That requirement alone forced the Station Wagon almost entirely out of the market
Is that a true fact, or a truthy sounding one?
I always got the impression the station wagon nearly disappeared because people started viewing them as clunky and boring and didn't want them.
Now, the auto industry has never consulted me about trends, so I actually have no idea.
Seems like everybody has a cross over or a hatchback these days. And I sill laugh my ass off when I see someone with a sedan or coupe who is trying to crap a TV or something big into the trunk. They just seem like such pointless vehicles.
People have SUVs now (even the "cute ute" versions) because they want to be able to move people and stuff around in their vehicle.
Sorry, but if you wish to access content on a commercial website, you must at least download their ads so they get paid. If you don't agree to that, you should simply not visit the website.
Horseshit.
Advertisers on the internet do things which if they tried in real life would either be illegal or get someone physically assaulted.
There is no other media in which advertising can uniquely identify me, record that I've seen the ad, and correlate that with other information about me. And I'm not allowing some website to do it to me.
If I was in a brick and mortar store and they said "oh, sorry sir, we just need to put this tracking tag on your ear", or "this is my associate Vinnie, he just needs to photograph you and get your thumb print"... someone would get punched in the face. Because there is no way in hell people would consent to this in the real world. If someone asks me for my information a store I tell them to piss off, same as on the internet.
Somehow the assholes who advertise on the internet feel entitled to track and record everything about me. Fuck that.
If a commercial website wants to prevent me from viewing their site without viewing their ads, they may deploy all technical means that their disposal.
But the internet isn't some magical place where I'm willing to give up information I'd tell you to go fuck yourself if you asked in person.
You want to know who feels entitled here? The asshole advertisers who consistently demonstrate themselves to be not trustworthy.
If a commercial website wants me to download their ads, they can try to make me, or fuck off. Their inability to keep me from blocking their ads doesn't confer an obligation to me, and it never will.
Oh noes, teh poor website can't show me teh ads. Not my fucking problem. Especially when those ads are being served by entities which collectively are slimy players who consider information about me to be a commodity.
. But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)? Are website owners creating websites for charity? Do you belong to the entitlement generation?
Honestly, if a web site wants to charge, they are free to do so. But I won't be paying them, and I'll immediately stop using their website. And that's fair if they want to block me.
I don't care if they're running it for charity or vanity. They server HTTP requests, they either respond or they don't.
But that doesn't change that I'm still free to block the parts of their website which I am not interested in, am not willing to pay for the bandwidth, and inherently do not trust because it wants to violate my privacy and might be a vector for malware. It's not like these companies bear any responsibility for the shit their ad partners serve.
No, I'm Gen X, actually... which means I have read magazines in libraries and not paid the advertisers, and do not give a crap about the finances of a corporation. I'm even wacky enough to still buy CDs and play music while I have friends visiting. I even walk away from the TV during commercials, because I don't care.
I don't feel entitled to anything. But that doesn't mean I'll consent to being tracked by 10-20 external sites for every damned website I go to. I can also guarantee you I've never bought a damned thing due to an internet advertisement, and never will.
If a site wants to serve their own ads, I probably won't block them. But the dozen or so external entities are all going to get blocked.
Funny you should call ads "parasites", because that's basically what you are. You want the content, you don't want to pay. That's a fair position to take, but don't get all upset when they decline to agree to your terms.
I don't actually give a flying fuck if they "agree to my terms" or not.
They can either paywall themselves so far that I can't get in, or they can find a way to block me, or they can live with it. No individual websites content is so important to me that I care if they put it behind a firewall.
But if they think I'll allow trackers to monitor everything I do, or to run arbitrary code on my machine... they're sadly mistaken.
As long as their website responds to HTTP requests, the parts that I exclude from my browser are not in their control.
But, by way of example, just to read TFA, the following domains all got blocked by my browser:
I suspect the vendor response will be more along the lines of, "We've detected Ad Block on your computer. You will be unable to view content on this site while this is active."
Fine. And the last thing they'll see of me is the back button.
Companies have two choices... paywall the heck out of it, or accept that some fraction of people will block your ads. If you want to reach a broader audience, go with the latter. Otherwise, go with the former.
But don't expect us to go all "boo hoo" because you think we should be participating in your ads. I'll continue to block anything which isn't the actual site I visited -- everything else is just parasites.
It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.
To rule that I have some legal obligation to load and view your ads would be idiotic.
Of course, this was idiotic from the beginning and just some asshole publishers trying to entrench their ad revenue in law.
Since ad companies violate both my privacy and potentially my security, I simply do not care about your ads. Unless you paywall your site, in which case I'll ignore you, don't bloody act like I am required to see your ads.
. As long as you place trades on the book that you're willing to fill based on the rules of that market
So, here's the problem, and it's in TFS...
Sarao allegedly modified these orders frequently so that they remained close to the market price, and typically canceled the orders without executing them
In which case we're talking straight up fraud and criminal activity.
If you can manipulate the market with trades you can actually afford to make, you have big giant cojones and lots of resources.
Sorry, but the initial claim about vaccines causing autism were made by a man who was proven to be lying and had to his papers retracted.
There never was any credible evidence for this, and it has been perpetuated by idiots like Jenny McCarthy. Who is too stupid to take medical advice from.
Which means expecting someone else to disprove a collective delusion is a fucking waste of time.
Watching Sponge Bob causes cancer... now, you disprove it as I sit here and go la la la... that is essentially the epic stupidity coming out of the anti-vaxer camp. They expect people to disprove their irrational theory, while they themselves have zero evidence to support it.
Some asshole lied about something, and a bunch of people with insufficient critical thinking skills have continued to act as if it is true.
One thing the anti-vaxers don't seem to know is there has never been a single, credible source to actually suggest the link to autism. Not one. But stupid has its own momentum, and people keep believing a completely unfounded story.
It's a pity we have to spend research money on crap like this.
It diverts resources from useful things, so that stupid people who think Jenny McCarthy is a fucking credible source of medical information can still choose to be stupid people and not listen to facts.
But it essentially becomes a fishing expedition, and that is what the 4th is supposed to prevent.
So you go from "gee, sir, you made a bad lane change" to "well, let's see, why don't we hold you until something we have no probable cause can be investigated". They can escalate this kind of thing really quick, and go outside of the law.
In a world in which police can steal your money without oversight of the court by saying "well, he had cash, and we thought it might be drug related (wink wink) so we took it"... if you don't put checks and balances on the police it's worse than not having them in the first place.
If your police can participate in shake down rackets to try to find cash they can claim was the proceeds of crime, and have a drug dog check you on the basis of a traffic stop with no other probable cause... then it's time to start shooting the police, and saying "fuck it, we'll live in anarchy".
When the police don't give a crap about the law, it's time to stop respecting the police or pretending that they're doing any good.
So, I say "fuck the police" if they're just there to fuck us. Failure to follow the laws says most police are inept, or crooks.
And if they can't weed out the bad ones in their ranks, then it's time to assume they're all crooked or incompetent, and force the bastards to wear body cameras 100% of the time. Because, really, you simply can't take the police at their word any more.
You sure as fuck can't count on them to properly interpret the law.
Your rights on line is a catch all for.. well, your legal rights.
Maybe you don't care, but many of us actually do care that law enforcement has been shitting on the Constitution for years and deciding the law is what they say it is.
Police offices these days are crooks who reinterpret the law as they choose. And it's about time it became acknowledged that it's not how it is supposed to be. Police who are doing these things should be fired without a pension, and criminally charged.
You may not give a shit about your 4th amendment rights, but other people do.
This is what happens when people who like to use the word statism fuck with the system to put power in the hands of corporations at the expense of everybody else.
This is not a natural outcome of having a government.
This is a natural outcome of people who think corporations should be able to do anything they want, and that the "market" will solve all problems.
People who believe corporations should be able to act without regulation have been responsible for making this shit a reality. This has NOTHING to do with the basic premise of having a government, and EVERYTHING to do with greedy bastards subverting the system to tilt it in favor of corporations.
It's the people claiming that corporations and profit seeking are inherently good, and that removing regulations will somehow magically produce good outcomes who caused this mess. Once you set up your system to be beholden to corporate interests, it's pretty much fucked and will descend further into corruption.
Sorry, but the more we pretend that anything corporations do is good, right and proper, the more stupid shit like this happens.
And Corporations as nothing more than groups of individual citizens, are or course allowed to do all of this as well.
Of course, my problem with this bullshit statement is it is a complete fucking lie.
This is not groups of individual citizens, this is the CEO and a couple of other executives pushing for what they want.
This has nothing at all to do with the collective will of groups of citizens. This is a handful of people who act as if they're nobly representing the views of groups of citizens.
What they're actually doing it furthering their own interests, at the expense of everybody else, and having it paid for by their shareholders.
The only time I have ever been aware of hitting a mobile site is when you have that "gah, WTF is this crap?" moment where you can't find anything and the link you followed has been swallowed by the crap which has said:"hey, you're on a mobile, how about we fail to show you what you were looking for?".
As I said, on my tablet I'm constantly saying "request desktop site", because the mobile website is utterly useless. It's worse than useless, because it's just a redirect to a badly written website with crap content.
I have yet to see a useful mobile website. And most places now are so damned focused on having their own damned app, which in many cases is not as useful as their website... but, hey, it's an app so we're cool, right?
In the mid 90's a friend said to me that "everything as the web" had put user interface design back by 20 years. Mobile websites and many apps seem hell bent on continuing to deliver shitty interfaces.
For many many sites on my tablet, I don't care about your damned app (because you just want access to too much stuff on my phone and want to embed ads)... honestly, I'm better off skipping the app and going to the actual website.
I hope we reach "peak phone" soon, because for those of us who don't spend every waking moment with our cell phone, the shit which is focused around that is kind of tedious.
The honest answer to this question is Google cares about one thing, and one thing only... their fucking ad revenue.
So they've decided they'll use their dominant position to try to force everybody into re-tooling their sites to make sure Google makes as much money as possible.
Never mind that most mobile versions of websites are utter garbage which are unusable and impossible to find anything, and that links you follow are immediately broken.
This is purely about Google's revenue stream.
But, yes, I agree with you... when I'm searching from my desktop I don't give a flying crap if the site has a mobile presence or not, because I usually have to request the desktop site for it to be useful.
But then Google would need to know you're a desktop, otherwise they're going to have different set of search results. And they don't want that.
I can't tell you how often I have to tell my browser on my tablet to give me the real desktop site... because most mobile sites are complete shit.
Links don't work, you don't have the same information, the layout is terrible, and you can't find anything.
In my experience and opinion, most mobile websites are written by morons, to satisfy a checkbox defined by marketing, and are generally pretty much useless.
Since most phones run at the same resolution as a desktop... WTF is the purpose of a badly written mobile site?
Yep. Wisdom, logic and reasoning are just no fun. Goooooooooooo team!
So can chimps now be arrested? Sued? Hold a job? Pay taxes? Get married? (Would it be ok if the chimps didn't do same sex marriage?) Hell, if they're legal persons, what's the age of consent for a chimp?
Either you define the rights and obligations which come from being a "legal person", or you are just making shit up as you go, and then you have a legal system based on nothing which can be interpreted.
Unless you clarify and codify a LOT of things as a result of this, what you have is a stupid decision which exists in a vacuum.
So if dogs suddenly became legal persons, would it be illegal to put stray dogs in the pound without a court hearing? Because, that's where we get with a habeus corpus ruling which applies to animals.
This is the end game for entities like PETA, where animals are legally recognized as "people".. but PETA is full of people who wouldn't understand logic if it bit them in the ass, and opens a whole slew of problems which nobody has answers for.
Your honor, I submit that this cow, hereafter referred to as Bessie has not consented to be in a feed lot and would prefer to live in her natural environment. What's that? A modern cow has no natural environment because it only exists because we keep them?
Sorry, but this judge has either decided to open up a can of worms he hasn't even begun to understand, or he's an idiot who has been hoodwinked by a grandiose legal argument.
At the time of publishing, the chimps were unavailable for comment, though they could be observed engaging in their habitual poo-flinging and screeching.
The judge has indicated that if the chimps cannot conduct themselves with decorum in the court he will summarily find against them.
Rights campaigners have suggested the lawyers representing the chimps could be used in place of the chimps, thought there was some debate as to if the lawyers were themselves considered legal persons, instead of merely being slime bags.
I'm sorry, but while I do acknowledge that primates aren't simply dumb animals, do in fact have feelings and experience pain... I'm still having a hard time understanding how they can be "legal persons" in anything but a highly contrived scenario of faulty logic which only PETA would believe.
Can they vote? Enter into contracts? Do they require legal guardians?
This seems like it will start to get into a slippery slope where there isn't so much a legal definition of "legal person", as some hand-wavy definition which will make the crunchy granola animal rights people happy, but which otherwise will be almost useless in law.
What next? Dogs? Cats? Gerbils? Rats? Crows?
WTF is the definition of legal person at this point?
Slashdot Mirror
LOL ... Intel inside, bitches.
The article indicates it's got a single USB 2.0, and bluetooth ... from there you can probably get things hooked up.
Is that a true fact, or a truthy sounding one?
I always got the impression the station wagon nearly disappeared because people started viewing them as clunky and boring and didn't want them.
Now, the auto industry has never consulted me about trends, so I actually have no idea.
Seems like everybody has a cross over or a hatchback these days. And I sill laugh my ass off when I see someone with a sedan or coupe who is trying to crap a TV or something big into the trunk. They just seem like such pointless vehicles.
People have SUVs now (even the "cute ute" versions) because they want to be able to move people and stuff around in their vehicle.
I remember a LONG time ago, before we'd found any exoplanets and largely it was a theoretical exercise.
Gravitational lensing was theoretical, finding a black hole hadn't yet happened, and planets were thought to be quite uncommon.
And 25 years or so later, now we're here. Sometimes, the mind just goes "holy crap, really?" about some of this stuff.
The universe just seems bigger, cooler, and wackier than we ever though it would be.
Horseshit.
Advertisers on the internet do things which if they tried in real life would either be illegal or get someone physically assaulted.
There is no other media in which advertising can uniquely identify me, record that I've seen the ad, and correlate that with other information about me. And I'm not allowing some website to do it to me.
If I was in a brick and mortar store and they said "oh, sorry sir, we just need to put this tracking tag on your ear", or "this is my associate Vinnie, he just needs to photograph you and get your thumb print" ... someone would get punched in the face. Because there is no way in hell people would consent to this in the real world. If someone asks me for my information a store I tell them to piss off, same as on the internet.
Somehow the assholes who advertise on the internet feel entitled to track and record everything about me. Fuck that.
If a commercial website wants to prevent me from viewing their site without viewing their ads, they may deploy all technical means that their disposal.
But the internet isn't some magical place where I'm willing to give up information I'd tell you to go fuck yourself if you asked in person.
You want to know who feels entitled here? The asshole advertisers who consistently demonstrate themselves to be not trustworthy.
If a commercial website wants me to download their ads, they can try to make me, or fuck off. Their inability to keep me from blocking their ads doesn't confer an obligation to me, and it never will.
Oh noes, teh poor website can't show me teh ads. Not my fucking problem. Especially when those ads are being served by entities which collectively are slimy players who consider information about me to be a commodity.
Honestly, if a web site wants to charge, they are free to do so. But I won't be paying them, and I'll immediately stop using their website. And that's fair if they want to block me.
I don't care if they're running it for charity or vanity. They server HTTP requests, they either respond or they don't.
But that doesn't change that I'm still free to block the parts of their website which I am not interested in, am not willing to pay for the bandwidth, and inherently do not trust because it wants to violate my privacy and might be a vector for malware. It's not like these companies bear any responsibility for the shit their ad partners serve.
No, I'm Gen X, actually ... which means I have read magazines in libraries and not paid the advertisers, and do not give a crap about the finances of a corporation. I'm even wacky enough to still buy CDs and play music while I have friends visiting. I even walk away from the TV during commercials, because I don't care.
I don't feel entitled to anything. But that doesn't mean I'll consent to being tracked by 10-20 external sites for every damned website I go to. I can also guarantee you I've never bought a damned thing due to an internet advertisement, and never will.
If a site wants to serve their own ads, I probably won't block them. But the dozen or so external entities are all going to get blocked.
I don't actually give a flying fuck if they "agree to my terms" or not.
They can either paywall themselves so far that I can't get in, or they can find a way to block me, or they can live with it. No individual websites content is so important to me that I care if they put it behind a firewall.
But if they think I'll allow trackers to monitor everything I do, or to run arbitrary code on my machine ... they're sadly mistaken.
As long as their website responds to HTTP requests, the parts that I exclude from my browser are not in their control.
But, by way of example, just to read TFA, the following domains all got blocked by my browser:
amazon-adsystem.com, bizographics.com, gigya.com, googleapis.com, googletagservices.com, livefyre.com, madisonlogic.com, netdna.com, optimizely.com, outbrain.com, umanoapp.com, vbstatic.co, wp.com, wpengine.com
That's 14 domains beside the website I visited who all feel entitled to track me ... and both they and the site which uses them can kiss my ass.
Fine. And the last thing they'll see of me is the back button.
Companies have two choices ... paywall the heck out of it, or accept that some fraction of people will block your ads. If you want to reach a broader audience, go with the latter. Otherwise, go with the former.
But don't expect us to go all "boo hoo" because you think we should be participating in your ads. I'll continue to block anything which isn't the actual site I visited -- everything else is just parasites.
It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.
To rule that I have some legal obligation to load and view your ads would be idiotic.
Of course, this was idiotic from the beginning and just some asshole publishers trying to entrench their ad revenue in law.
Since ad companies violate both my privacy and potentially my security, I simply do not care about your ads. Unless you paywall your site, in which case I'll ignore you, don't bloody act like I am required to see your ads.
Not my problem.
So, here's the problem, and it's in TFS ...
In which case we're talking straight up fraud and criminal activity.
If you can manipulate the market with trades you can actually afford to make, you have big giant cojones and lots of resources.
This guy, not so much.
Sorry, but the initial claim about vaccines causing autism were made by a man who was proven to be lying and had to his papers retracted.
There never was any credible evidence for this, and it has been perpetuated by idiots like Jenny McCarthy. Who is too stupid to take medical advice from.
Which means expecting someone else to disprove a collective delusion is a fucking waste of time.
Watching Sponge Bob causes cancer ... now, you disprove it as I sit here and go la la la ... that is essentially the epic stupidity coming out of the anti-vaxer camp. They expect people to disprove their irrational theory, while they themselves have zero evidence to support it.
Some asshole lied about something, and a bunch of people with insufficient critical thinking skills have continued to act as if it is true.
One thing the anti-vaxers don't seem to know is there has never been a single, credible source to actually suggest the link to autism. Not one. But stupid has its own momentum, and people keep believing a completely unfounded story.
It's a pity we have to spend research money on crap like this.
It diverts resources from useful things, so that stupid people who think Jenny McCarthy is a fucking credible source of medical information can still choose to be stupid people and not listen to facts.
But it essentially becomes a fishing expedition, and that is what the 4th is supposed to prevent.
So you go from "gee, sir, you made a bad lane change" to "well, let's see, why don't we hold you until something we have no probable cause can be investigated". They can escalate this kind of thing really quick, and go outside of the law.
In a world in which police can steal your money without oversight of the court by saying "well, he had cash, and we thought it might be drug related (wink wink) so we took it" ... if you don't put checks and balances on the police it's worse than not having them in the first place.
If your police can participate in shake down rackets to try to find cash they can claim was the proceeds of crime, and have a drug dog check you on the basis of a traffic stop with no other probable cause ... then it's time to start shooting the police, and saying "fuck it, we'll live in anarchy".
When the police don't give a crap about the law, it's time to stop respecting the police or pretending that they're doing any good.
So, I say "fuck the police" if they're just there to fuck us. Failure to follow the laws says most police are inept, or crooks.
And if they can't weed out the bad ones in their ranks, then it's time to assume they're all crooked or incompetent, and force the bastards to wear body cameras 100% of the time. Because, really, you simply can't take the police at their word any more.
You sure as fuck can't count on them to properly interpret the law.
Your rights on line is a catch all for .. well, your legal rights.
Maybe you don't care, but many of us actually do care that law enforcement has been shitting on the Constitution for years and deciding the law is what they say it is.
Police offices these days are crooks who reinterpret the law as they choose. And it's about time it became acknowledged that it's not how it is supposed to be. Police who are doing these things should be fired without a pension, and criminally charged.
You may not give a shit about your 4th amendment rights, but other people do.
Actually, no this isn't statism in practice.
This is what happens when people who like to use the word statism fuck with the system to put power in the hands of corporations at the expense of everybody else.
This is not a natural outcome of having a government.
This is a natural outcome of people who think corporations should be able to do anything they want, and that the "market" will solve all problems.
People who believe corporations should be able to act without regulation have been responsible for making this shit a reality. This has NOTHING to do with the basic premise of having a government, and EVERYTHING to do with greedy bastards subverting the system to tilt it in favor of corporations.
It's the people claiming that corporations and profit seeking are inherently good, and that removing regulations will somehow magically produce good outcomes who caused this mess. Once you set up your system to be beholden to corporate interests, it's pretty much fucked and will descend further into corruption.
Sorry, but the more we pretend that anything corporations do is good, right and proper, the more stupid shit like this happens.
Can they do this without it being visible light?
I'm pretty sure you could really mess up some epileptics this way.
Not to mention I can see this giving some people migraines ... I know many many people who can see the flickering of fluorescent lights.
Cool, awesome, yay progress. But I don't want to be in a place where I am aware of the flashing lights.
Of course, my problem with this bullshit statement is it is a complete fucking lie.
This is not groups of individual citizens, this is the CEO and a couple of other executives pushing for what they want.
This has nothing at all to do with the collective will of groups of citizens. This is a handful of people who act as if they're nobly representing the views of groups of citizens.
What they're actually doing it furthering their own interests, at the expense of everybody else, and having it paid for by their shareholders.
Oh, horseshit.
Corporations bought and fucking paid for those rules. That doesn't make them good.
It means the politicians have been corrupt long enough that idiots think that a broken and corrupt system is just "the rules of the system".
Eat the rich, and shoot the politicians if this is the fucking status quo.
Is it a democracy when the outcomes are bought by corporate interests by giving money to greedy politicians to influence the outcomes?
I think not.
This is just a corrupt system masquerading as something else.
This is how banana republics operate, but that seems to be where we're going.
Yup, essentially the politicians have set it up so they can be openly bribed/bought off to give corporations more consideration than the rest of us.
If this doesn't show how corrupt and broken the system is, I have no idea what will.
There's no way the politicians will change the law so they can no longer get paid ... it's simply too lucrative.
They're all crooks, and should be thrown in jail.
The only time I have ever been aware of hitting a mobile site is when you have that "gah, WTF is this crap?" moment where you can't find anything and the link you followed has been swallowed by the crap which has said :"hey, you're on a mobile, how about we fail to show you what you were looking for?".
As I said, on my tablet I'm constantly saying "request desktop site", because the mobile website is utterly useless. It's worse than useless, because it's just a redirect to a badly written website with crap content.
I have yet to see a useful mobile website. And most places now are so damned focused on having their own damned app, which in many cases is not as useful as their website ... but, hey, it's an app so we're cool, right?
In the mid 90's a friend said to me that "everything as the web" had put user interface design back by 20 years. Mobile websites and many apps seem hell bent on continuing to deliver shitty interfaces.
For many many sites on my tablet, I don't care about your damned app (because you just want access to too much stuff on my phone and want to embed ads) ... honestly, I'm better off skipping the app and going to the actual website.
I hope we reach "peak phone" soon, because for those of us who don't spend every waking moment with our cell phone, the shit which is focused around that is kind of tedious.
The honest answer to this question is Google cares about one thing, and one thing only ... their fucking ad revenue.
So they've decided they'll use their dominant position to try to force everybody into re-tooling their sites to make sure Google makes as much money as possible.
Never mind that most mobile versions of websites are utter garbage which are unusable and impossible to find anything, and that links you follow are immediately broken.
This is purely about Google's revenue stream.
But, yes, I agree with you ... when I'm searching from my desktop I don't give a flying crap if the site has a mobile presence or not, because I usually have to request the desktop site for it to be useful.
But then Google would need to know you're a desktop, otherwise they're going to have different set of search results. And they don't want that.
I can't tell you how often I have to tell my browser on my tablet to give me the real desktop site ... because most mobile sites are complete shit.
Links don't work, you don't have the same information, the layout is terrible, and you can't find anything.
In my experience and opinion, most mobile websites are written by morons, to satisfy a checkbox defined by marketing, and are generally pretty much useless.
Since most phones run at the same resolution as a desktop ... WTF is the purpose of a badly written mobile site?
So can chimps now be arrested? Sued? Hold a job? Pay taxes? Get married? (Would it be ok if the chimps didn't do same sex marriage?) Hell, if they're legal persons, what's the age of consent for a chimp?
Either you define the rights and obligations which come from being a "legal person", or you are just making shit up as you go, and then you have a legal system based on nothing which can be interpreted.
Unless you clarify and codify a LOT of things as a result of this, what you have is a stupid decision which exists in a vacuum.
So if dogs suddenly became legal persons, would it be illegal to put stray dogs in the pound without a court hearing? Because, that's where we get with a habeus corpus ruling which applies to animals.
This is the end game for entities like PETA, where animals are legally recognized as "people" .. but PETA is full of people who wouldn't understand logic if it bit them in the ass, and opens a whole slew of problems which nobody has answers for.
Your honor, I submit that this cow, hereafter referred to as Bessie has not consented to be in a feed lot and would prefer to live in her natural environment. What's that? A modern cow has no natural environment because it only exists because we keep them?
Sorry, but this judge has either decided to open up a can of worms he hasn't even begun to understand, or he's an idiot who has been hoodwinked by a grandiose legal argument.
At the time of publishing, the chimps were unavailable for comment, though they could be observed engaging in their habitual poo-flinging and screeching.
The judge has indicated that if the chimps cannot conduct themselves with decorum in the court he will summarily find against them.
Rights campaigners have suggested the lawyers representing the chimps could be used in place of the chimps, thought there was some debate as to if the lawyers were themselves considered legal persons, instead of merely being slime bags.
I'm sorry, but while I do acknowledge that primates aren't simply dumb animals, do in fact have feelings and experience pain ... I'm still having a hard time understanding how they can be "legal persons" in anything but a highly contrived scenario of faulty logic which only PETA would believe.
Can they vote? Enter into contracts? Do they require legal guardians?
This seems like it will start to get into a slippery slope where there isn't so much a legal definition of "legal person", as some hand-wavy definition which will make the crunchy granola animal rights people happy, but which otherwise will be almost useless in law.
What next? Dogs? Cats? Gerbils? Rats? Crows?
WTF is the definition of legal person at this point?
Generally, I would say that machine would only be IO bound if it had so little memory it was constantly paging.
Those things once loaded are NOT doing heavy disk IO. Heavy disk IO would be thrashing in all likelihood.
So you add more RAM. You'd be amazed how many "IO" problems can be fixed with eliminating the IO in the first place by adding RAM.