Maybe so, but it's dated toilet paper, and if you claim to have invented something that I can find on Wikipedia dated years before you patented it, that should be admissible as prior art against your claim.
If an observation by camera cannot determine "intent", how can a human being determine "intent" by observing?
How on earth does a camera at an intersection know if the Police officer is doing his job properly and safely or not?
Simple, by taking a picture of the person running the light, just like everyone else who runs the light. The person who reviews these can ask the dispatcher for the log to determine if that car was on a call.
No warrant shall issue without probable cause
Good thing that tickets are not warrants for arrest or search.
Theres a logical solution to this, given that for every ambulance causing an injury accident, another will have to respond. Therefore, unless more than 50% of the ambulances are disabled in wrecks, there will ALWAYS be more ambulances operating than in wrecks.
In particular, the English language is defined by common use
Not only that, but "beg" means exactly what the original poster meant it to mean, it's only that someone else came along and said "if you use it like this, then you actually mean something that has nothing at all to do with asking for something".
Hm, part of the problem with X in linux is that X has surpassed pretty much all of the various distributions' pretty little configurator tools. You can now run Xorg -configure, follow the instructions, and have a perfectly working configuration that autodetected your card and your monitor's capabilities in most cases (and it'll tell you what to do if it failed). What's needed now is for the distributions to rewrite their pretty little configurator tools to use this rather than having the user wade through dialog after dialog of card models (mine isn't listed!) and refresh rates (horizontal-whatzit?) and color depths (huh?).
I was hoping for the Xorg version in experimental to make it into testing before the release, but such is life (that version's autoconfig uses/dev/input/mice as the default mouse instead of asking you to set the mouse up yourself. The new intel video driver also works great and isn't braindamaged like the i810 driver that used its own internal configuration and ignored settings in xorg.conf)
So basically, if you killed someone on the block and people who saw it are either your buddies or are shit scared of you, you get to walk away free?
Thus leading to the invention of the witness protection program. Known bug, tagging WONTFIX. If this outcome is not satisfying, submit an amendment to the charter permitting people to be charged without evidence, please do not reopen.
What if the government required that all items be labeled with the amount of CO2 (or other pollution) they produce
Then people would be free to continue externalizing the damages they do to everyone else, and everyone else pays the cost of those people's lifestyle. The costs will continue to remain hidden within taxes and life/health insurance premiums and doctors' bills, as well as in the bills for many other things, such as stonework that should last thousands of years but needs to be repaired after only decades of exposure to smog and acid rain. Because those costs are hidden, nobody will be able to point to a specific thing and say "see, this is what your decision to use plastic bags instead of a canvas bag did to the rest of us" and consequently, it will be difficult to educate people about decisions that damage other people.
Or if the government set a minimum price for an item, based on it's CO2 production (or other pollution), but the government didn't actually collect any money?
Nothing in my idea requires that the government collect any money. It only requires that the government stop fabricating a "right" for companies to pollute, the remainder will happen naturally. To that end, it would be similar to your other idea of setting a minimum price based on pollution, except without so much overt government work. Companies that regularly have pipeline leaks and exploding refineries will have to charge more money to recoup the costs of not only destroying their equipment, but the damages that their problems caused. If the market will not support this price, then the company will go out of business, and other companies that appreciate the finer qualities of equipment maintenance will expand to fill the market.
Of course, in reality this is just an idea (or an ideal if you would), and in practice it would inevitably be mangled by government and companies alike until it is no better than what we have now.
Every time you buy a computer, every time you buy a plastic container, every time you purchase soaps and detergent, every time you wrap your sandwich in plastic wrap, every time you buy a food product sealed in plastic, every time you drive your car or take a trip on an airplane, every hour that you run your computer, or leave the lights on... every one of these actions gives consent for pollution - because they can only be produced WITH pollution.
And if I do none of the above? If I walk everywhere, raise cotton and weave my own clothes, live in a log cabin and replant trees to replace the ones used, grow my own vegetables using compost, snare just enough meat to feed myself and give up the computer and live off of the electric grid, does everyone else's pollution just stop at the border to my property? Setting aside whether I'm a hypocrite or not, this line of argument is pointless: even if a person took absolutely no action to consent to pollution, the pollution of others would still affect them against their will.
you don't want to accept responsibility for pollution you create
See my other branch of the thread for how I would take responsibility for the pollution I "create": by forcing the actual producers to pay for it and pass that cost to consumers, I can make responsible choices based on cost that reduce that pollution. If company A's widget-making-process emits enough toxins to cause 1/1,000,000th of a sickness causing $x to treat while company B's widget-making process can do it in 1/10,000,000th of a case, B's widget will be cheaper by that much, and people will buy B's widgets.
Why? Because you say so? Because it's the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics?
Even if there was some physical law that guarantees that emissions will always asymptotically trend towards zero, by holding people accountable for the emissions, those people will strive to get as close to zero as possible.
If it costs a company twice as much to make a good or service as it did before, that item will be twice as expensive for consumers.
It's already twice as expensive for consumers, only currently that extra price is hidden from the consumers where it cannot have an effect on their purchasing decisions. By forcing the money to flow from the consumer to the producer to the people injured by the producer, it puts an exact cost on the injury caused by that product, something that's not done when the money flows from the user to the government to the superfund program, or the user to the hospital (via the government, their insurance, or paying cash when they are the one with the chemical burns or cancer). Companies that can produce that product at a lower cost then win.
I have never been threatened with violence... what chemicals I put in my body
Fascinating position to hold in a thread about the EPA, which was ostensibly created because corporations were forcing chemicals into people's bodies against their will.
How exactly do you plan to run an industrial society, without creating pollution?
By the producers paying the cost of it themselves. When it costs them more money to pollute than to not pollute, they'll quit polluting. Companies that figure out ways to not pollute will take over the marketplace. There is nothing about industrialization that requires toxic emissions.
I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes.
You're absolutely right. We should abolish the Clean Air Act, then all the other environmental regulations and finally the EPA and then start arresting factory workers and operators for assault by poisoning.
Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people the right to copy GPL software, the EPA and Clean Air Act and the like is the only thing that gives companies and people the right to poison each other with impunity. Maybe when the corporate leaders have to face jail time for poisoning (or even manslaughter) they'll stop crying and sobbing about how hard it is to only give cancer to one in a million people (along with the other 999,999 companies). Don't tell me poison is the cost of progress, either, unless the corporate executives are offering to pay the price themselves instead of forcing it on everyone else.
R&D drives sales... otherwise what are you going to sell
Vaporware. Then once the sales department has marketed it and the legal team has wrangled it, the CEO demands that the R&D team pull all-nighters until they create it. Then "trims the fat" and ditches the R&D.
It seems like the difference between this and XSRF is that this actually uses the results returned from the site, while "standard" XSRF was just hitting www.myspace.com/friend.php?addfriend=imlonely in an img tag or somewhere.... in other words, it's just as new as "... on the internet!"
that has no impact on security (this is image processing dammit)
Sure looks like it had an impact on security to me. Maybe the problem is with students who think that the things they write have no impact on security at all.
Since the SCOTUS decided that interstate commerce doesn't mean anything like what it looks like it means. After all, they decided that if I grow drugs in my backyard and smoke them inside my house, and no drugs or money changes hands or leaves the state, it's still interstate commerce.
The charges were dropped, but he went to court anyway? Huh? And the money he spent defending himself from what? Charges that were dropped already?
The charges may have been dropped, however the arrest record would remain without suing the government to have the record purged. Not only that, but he probably had a lawyer by the time bail was set, and that lawyer would need to be paid.
Hah, I was just going for a +5 Funny, to prove the guy wrong, since s/republican/democrat/ didn't change most of the original message, but I guess humor like that goes over the head of 25% of slashdot, including the ones with modpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they tie you down and force you to watch US movies in Australia?
Worse! They tie you down for six months, then they force you to watch the movie!
a Wiki citation is toilet paper
Maybe so, but it's dated toilet paper, and if you claim to have invented something that I can find on Wikipedia dated years before you patented it, that should be admissible as prior art against your claim.
Yes. I am surprised that we are investigating a 100% legal firing of attorneys. President Clinton fired ALL of them when he came into office.
The firing was 100% legal, it's the coverup that got them (funny that the Nixon crew is going down for a coverup AGAIN).
If we're lucky, the next president will declare that we're a nation of laws, and this time not pardon the lawbreakers.
If an observation by camera cannot determine "intent", how can a human being determine "intent" by observing?
How on earth does a camera at an intersection know if the Police officer is doing his job properly and safely or not?
Simple, by taking a picture of the person running the light, just like everyone else who runs the light. The person who reviews these can ask the dispatcher for the log to determine if that car was on a call.
No warrant shall issue without probable cause
Good thing that tickets are not warrants for arrest or search.
Theres a logical solution to this, given that for every ambulance causing an injury accident, another will have to respond. Therefore, unless more than 50% of the ambulances are disabled in wrecks, there will ALWAYS be more ambulances operating than in wrecks.
BTW, TFA appears to have gone though a buggy porn filter. It has words like "cir*****stantial" and "do*****ents"
Yet "child pornography" and "sex partners" had no problem. Fascinating priorities for words to censor by a porn filter, there.
Hypocrisy doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you a hypocrite.
In particular, the English language is defined by common use
Not only that, but "beg" means exactly what the original poster meant it to mean, it's only that someone else came along and said "if you use it like this, then you actually mean something that has nothing at all to do with asking for something".
Hm, part of the problem with X in linux is that X has surpassed pretty much all of the various distributions' pretty little configurator tools. You can now run Xorg -configure, follow the instructions, and have a perfectly working configuration that autodetected your card and your monitor's capabilities in most cases (and it'll tell you what to do if it failed). What's needed now is for the distributions to rewrite their pretty little configurator tools to use this rather than having the user wade through dialog after dialog of card models (mine isn't listed!) and refresh rates (horizontal-whatzit?) and color depths (huh?).
/dev/input/mice as the default mouse instead of asking you to set the mouse up yourself. The new intel video driver also works great and isn't braindamaged like the i810 driver that used its own internal configuration and ignored settings in xorg.conf)
I was hoping for the Xorg version in experimental to make it into testing before the release, but such is life (that version's autoconfig uses
So basically, if you killed someone on the block and people who saw it are either your buddies or are shit scared of you, you get to walk away free?
Thus leading to the invention of the witness protection program. Known bug, tagging WONTFIX. If this outcome is not satisfying, submit an amendment to the charter permitting people to be charged without evidence, please do not reopen.
What if the government required that all items be labeled with the amount of CO2 (or other pollution) they produce
Then people would be free to continue externalizing the damages they do to everyone else, and everyone else pays the cost of those people's lifestyle. The costs will continue to remain hidden within taxes and life/health insurance premiums and doctors' bills, as well as in the bills for many other things, such as stonework that should last thousands of years but needs to be repaired after only decades of exposure to smog and acid rain. Because those costs are hidden, nobody will be able to point to a specific thing and say "see, this is what your decision to use plastic bags instead of a canvas bag did to the rest of us" and consequently, it will be difficult to educate people about decisions that damage other people.
Or if the government set a minimum price for an item, based on it's CO2 production (or other pollution), but the government didn't actually collect any money?
Nothing in my idea requires that the government collect any money. It only requires that the government stop fabricating a "right" for companies to pollute, the remainder will happen naturally. To that end, it would be similar to your other idea of setting a minimum price based on pollution, except without so much overt government work. Companies that regularly have pipeline leaks and exploding refineries will have to charge more money to recoup the costs of not only destroying their equipment, but the damages that their problems caused. If the market will not support this price, then the company will go out of business, and other companies that appreciate the finer qualities of equipment maintenance will expand to fill the market.
Of course, in reality this is just an idea (or an ideal if you would), and in practice it would inevitably be mangled by government and companies alike until it is no better than what we have now.
Every time you buy a computer, every time you buy a plastic container, every time you purchase soaps and detergent, every time you wrap your sandwich in plastic wrap, every time you buy a food product sealed in plastic, every time you drive your car or take a trip on an airplane, every hour that you run your computer, or leave the lights on... every one of these actions gives consent for pollution - because they can only be produced WITH pollution.
And if I do none of the above? If I walk everywhere, raise cotton and weave my own clothes, live in a log cabin and replant trees to replace the ones used, grow my own vegetables using compost, snare just enough meat to feed myself and give up the computer and live off of the electric grid, does everyone else's pollution just stop at the border to my property? Setting aside whether I'm a hypocrite or not, this line of argument is pointless: even if a person took absolutely no action to consent to pollution, the pollution of others would still affect them against their will.
you don't want to accept responsibility for pollution you create
See my other branch of the thread for how I would take responsibility for the pollution I "create": by forcing the actual producers to pay for it and pass that cost to consumers, I can make responsible choices based on cost that reduce that pollution. If company A's widget-making-process emits enough toxins to cause 1/1,000,000th of a sickness causing $x to treat while company B's widget-making process can do it in 1/10,000,000th of a case, B's widget will be cheaper by that much, and people will buy B's widgets.
zero emissions is impossible
Why? Because you say so? Because it's the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics?
Even if there was some physical law that guarantees that emissions will always asymptotically trend towards zero, by holding people accountable for the emissions, those people will strive to get as close to zero as possible.
If it costs a company twice as much to make a good or service as it did before, that item will be twice as expensive for consumers.
It's already twice as expensive for consumers, only currently that extra price is hidden from the consumers where it cannot have an effect on their purchasing decisions. By forcing the money to flow from the consumer to the producer to the people injured by the producer, it puts an exact cost on the injury caused by that product, something that's not done when the money flows from the user to the government to the superfund program, or the user to the hospital (via the government, their insurance, or paying cash when they are the one with the chemical burns or cancer). Companies that can produce that product at a lower cost then win.
so long as it doesn't harm themselves
Wait, what?
I have never been threatened with violence ... what chemicals I put in my body
Fascinating position to hold in a thread about the EPA, which was ostensibly created because corporations were forcing chemicals into people's bodies against their will.
How exactly do you plan to run an industrial society, without creating pollution?
By the producers paying the cost of it themselves. When it costs them more money to pollute than to not pollute, they'll quit polluting. Companies that figure out ways to not pollute will take over the marketplace. There is nothing about industrialization that requires toxic emissions.
I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes.
You're absolutely right. We should abolish the Clean Air Act, then all the other environmental regulations and finally the EPA and then start arresting factory workers and operators for assault by poisoning.
Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people the right to copy GPL software, the EPA and Clean Air Act and the like is the only thing that gives companies and people the right to poison each other with impunity. Maybe when the corporate leaders have to face jail time for poisoning (or even manslaughter) they'll stop crying and sobbing about how hard it is to only give cancer to one in a million people (along with the other 999,999 companies). Don't tell me poison is the cost of progress, either, unless the corporate executives are offering to pay the price themselves instead of forcing it on everyone else.
R&D drives sales... otherwise what are you going to sell
Vaporware. Then once the sales department has marketed it and the legal team has wrangled it, the CEO demands that the R&D team pull all-nighters until they create it. Then "trims the fat" and ditches the R&D.
It seems like the difference between this and XSRF is that this actually uses the results returned from the site, while "standard" XSRF was just hitting www.myspace.com/friend.php?addfriend=imlonely in an img tag or somewhere. ... in other words, it's just as new as "... on the internet!"
that has no impact on security (this is image processing dammit)
Sure looks like it had an impact on security to me. Maybe the problem is with students who think that the things they write have no impact on security at all.
Since the SCOTUS decided that interstate commerce doesn't mean anything like what it looks like it means. After all, they decided that if I grow drugs in my backyard and smoke them inside my house, and no drugs or money changes hands or leaves the state, it's still interstate commerce.
would then immediately cite the case as an example of the "dangers" of using Linux.
To which you respond by asking what they would think if the company had installed windows on all of these boxes without paying for a single license.
Same thing either way. You either pay with the code, or you pay with your cash. Or use BSD.
publishing the names and addresses of individuals like this is a very dangerous thing to do.
As opposed to arresting people for doing business with individuals and companies that were on the list that nobody is allowed to see?
The charges were dropped, but he went to court anyway? Huh? And the money he spent defending himself from what? Charges that were dropped already?
The charges may have been dropped, however the arrest record would remain without suing the government to have the record purged. Not only that, but he probably had a lawyer by the time bail was set, and that lawyer would need to be paid.
Hah, I was just going for a +5 Funny, to prove the guy wrong, since s/republican/democrat/ didn't change most of the original message, but I guess humor like that goes over the head of 25% of slashdot, including the ones with modpoints.