing it from the US, and I certainly recall that on both the left and the right here it was seen as a long term power in the world. The left said we had to accommodate with it to avoid nuclear obliteration. The right said we had to defend against it to avoid nuclear obliteration.
I know a lot of highly educated people and they didn't see it coming. That's both on the the left and right. And, right smack in the middle.
I must have been in a very sheltered environment if most educated people know this and the ones I knew didn't.
If you are indeed from the US: Could it instead be that you're talking complete bushwa and are saying it because it is handy to whatever your current belief set is? Sort of the way all sorts of people "saw it coming" before the great depression or the latest worldwide recession now that they are telling the future from the past?
Yeah, that last one is the one I'm betting on since I don't recall it that way.
After years in the military, I understand the reasons for it. Oh, I even go along with it for the most part. Enforce the minor rules and you have less trouble enforcing the major ones.
But, the very fact of it making sense to us, in reality, makes it just that much more weird.
It's very hard to step outside of the human mindset that we bring to thinking. It's probably impossible to do it more than just a tiny bit. But, even just a little leads to a fair bit of "WTF?".
Looked at in terms of the results of evolving a set of emotional rules of thumb for existing successfully in small social groups, our minds make a lot of sense. Outside of that context, they can seem strange and arbitrary. That quote is just one example of that. (You can fill in many others from your own experience.)
He's really version 2.0 of a long term general intelligence project running on a supercomputer at Fort Meade.
Version 1.0 was called Henry Spencer and was developed in Canada.
(The original graphics version now used for videos of him started out as Max Headroom. This demonstrates yet again, it's much easier to improve on the presentation than the underlying system.)
Colonel Kurtz: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene."
Slashdot Mirror
"The law fully supports going with the flow of traffic"
Maybe on the Autobahn. Montana already repealed "reasonable and prudent" in 1999.
Tell that to the state trooper that just pulled you over when you were going 75 mph on the 355 tollway in Chicago like everyone else around you was.
He'll answer that it's like fishing. He doesn't have to catch every fish to make it stick, but he caught you.
"Only where speed limits are set to raise money, not to make roads safe."
Hardly.
The class action suit will be brought against the insurance company by some enterprising law firm on behalf of those whose rates were raised for going the speed limit. Class action suits challenging targeted rate increases are not terribly unusual.
85th percentile speed drivers are often going above the posted limit. So, on most highways they would be giving a rate break to those who speed and penalizing those who obey the speed limit?
That'll be fun to hear them argue in court during the inevitable class action suit.
Prison is for dangerous people, but I suspect many are adding a few caveats.
Let me alter it so that it's more accurate:
"Prison is for people who are dangerous, or don't represent my political views and break into computers. i.e. If someone breaks into the Tea Party's computers, they don't deserve jail. That would be just vengeance and totally unjust. But if a person broke into the computers of Occupy and damaged them to stop coordinating of a protest that should be punished with jail time."
I see this attitude with abortion protestors that I've met, too. They think those arrested for damaging abortion clinics or blocking access shouldn't be jailed because it's a good cause. They often also think that anyone who uses similar tactics against them should be jailed.
It's all in the definition of "activism" as opposed to "vandalism". One person's vandal is another persons activist. It gets to be a political line drawing game.
Frankly, I'll worry more about some poor gleek stuck in jail for a lengthy stay after getting caught smoking pot.
I mostly agree with you, but the example of the colonies in the Americas isn't a good one.
The initial settlers absolutely needed Spain, Britain or other established powers. The continent had challenges that were far more tenacious than those on the moon. Specifically, the weakened, but still much stronger than a few colonist, existing civilizations.
The Native Americans didn't always appreciate the Europeans moving into their territory and it often had to be accomplished via force of arms, wealth and people coming from Europe.
Ask the Vikings how easy it was to maintain New World colonies in the face of opposition from existing civilizations. They tried, and had significant technological advantages, but didn't have the brute power to maintain their colonies in the face of bad weather and the people already there.
"So bugger off and do something useful with your money."
So, he should shut up and just play Kerbal Space Program like the rest of us?
If Elon Musk et al had that attitude, they wouldn't be about to launch the Falcon Heavy.
"you need to make nice with at least some Earth government."
I think that counts as not being able to defend it, and ceding the rights for the promise of security.
Lily Tomlin Said: "We don't care, we don't have to...we're the phone company."
Similarly: "We don't care. We don't have to... we're the GCHQ."
"subjectively indistinguishable from alcohol intoxication"
So to do that, too much would have to make you pee a lot, fall down the stairs and wake up in your own vomit, but no hangover?
Now there's a selling point for you.
"Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!"
See, now that she's gone, the world is perfect and Britain would never do anything bad like spoof slashdot.
Oh, wait...
"As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
The British GCHQ spoofed slashdot. Now the Argentine intelligence agency will have to as well now that you called them the Falklands.
It's all about keeping up with the Thatchers. Or the Galtieris.
Oh no. They haven't broken any laws, not only because secret people in a secret room said so, but also because highly public people in both the administration and on both sides of the aisle in congress very publicly said they didn't.
Whether they did or not.
Actually what they meant to say was: "The NSA pays AT&T and others millions every year for data, and the GCHQ didn't even offer us a damn dime! Wankers."
The MPAA can tell them about the evils of piracy.
The NSA, Google, and Facebook can tell them about the evils of privacy.
"damages to their reputation"
Slashdot? Reputation? *snrrk* *snort* *giggle*
Two words sum up Slashdot's reputation these days: "Dice Holdings"
What? You didn't know that the NSA was really a front for the Albanian State Washing Machine Company?
They've been running the world all along.
It didn't seem "robust and strong" in the case of beating out the West economically. It however was seen to be reasonably stable for the near term due to the internal apparatus for keeping the dissent in check. There were two Soviet economies. The military one seemed to be sufficient to maintain itself and the control the Party kept over the state. The civilian side of the economy was a joke by comparison, but seemed to be good enough to keep outright rebellion in check.
Many had said that the Soviet Army would perform well if it kept winning, but if it ran into stalemate or defeat in a protracted war, it would have a lot of internal division.
Now, people interpret that as overall weakness with the advantage of hindsight. It wasn't the general opinion at the time. There's a lot of 20/20 hindsight going on in this discussion.
First, what country are you from?
I'll give you that if you were in the USSR itself, you may well have seen enough of the problems that you thought that. (We had people here who were convinced the US and the industrialized West were collapsing during that same period. But, that's always the case. Some Romans were convinced Rome was on the brink of collapse during the time of Augustus. Maybe they were right, but it took another 500 years or more.)
I was seeing it from the US, and I certainly recall that on both the left and the right here it was seen as a long term power in the world. The left said we had to accommodate with it to avoid nuclear obliteration. The right said we had to defend against it to avoid nuclear obliteration.
I know a lot of highly educated people and they didn't see it coming. That's both on the the left and right. And, right smack in the middle.
I must have been in a very sheltered environment if most educated people know this and the ones I knew didn't.
If you are indeed from the US: Could it instead be that you're talking complete bushwa and are saying it because it is handy to whatever your current belief set is? Sort of the way all sorts of people "saw it coming" before the great depression or the latest worldwide recession now that they are telling the future from the past?
Yeah, that last one is the one I'm betting on since I don't recall it that way.
You're saying you married your mom cause she was hot?
Yeah, this really is Slashdot...
Especially watch out for that bit under the comment /* Tekeli-li! */.
From the movie, Little Big Man: "Land that would be theirs as long as grass grow, wind blow, and the sky is blue."
Yeah. Uh huh. Suuure...
After years in the military, I understand the reasons for it. Oh, I even go along with it for the most part. Enforce the minor rules and you have less trouble enforcing the major ones.
But, the very fact of it making sense to us, in reality, makes it just that much more weird.
It's very hard to step outside of the human mindset that we bring to thinking. It's probably impossible to do it more than just a tiny bit. But, even just a little leads to a fair bit of "WTF?".
Looked at in terms of the results of evolving a set of emotional rules of thumb for existing successfully in small social groups, our minds make a lot of sense. Outside of that context, they can seem strange and arbitrary. That quote is just one example of that. (You can fill in many others from your own experience.)
He's really version 2.0 of a long term general intelligence project running on a supercomputer at Fort Meade.
Version 1.0 was called Henry Spencer and was developed in Canada.
(The original graphics version now used for videos of him started out as Max Headroom. This demonstrates yet again, it's much easier to improve on the presentation than the underlying system.)
Colonel Kurtz: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene."
Human psychology is all kinds of weird.