A reasonable and prudent person is the typical standard when the court is asked to make judgements about expected behavior.
Regardless, you can't reasonably compare "the entire body of registered trademarks" to "codified law". They're not even close to the same size, not bound by the same restrictions in specificity or presumption of innocence, and not founded in the same principals of civil society.
Age is no more reasonable as basis to determine pay than gender or race. If you accumulate skills and knowledge that make you able to produce more value, that's worth more money. If you produce at the same level for 20 years you should expect to make the same money.
If you want household income to be tied to household size and factors like that you need to stop pretending that job-specific wages are a reasonable way to accomplish that sort of economic distribution.
Are you seriously claiming that it's easier from a UI standpoint to buy things on eBay than Amazon? There are certainly complaints to be made about Amazon's UI, but "hard to get from a product page to a completed sale" is not one of them.
There are plenty of high-power electric drive systems. Trains and busses have been using them for decades. Walmart recently demoed a turbine-powered hybrid 18 wheeler with 100% electric drive power. The reason Tesla doesn't have an 800 HP electric drive is not that they don't exist, it's that they're big and expensive, just like 800 HP hydrocarbon engines.
So if you lease a car the owner is entitled to run it whenever they want so long as they compensate you for gas? Or to install advertising on it? If not, why can the cable company do the same thing with the modem you lease from them?
I agree it's unlikely that these routers are being configured with a second public IP. But since Comcast controls the upstream network they don't need one -- they just eventually need to NAT before routing you to the Internet. Which they are interested in doing because they aren't running a portal/auth on all these individual routers -- they're forwarding all the related traffic to a central pool and dealing with it there.
It would make for the same routing rules in any machine with 3 or more logical interfaces (i.e. most non-SOHO routers). And a relatively simple configuration at that, as the routes are completely isolated at the IP layer.
BitCoin already works perfectly fine with offline, encrypted wallets. It's just that people keep putting their coins into these unsecured, uninsured exchanges.
We seem to be okay with the mandate to feed children, and to provide at least a minimum level of medical care for them, even against the wishes of their parents. It's not clear how vaccinations are fundamentally different from those existing mandates.
Plus we have a long history of promoting public health over individual freedom in a whole slew of contexts, sometimes including confinement.
What part of the constitution allows parents to compel their children not to get vaccinated (or to get vaccinated, for that matter)? If we're going to talk about this in terms of individual freedom, shouldn't we consider the individuals actually affected?
So maybe we shouldn't create situations where members of society have nothing to lose? It's bad enough that such situations might arise in the world at large -- we certainly don't have to create them as a matter of law.
A) They're not discriminating against people who hold a permit, just people currently exercising it -- you have a right to defecate, but I bet you'll only eat at restaurants who throw out people who do it on the table.
B) Your gun is not a person and cannot itself be discriminated against
C) Anti-discrimination laws only apply to immutable and difficult-to-change attributes; you can easily disarm yourself and suffer no direct harm as a result
The only restrictions in the AZ law are that the interaction cannot be trivial or technical. Those two terms are not well defined, and would probably need to be settled via case law. I'd like to think that a PoS transaction is pretty trivial, but it's hard to say what a court would decide.
But honestly it doesn't matter. The line isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "how involved the seller feels" it's "are you offering services to the public". If you're offering services to the public, you must serve the entire public, even the parts you disapprove of. If you only offer services to members then you don't have to worry about these rules. As such a pastor who only performs ceremonies for members of his church is free to discriminate as he sees fit, but a for-rent chapel that's open to the public would not be in a position to refuse.
Please stop pretending this is a new and open question -- it's been settled both legislatively and in the courts for decades, and the only difference here is the specific group being discriminated against. You either know that and are trolling, or you're not informed enough to participate in the debate.
You can choose who you serve without interference from the government, even if you want to exclude protected classes. You just can't claim to be open to the public while refusing service to certain groups -- either you serve the entire public, or you're a members-only club.
In my experience, 'classic' paper currencies follow this general pattern: 1) you obtain them from a bank, 2) you pass it to another user, and 3) that other user brings it back to the bank.
Certainly you can use cash in other ways, but but you *can* use gift cards in other ways. Or you can barter with stamps and rocks. There isn't anything special about paper money that lets it be pass more anonymously than other valuable goods (or electronic records of value) -- it's just more efficient because it's more liquid.
I know. The willful obstruction of justice isn't important. And even if it was, we don't have to worry because they'd never do that to a citizen. I know the summary and article note how a US citizen was also denied travel, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that too, that we don't need to understand.
I'm not sure why we're even talking about this -- it's not like Canadians are human beings in the first place
Exactly. And we all know that the one thing that defines human beings and their rights is the geographic coordinates of their mother at the time of their birth. If you're unhappy with the situation there's really no one to blame but her -- if she cared about you having rights she would have found some way to get her vagina inside the US border before squeezing you out.
I've experienced two different kinds of call mis-routing on POTS. The first is where my phone rings, but there are actually two other parties connected to the call, and no one can hear me. This is almost certainly a signaling failure at the electrical level, which doesn't have an equivalent failure mode under VoIP. (VoIP *has* failure modes related to electrical misconnection, but they don't cause the same error). To the best of my knowledge, no fire was related to this failure (certainly nothing at my end caught fire).
The other failure mode is almost certainly related to the in-band command signaling I was complaining about and you were defending, wherein the number I dial is not the endpoint to which I am connected. I don't mean "I misdialed" or even "the computer at the remote end of my call failed to decode my in-call DTMF signaling" I mean "my auto-dialer sent DTMF and I got connected to a different number than the one represented by the tones I played on the line".
And the failure of DTMF in-call is also in issue with POTS, whether you believe it or not. I agree, it's not something POTS was designed to deal with, but it is something that is actually used in the real world that POTS does not handle cleanly and has no capability to improve its reliability. If you want to convince end users around the world that they should not require the use of DTMF signaling because it's unreliable over POTS be my guest, but arguing that it's not useful just because POTS wasn't designed for it is like arguing that electricity is not useful just because steam locomotives were not designed for it.
Really, because my POTS line goes down every couple of months, sometimes mis-routes calls, only supports in-band DTMF signaling, and often has lower quality audio than my VoIP line.
It's almost like the underlying signaling technology is not the sole determining factor in quality of service, and there are a number of ways to meet (or fail to meet) desired service goals. But I know that's a silly idea -- we know from history that older == more robust, just like older cars start better in cold weather and older flashlights need fewer batteries.
A) We already have that in many places. For example, toll roads and pay-to-use-carpool-lane systems. Such things have existed for a long time. You might not think they're a good idea, but they're hardly a new trend.
B) You're assuming it's not possible to build "enough" infrastructure to provide basic transportation so travel will be impractical without excessive usage fees. That doesn't reflect the status quo, and it's not clear why changing the way vehicles are piloted would reduce the amount of road infrastructure we can afford for public, free usage.
C) If you can trust cars to do what they are told (or what they collectively agree to do) you need way less infrastructure for the same amount of traffic. For example, there's no reason to have directional lanes or traffic lights. So even without building anything new traffic would be expected to decrease in the system you describe, at least until the growth in number of vehicles in use catches back up.
Exactly. Just like we hold airline passengers responsible for crashes.
Wait, I forgot that we're all pretending there's no analogy for liability and accident investigation for automated vehicles. Because planes are still controlled by WWII vets yanking on cables.
Slashdot Mirror
A reasonable and prudent person is the typical standard when the court is asked to make judgements about expected behavior.
Regardless, you can't reasonably compare "the entire body of registered trademarks" to "codified law". They're not even close to the same size, not bound by the same restrictions in specificity or presumption of innocence, and not founded in the same principals of civil society.
Age is no more reasonable as basis to determine pay than gender or race. If you accumulate skills and knowledge that make you able to produce more value, that's worth more money. If you produce at the same level for 20 years you should expect to make the same money.
If you want household income to be tied to household size and factors like that you need to stop pretending that job-specific wages are a reasonable way to accomplish that sort of economic distribution.
Are you seriously claiming that it's easier from a UI standpoint to buy things on eBay than Amazon? There are certainly complaints to be made about Amazon's UI, but "hard to get from a product page to a completed sale" is not one of them.
Your Target delivers same-day? For free? If not you're comparing apples to orchards.
Don't forget the costs of buying locally -- transportation and time.
There are plenty of high-power electric drive systems. Trains and busses have been using them for decades. Walmart recently demoed a turbine-powered hybrid 18 wheeler with 100% electric drive power. The reason Tesla doesn't have an 800 HP electric drive is not that they don't exist, it's that they're big and expensive, just like 800 HP hydrocarbon engines.
So if you lease a car the owner is entitled to run it whenever they want so long as they compensate you for gas? Or to install advertising on it? If not, why can the cable company do the same thing with the modem you lease from them?
I agree it's unlikely that these routers are being configured with a second public IP. But since Comcast controls the upstream network they don't need one -- they just eventually need to NAT before routing you to the Internet. Which they are interested in doing because they aren't running a portal/auth on all these individual routers -- they're forwarding all the related traffic to a central pool and dealing with it there.
It would make for the same routing rules in any machine with 3 or more logical interfaces (i.e. most non-SOHO routers). And a relatively simple configuration at that, as the routes are completely isolated at the IP layer.
BitCoin already works perfectly fine with offline, encrypted wallets. It's just that people keep putting their coins into these unsecured, uninsured exchanges.
We seem to be okay with the mandate to feed children, and to provide at least a minimum level of medical care for them, even against the wishes of their parents. It's not clear how vaccinations are fundamentally different from those existing mandates.
Plus we have a long history of promoting public health over individual freedom in a whole slew of contexts, sometimes including confinement.
What part of the constitution allows parents to compel their children not to get vaccinated (or to get vaccinated, for that matter)? If we're going to talk about this in terms of individual freedom, shouldn't we consider the individuals actually affected?
So maybe we shouldn't create situations where members of society have nothing to lose? It's bad enough that such situations might arise in the world at large -- we certainly don't have to create them as a matter of law.
A) They're not discriminating against people who hold a permit, just people currently exercising it -- you have a right to defecate, but I bet you'll only eat at restaurants who throw out people who do it on the table.
B) Your gun is not a person and cannot itself be discriminated against
C) Anti-discrimination laws only apply to immutable and difficult-to-change attributes; you can easily disarm yourself and suffer no direct harm as a result
The only restrictions in the AZ law are that the interaction cannot be trivial or technical. Those two terms are not well defined, and would probably need to be settled via case law. I'd like to think that a PoS transaction is pretty trivial, but it's hard to say what a court would decide.
But honestly it doesn't matter. The line isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "how involved the seller feels" it's "are you offering services to the public". If you're offering services to the public, you must serve the entire public, even the parts you disapprove of. If you only offer services to members then you don't have to worry about these rules. As such a pastor who only performs ceremonies for members of his church is free to discriminate as he sees fit, but a for-rent chapel that's open to the public would not be in a position to refuse.
Please stop pretending this is a new and open question -- it's been settled both legislatively and in the courts for decades, and the only difference here is the specific group being discriminated against. You either know that and are trolling, or you're not informed enough to participate in the debate.
You can choose who you serve without interference from the government, even if you want to exclude protected classes. You just can't claim to be open to the public while refusing service to certain groups -- either you serve the entire public, or you're a members-only club.
Just FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Because bugs exist testing must not?
In my experience, 'classic' paper currencies follow this general pattern: 1) you obtain them from a bank, 2) you pass it to another user, and 3) that other user brings it back to the bank.
Certainly you can use cash in other ways, but but you *can* use gift cards in other ways. Or you can barter with stamps and rocks. There isn't anything special about paper money that lets it be pass more anonymously than other valuable goods (or electronic records of value) -- it's just more efficient because it's more liquid.
I know. The willful obstruction of justice isn't important. And even if it was, we don't have to worry because they'd never do that to a citizen. I know the summary and article note how a US citizen was also denied travel, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that too, that we don't need to understand.
I'm not sure why we're even talking about this -- it's not like Canadians are human beings in the first place
Exactly. And we all know that the one thing that defines human beings and their rights is the geographic coordinates of their mother at the time of their birth. If you're unhappy with the situation there's really no one to blame but her -- if she cared about you having rights she would have found some way to get her vagina inside the US border before squeezing you out.
I've experienced two different kinds of call mis-routing on POTS. The first is where my phone rings, but there are actually two other parties connected to the call, and no one can hear me. This is almost certainly a signaling failure at the electrical level, which doesn't have an equivalent failure mode under VoIP. (VoIP *has* failure modes related to electrical misconnection, but they don't cause the same error). To the best of my knowledge, no fire was related to this failure (certainly nothing at my end caught fire).
The other failure mode is almost certainly related to the in-band command signaling I was complaining about and you were defending, wherein the number I dial is not the endpoint to which I am connected. I don't mean "I misdialed" or even "the computer at the remote end of my call failed to decode my in-call DTMF signaling" I mean "my auto-dialer sent DTMF and I got connected to a different number than the one represented by the tones I played on the line".
And the failure of DTMF in-call is also in issue with POTS, whether you believe it or not. I agree, it's not something POTS was designed to deal with, but it is something that is actually used in the real world that POTS does not handle cleanly and has no capability to improve its reliability. If you want to convince end users around the world that they should not require the use of DTMF signaling because it's unreliable over POTS be my guest, but arguing that it's not useful just because POTS wasn't designed for it is like arguing that electricity is not useful just because steam locomotives were not designed for it.
Really, because my POTS line goes down every couple of months, sometimes mis-routes calls, only supports in-band DTMF signaling, and often has lower quality audio than my VoIP line.
It's almost like the underlying signaling technology is not the sole determining factor in quality of service, and there are a number of ways to meet (or fail to meet) desired service goals. But I know that's a silly idea -- we know from history that older == more robust, just like older cars start better in cold weather and older flashlights need fewer batteries.
A) We already have that in many places. For example, toll roads and pay-to-use-carpool-lane systems. Such things have existed for a long time. You might not think they're a good idea, but they're hardly a new trend.
B) You're assuming it's not possible to build "enough" infrastructure to provide basic transportation so travel will be impractical without excessive usage fees. That doesn't reflect the status quo, and it's not clear why changing the way vehicles are piloted would reduce the amount of road infrastructure we can afford for public, free usage.
C) If you can trust cars to do what they are told (or what they collectively agree to do) you need way less infrastructure for the same amount of traffic. For example, there's no reason to have directional lanes or traffic lights. So even without building anything new traffic would be expected to decrease in the system you describe, at least until the growth in number of vehicles in use catches back up.
Exactly. Just like we hold airline passengers responsible for crashes.
Wait, I forgot that we're all pretending there's no analogy for liability and accident investigation for automated vehicles. Because planes are still controlled by WWII vets yanking on cables.