Well, increasingly they have to make the decision as to whether or not the law is simply a law you can't legally pass because it ignores the Constitution.
Because an awful lot of laws have been passed by hysterical politicians which are nowhere near Constitutional.
Governments keep getting some idiot to write a legal brief which says "Constitution doesn't matter", and then it takes the courts to come back and say "hell no, you're wrong".
Bigger publishers have now realized you can actually sell these things to players as DLC. Want that special gun? Think you can unlock it with a cheat code? Nope! You've got to give us some money first!
And this is why my XBox isn't connected to the interwebs.
I'm not interested in your damned in-game economy, and I have no interest in getting my ass kicked by a 12 year old playing on-line.
I'll stick with my off-line gaming, thank you very much.
I know about the whole warticle thing, but I have no idea of what "all possible ways" is -- the event goes in all directions, but we didn't get bombarded by the particles which traveled away from us.
Other than possible effects of gravity, or passing through stuff, doesn't the like travel in mostly a straight line?
Think of it this way: would you be OK with it if I set up a roadblock between the street you live on and the next
Except, it's nothing like that.
If I'm parked in a parking space, and will be vacating it soon, I'm not denying you access to it, because it's not available to you at the moment. What I'm selling is the fact that I will be vacating it.
If you block me in a public street that's an entirely different thing. That is actively preventing me from doing something I'd otherwise be able to do -- you wouldn't be able to park in the spot I'm currently occupying, but nobody is stopping you from driving on the road.
then try to fleece the rest of the population by forcing them to pay for the privilege of parking in a space their taxes already paid for.
So, I have never tried to park in San Francisco. I assume they have parking meters.
If your taxes paid for it, WTF are you putting money into a meter for if your taxes have paid for it already?
It's not stealing. It might be a little on the 'asshole' end of the spectrum, but it's not stealing.
But I also think it's large multinationals who benefit the most, as they just shop around to find the people they can abuse for the least amount of money until they move on elsewhere.
It's the huge profits reaped by gutting your domestic workforce and applying a zillion times markup on your product like Nike does I dislike.
I am currently legally occupying a place, because I've paid the parking meter or am still within the period I can be parked for free.
What I'm selling you is the information that, for the next 20 minutes, the opportunity for you to get dibs on legally occupying the same space is up for grabs.
Now, understandably, if you had a whole bunch of people who camped out on these spots first thing in the morning and sold the spot to the highest bidder then nobody could ever find anything on their own. Because then as soon as they sell a spot they start looking for new ones and keep doing it all day long.
But, as far as selling things you don't own... well, companies trade in your personal information all the time. Some of us disagree that they 'own' it, they've just laid claim to it.
So, how is me selling the location of a parking spot I can make available to you any different than Google and Facebook exploiting your personal information to make money?
There are far deeper psychological issues surrounding drug addiction that cannot be addressed by the penal code.
And, it's not purely psychological issues. Some of it is social issues.
If you're poor, starving, abused, and miserable... well, one can see why you might turn to something to tune all that crap out.
If the 'solution' is simply "Yarg! Throw 'em all in jail", you completely ignore the reasons why people do these things in the first place. Psychological, sociological, illogical, and all sorts of things.
Ah, but (some) religion apparently absolves (some) people from the need for reasoning.
An argument which boils down to "because god told me" is irrefutable by logic, because it's not founded in logic.
And people are most wedded to the things which aren't based on actual reasoning, but are nonetheless Unassailable Truths because that's what they believe.
Sadly, economics and politics are rife with examples of things which are 'known' to be true because people believe it to be true. And evidence and reason be damned. It is simply taken as True, and any claims to the contrary are heresy.
And, sadly, the "they deserve to suffer because they're sinners, so throw them all in jail" seems to be a prevalent thing.
Oh, I'm not saying that in some contexts it couldn't be a tool, and I'm not saying something which helps prevent someone from dying of an overdose isn't a good thing... but if some well meaning idiot (and there are many) just decided to give people this 'for their own good', it could have very adverse reactions.
To your point, what needs to be done
LOL, what needs to be done is for actual medical professionals to ignore any random crap I say and get on with their jobs.
My point (although probably poorly expressed) is if you just gave this to someone and said "they're no longer addicted" that likely wouldn't work out so well. They'd still be addicted.
I'm all in favor of any tool which actually saves lives and helps with harm mitigation, but governments usually respond with the "well, if we make them so the cocaine doesn't work, problem solved addiction gone".
These same people are the ones who refer to pot as a dangerous narcotic, when in fact it's not a narcotic at all, except as defined by the law.
there are no antidotes for overdoses or medications to fight addiction that directly neutralize cocaine's powerful effects
And, this will do nothing at all to fight additiction.
You'll still be addicted, only the cocaine doesn't do anything. So you'll take more of it. Then you may die.
Me, I think they should put it into the water on Capitol Hill and on Wall Street, and see how many people start going through withdrawal symptoms. The ones which start going squirrely for no good reason are probably the hypocrites doing lines off their secretary's cleavage.;-)
I personally would never do so or even trust any Microsoft product with any personal data.
And who, exactly, do you trust?
Because from where I sit, they're all equally bad, and I don't trust any of them.
And that becomes a problem, because all companies want your personal data, and don't give a damn about your privacy.
Sooner or later, the management of all companies seem to decide "Oh, fuck it, we've got all this information, how can we make more money from it?". And since they can change their agreements at will, they can get away with it.
But, as far as a company I trust, that is pretty much none of them.
Fine, then, as I said, let the police do the exact same thing.
See how threatening a police officer works out for you.
I'm simply saying that it is literally trivial to be able to find places where you can identify a large amount of people doing this.
Which means if you make the penalties meaningful enough, it should be trivial to fine a lot of people, and if you write your laws correctly, have people eventually lose their license.
But from what I can tell, being able to pick a few places where this is easy to spot is so damned easy it isn't even funny.
Drivers would use their cell phones to get pictures of drivers using their cell phones.
Yeah, that'd work as intended...
You know, in many many places I could stand on a sidewalk and successfully do this. Hell, I strongly suspect in most places I could do this. Pretty much any busy intersection from what I've been able to see.
Give me $50 for every picture I can get with a face and a license plate and a cell phone... and I could probably make several thousand dollars in an hour without even trying very hard.
And, failing that, have a police office standing there doing the same thing, mailing out tickets, and taking points off people's licenses.
If many accidents are now caused by distracted drivers, and it's trivial to find places where you can stand there and watch people on cell phones while driving... do something about it.
I am definitely not defending that he did it, or how he did it.
But, from what I can tell, people are simply not going to stop using their phones while driving without a lot more enforcement and penalties.
I figure places where this is illegal could generate huge revenues (and hopefully start to effect change) by much more aggressively enforcing the bans.
I totally agree what he did was illegal, stupid, and dangerous. But I also can't help but notice the sheer number of drivers who are on their phones and driving badly every time I get into a car.
As I said, if I went a few blocks from my house to a busy intersection, and faced one corner with a telephoto lens for a few hours, I'm betting there would be a lot of people using their cell phone.
How often have you had to honk at the driver in front of you who hasn't noticed the light was green? Just a week ago I spent 15 minutes stuck behind a driver who was driving well under the speed limit, weaving all over the place, and I could see from her rear view mirror that about a third of the time (or more) she was looking down at her phone and not at the road.
I can't say I disagree with why he did it, but it's kind of hard to argue that he didn't break the law.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
If where I lived introduced one of those bounties where you get money if you can get a picture of a face and a license plate using the phone while driving... well, I could go a few blocks from my house to an intersection, and pay off my house in a few weeks.
Almost weekly I find myself behind someone who is driving a little erratic because they're holding their phone with one hand, gesturing with the other, and not paying attention to what's going on around them.
I feel bad for this guy, but I fear he's probably screwed, since he broke the law in doing this. If someone had needed to call 911 near him that wouldn't have worked out well.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, increasingly they have to make the decision as to whether or not the law is simply a law you can't legally pass because it ignores the Constitution.
Because an awful lot of laws have been passed by hysterical politicians which are nowhere near Constitutional.
Governments keep getting some idiot to write a legal brief which says "Constitution doesn't matter", and then it takes the courts to come back and say "hell no, you're wrong".
This is a fine example of this type of crap.
I take this to mean that the cable companies have decided any means of distribution they don't control is illegal.
I'm sure the cable company would make the argument, but since you're not a commercial service, their chance of knowing about it is slim to none.
And this is why my XBox isn't connected to the interwebs.
I'm not interested in your damned in-game economy, and I have no interest in getting my ass kicked by a 12 year old playing on-line.
I'll stick with my off-line gaming, thank you very much.
LOL, doesn't the light travel
Need more coffee
I have no idea what that means.
I know about the whole warticle thing, but I have no idea of what "all possible ways" is -- the event goes in all directions, but we didn't get bombarded by the particles which traveled away from us.
Other than possible effects of gravity, or passing through stuff, doesn't the like travel in mostly a straight line?
Well, there's your problem. For the last 13 years, it hasn't been.
Before that, it only might have been.
Except, it's nothing like that.
If I'm parked in a parking space, and will be vacating it soon, I'm not denying you access to it, because it's not available to you at the moment. What I'm selling is the fact that I will be vacating it.
If you block me in a public street that's an entirely different thing. That is actively preventing me from doing something I'd otherwise be able to do -- you wouldn't be able to park in the spot I'm currently occupying, but nobody is stopping you from driving on the road.
So, I have never tried to park in San Francisco. I assume they have parking meters.
If your taxes paid for it, WTF are you putting money into a meter for if your taxes have paid for it already?
It's not stealing. It might be a little on the 'asshole' end of the spectrum, but it's not stealing.
Oh, I have no problems with fighting poverty.
But I also think it's large multinationals who benefit the most, as they just shop around to find the people they can abuse for the least amount of money until they move on elsewhere.
It's the huge profits reaped by gutting your domestic workforce and applying a zillion times markup on your product like Nike does I dislike.
Because that's pretty much corporate serfdom.
Me, I'll definitely wait until they put up some verifiable, empirical data. ;-)
Funny, ours have been halving.
So it really is a race to the bottom.
I think stealing is a little incorrect here.
I am currently legally occupying a place, because I've paid the parking meter or am still within the period I can be parked for free.
What I'm selling you is the information that, for the next 20 minutes, the opportunity for you to get dibs on legally occupying the same space is up for grabs.
Now, understandably, if you had a whole bunch of people who camped out on these spots first thing in the morning and sold the spot to the highest bidder then nobody could ever find anything on their own. Because then as soon as they sell a spot they start looking for new ones and keep doing it all day long.
But, as far as selling things you don't own ... well, companies trade in your personal information all the time. Some of us disagree that they 'own' it, they've just laid claim to it.
So, how is me selling the location of a parking spot I can make available to you any different than Google and Facebook exploiting your personal information to make money?
And, it's not purely psychological issues. Some of it is social issues.
If you're poor, starving, abused, and miserable ... well, one can see why you might turn to something to tune all that crap out.
If the 'solution' is simply "Yarg! Throw 'em all in jail", you completely ignore the reasons why people do these things in the first place. Psychological, sociological, illogical, and all sorts of things.
Ah, but (some) religion apparently absolves (some) people from the need for reasoning.
An argument which boils down to "because god told me" is irrefutable by logic, because it's not founded in logic.
And people are most wedded to the things which aren't based on actual reasoning, but are nonetheless Unassailable Truths because that's what they believe.
Sadly, economics and politics are rife with examples of things which are 'known' to be true because people believe it to be true. And evidence and reason be damned. It is simply taken as True, and any claims to the contrary are heresy.
And, sadly, the "they deserve to suffer because they're sinners, so throw them all in jail" seems to be a prevalent thing.
And then can we make smores and stay up late? ;-)
Oh, I'm not saying that in some contexts it couldn't be a tool, and I'm not saying something which helps prevent someone from dying of an overdose isn't a good thing ... but if some well meaning idiot (and there are many) just decided to give people this 'for their own good', it could have very adverse reactions.
LOL, what needs to be done is for actual medical professionals to ignore any random crap I say and get on with their jobs.
My point (although probably poorly expressed) is if you just gave this to someone and said "they're no longer addicted" that likely wouldn't work out so well. They'd still be addicted.
I'm all in favor of any tool which actually saves lives and helps with harm mitigation, but governments usually respond with the "well, if we make them so the cocaine doesn't work, problem solved addiction gone".
These same people are the ones who refer to pot as a dangerous narcotic, when in fact it's not a narcotic at all, except as defined by the law.
I'm not sure how this is different from any major IT project I've been involved in.
Over budget, under-performing, and not nearly as good as the sales guy made it out to be. :-P
It's an antiquated term which used to be occasionally synonymous with 'mistress'. ;-)
Nowadays, they call them executive assistants.
I don't have a secretary you insensitive clod. ;-)
And, no, I have no interest whatsoever in trying cocaine.
However, I will concede to the more generalized 'motorboating'. :-P
They're a special breed of mouse, called the Charlie Sheen mouse. They inject them with tiger blood.
'Cuz that's how they roll, banging 7 gram rocks. ;-)
checks google, yes, banging rocks, that's what he said.
And, this will do nothing at all to fight additiction.
You'll still be addicted, only the cocaine doesn't do anything. So you'll take more of it. Then you may die.
Me, I think they should put it into the water on Capitol Hill and on Wall Street, and see how many people start going through withdrawal symptoms. The ones which start going squirrely for no good reason are probably the hypocrites doing lines off their secretary's cleavage. ;-)
And who, exactly, do you trust?
Because from where I sit, they're all equally bad, and I don't trust any of them.
And that becomes a problem, because all companies want your personal data, and don't give a damn about your privacy.
Sooner or later, the management of all companies seem to decide "Oh, fuck it, we've got all this information, how can we make more money from it?". And since they can change their agreements at will, they can get away with it.
But, as far as a company I trust, that is pretty much none of them.
Fine, then, as I said, let the police do the exact same thing.
See how threatening a police officer works out for you.
I'm simply saying that it is literally trivial to be able to find places where you can identify a large amount of people doing this.
Which means if you make the penalties meaningful enough, it should be trivial to fine a lot of people, and if you write your laws correctly, have people eventually lose their license.
But from what I can tell, being able to pick a few places where this is easy to spot is so damned easy it isn't even funny.
You know, in many many places I could stand on a sidewalk and successfully do this. Hell, I strongly suspect in most places I could do this. Pretty much any busy intersection from what I've been able to see.
Give me $50 for every picture I can get with a face and a license plate and a cell phone ... and I could probably make several thousand dollars in an hour without even trying very hard.
And, failing that, have a police office standing there doing the same thing, mailing out tickets, and taking points off people's licenses.
If many accidents are now caused by distracted drivers, and it's trivial to find places where you can stand there and watch people on cell phones while driving ... do something about it.
I am definitely not defending that he did it, or how he did it.
But, from what I can tell, people are simply not going to stop using their phones while driving without a lot more enforcement and penalties.
I figure places where this is illegal could generate huge revenues (and hopefully start to effect change) by much more aggressively enforcing the bans.
I totally agree what he did was illegal, stupid, and dangerous. But I also can't help but notice the sheer number of drivers who are on their phones and driving badly every time I get into a car.
As I said, if I went a few blocks from my house to a busy intersection, and faced one corner with a telephoto lens for a few hours, I'm betting there would be a lot of people using their cell phone.
How often have you had to honk at the driver in front of you who hasn't noticed the light was green? Just a week ago I spent 15 minutes stuck behind a driver who was driving well under the speed limit, weaving all over the place, and I could see from her rear view mirror that about a third of the time (or more) she was looking down at her phone and not at the road.
I can't say I disagree with why he did it, but it's kind of hard to argue that he didn't break the law.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
If where I lived introduced one of those bounties where you get money if you can get a picture of a face and a license plate using the phone while driving ... well, I could go a few blocks from my house to an intersection, and pay off my house in a few weeks.
Almost weekly I find myself behind someone who is driving a little erratic because they're holding their phone with one hand, gesturing with the other, and not paying attention to what's going on around them.
I feel bad for this guy, but I fear he's probably screwed, since he broke the law in doing this. If someone had needed to call 911 near him that wouldn't have worked out well.