Also: bar insurance payments for anything except completely faultless situations (which are rare.) Watch how fast people get at being careful drivers, when hitting someone else with a car could mean you lose everything you own in damages to pay for their car and medical bills...and someone won't just hand you a shiny check for a new car.
Well, that would be pretty crazy. Unless you were really young and had no children, you'd be unable to take the risk of driving at all. Even a moment's distraction from sunlight glaring off your windshield and a collision with a bentley could ruin you.
No... unless we want to drop driving as a society (which is currently impossible... it would take decades to retool our communities), insurance is a necessity, because even a truly minor error, the kind that as human beings we are simply not capable of controlling completely, can result in damages that grossly exceed our ability to pay.
Just so you know, every state in the US requires you to lower your speed to a safe driving speed in the event of inclement weather, and you may be pulled over for driving the speed limit in bad weather in every state. (Not that this is likely to happen, as the police usually have other stuff keeping them busy in inclement weather, but it can and does happen).
I don't have any stats, but I can tell you with 100% certainty from about 20K miles each of sample driving that my nissan altima hit maximum fuel efficiency at 70mph. 80 and 60 were both about 10% lower. Yes, I had a lot of boring drive time to experiment.
That's all true, except that the maximum safe speed is far detached from the specified speed. The specified speed on the federal highway system, and which virtually all states have adopted in order to get their share of highway funds was adopted for fuel efficiency, not safety.
And the evidence is actually pretty clear that he was a B student or lower overall, possibly with a bias caused by initially low grades due to drug use that later improved, which would explain both his post-college admissions and success at Harvard Law, where we know he was in the top 10%.
I for one think that yes, the courts would eventually uphold the law and the precedents surrounding the validity of such use. Long after the author was bankrupt and dead of course, but such is the uselessness of our court system.
That wouldn't be any where close to legal if that was the reason. He'd win instantly on appeal for that.
There are stories about the holdout being replaced, but not the reason. The legal reasons a juror can be replaced are pretty limited, so either he is getting his appeals win, or there was something very serious wrong with that juror (e.g. bribed to be the holdout)
Yes, I assumed we were all prepared to deal with basic statistics. Statistically speaking, the average doesn't guarantee that the sample doesn't have a funny distribution, hence you could have 20, 120, 120, 120, 120, average 100. But if I tell you it is a bell curve, then two of those are below 100. You can always have a particular 5 people out of a larger sample be from anywhere on the curve, but the statement '2 in 5 are below 100' is generally accepted by statisticians in such a context.
Thankfully, they use a sample of 12 jurors in typical criminal trials to avoid the sampling bias. If even one of the twelve decides to listen to the defense side of the trial, and the defense is successful, you at least get a hung jury and another trial (or statistically more likely: the prosecution gives up).
Unfortunately the law does not allow judges to keep stupid people off of juries. Some kind of anti discrimination thing...
Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ and are therefore Morons. we cant discriminate against 2/3rds of the population.
Why can't we discriminate against 2/3rds of the population? And perhaps you were joking, but you know that 2/5 and 2/3 are not the same fraction, right?
He's (ludicrously) claiming the purveyor would be responsible for subsequent copying, rather than subsequent sales of new items without the claim removed, because (in his ludicrous version of reality) you'd be held responsible for the copies other people made, or the existing, already produced copies with the correct-at-the-time claim in them.
And you just gave it to them? No, they do not have the right to demand your SSN, and you are under no obligation to provide it to acquire a cellphone. Laws in some states even make this practice illegal, assuming that they would not back down on the demand (if they back down, no problem, they can ask, they are just required to bow to your refusal).
Slashdot Mirror
Also: bar insurance payments for anything except completely faultless situations (which are rare.) Watch how fast people get at being careful drivers, when hitting someone else with a car could mean you lose everything you own in damages to pay for their car and medical bills...and someone won't just hand you a shiny check for a new car.
Well, that would be pretty crazy. Unless you were really young and had no children, you'd be unable to take the risk of driving at all. Even a moment's distraction from sunlight glaring off your windshield and a collision with a bentley could ruin you.
No ... unless we want to drop driving as a society (which is currently impossible ... it would take decades to retool our communities), insurance is a necessity, because even a truly minor error, the kind that as human beings we are simply not capable of controlling completely, can result in damages that grossly exceed our ability to pay.
Just so you know, every state in the US requires you to lower your speed to a safe driving speed in the event of inclement weather, and you may be pulled over for driving the speed limit in bad weather in every state. (Not that this is likely to happen, as the police usually have other stuff keeping them busy in inclement weather, but it can and does happen).
Drive outside of commute hours. If you drive at night the flow routinely exceeds 100.
I don't have any stats, but I can tell you with 100% certainty from about 20K miles each of sample driving that my nissan altima hit maximum fuel efficiency at 70mph. 80 and 60 were both about 10% lower. Yes, I had a lot of boring drive time to experiment.
That's all true, except that the maximum safe speed is far detached from the specified speed. The specified speed on the federal highway system, and which virtually all states have adopted in order to get their share of highway funds was adopted for fuel efficiency, not safety.
But if, in fact, they make less per movie, surely they have to make MORE movies to make up their losses, not less, so ultimately, isn't this helping?
And the evidence is actually pretty clear that he was a B student or lower overall, possibly with a bias caused by initially low grades due to drug use that later improved, which would explain both his post-college admissions and success at Harvard Law, where we know he was in the top 10%.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Barack_Obama's_grades_in_college
Wow, I always assumed those titles had pretty distinct audiences, you're a real renaissance man (or woman, I suppose)!
I for one think that yes, the courts would eventually uphold the law and the precedents surrounding the validity of such use. Long after the author was bankrupt and dead of course, but such is the uselessness of our court system.
That wouldn't be any where close to legal if that was the reason. He'd win instantly on appeal for that.
There are stories about the holdout being replaced, but not the reason. The legal reasons a juror can be replaced are pretty limited, so either he is getting his appeals win, or there was something very serious wrong with that juror (e.g. bribed to be the holdout)
I think he's a performer who wants to make $$$, and has found his path. The mall appearance is promotion for his next book.
Yes, I assumed we were all prepared to deal with basic statistics. Statistically speaking, the average doesn't guarantee that the sample doesn't have a funny distribution, hence you could have 20, 120, 120, 120, 120, average 100. But if I tell you it is a bell curve, then two of those are below 100. You can always have a particular 5 people out of a larger sample be from anywhere on the curve, but the statement '2 in 5 are below 100' is generally accepted by statisticians in such a context.
I'd go with 4.5 pages of historical filler.
I wonder what they do with people who can't afford a suit and tie, which is a pretty substantial number in the south.
That's not eligibility, that's just how they find you.
Technically, I was made a citizen without my consent, so claiming I agreed to that law is a bit of a stretch.
Thankfully, they use a sample of 12 jurors in typical criminal trials to avoid the sampling bias. If even one of the twelve decides to listen to the defense side of the trial, and the defense is successful, you at least get a hung jury and another trial (or statistically more likely: the prosecution gives up).
Unfortunately the law does not allow judges to keep stupid people off of juries. Some kind of anti discrimination thing...
Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ and are therefore Morons. we cant discriminate against 2/3rds of the population.
Why can't we discriminate against 2/3rds of the population? And perhaps you were joking, but you know that 2/5 and 2/3 are not the same fraction, right?
But the fact that actual IQ score samples form a symmetric bell curve centered on 100 does.
Nice, definitely worthy of an insightful, informative, funny, and troll.
He's (ludicrously) claiming the purveyor would be responsible for subsequent copying, rather than subsequent sales of new items without the claim removed, because (in his ludicrous version of reality) you'd be held responsible for the copies other people made, or the existing, already produced copies with the correct-at-the-time claim in them.
Yes, it was quite insanely off-base.
CA and NY at least both have SSN disclosure laws that would prevent this (with some specific exemptions that don't include cell carriers).
And you just gave it to them? No, they do not have the right to demand your SSN, and you are under no obligation to provide it to acquire a cellphone. Laws in some states even make this practice illegal, assuming that they would not back down on the demand (if they back down, no problem, they can ask, they are just required to bow to your refusal).
Well, since they only sell trial versions, yes, it is only a trial.