I agree that the war on drugs is stupid and causes more harm than good. However, the counter argument that "people should be allowed to do things that only hurts themselves" is pretty poor in the case of most addictions (including but definitely not limited to drugs). Personally, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want.........
Why not treat drugs like any other product. Sell it legally, with reasonable regulatory restraints like age limits and prescription requirements where applicable. Then, if someone gets addicted or hurt in any way, simply sue the living crap out of the manufacturer and/or delivering entity.
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
A limo service catering to customers that do not want their (or their guests) picture taken by paparazzi or any other opportunists, but with security cameras that monitor what happens outside the car.
Of course, that's just a guess/assumption. I don't pretend to actually know, but I find it amazing that a bunch of folks who don't have a clue seem to be able to conclude what features the actual owner of the business may or may not have a use for.
We shouldn't assume it was or wasn't from the car without even knowing the source point. But if one were to guess, the most likely answer would be an electrical short somewhere in the circuitry. Even when "off", there are still hot circuits through the vehicle. Could be something as simple as a faulty contact or connector near a source of flammable lubricant or other material. Then again, it could have been something left in the car by a passenger. Less likely, IMO, but we just won't know till we are told.
Valid point, although even when the local guy owns several dealerships, there are usually others not far away that offer the same vehicles owned by someone else. Certainly there are different ways to manipulate. I was really just pointing out that its not so simple as some ignorantly conclude.
If all the dealerships are eventually owned by a few car manufacturers, then competition still exists but becomes much more limited. Manipulation of prices by various means can occur, particularly with high demand products where artificial shortages can occur, or dealers in higher priced markets get favorable treatment. We see this a little today with gas prices. Prices in some areas are inexplicably higher than others nearby, mainly because the stations can't individually set prices outside a certain range. There is still competition, but the competition has learned how to 'work together'.
I don't support the efforts to protect the dealers in this manner, but I'm not going to be one of the idiots that doesn't at least acknowledge there are some legitimate things behind these proposals.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Tesla or people buying Tesla's. Its about HOW cars are sold, not which cars are sold. It is dealership protection, plain and simple. Folks use Tesla to draw attention, but Teslas could be sold under the proposed law just like any car.. via dealerships.
Now, I am very much against this protection of dealerships. But it has nothing to do with Tesla, or political parties. You'll find plenty of protectionism in both parties. It stifles competition. While there may be a few legitimate consumer protection concerns involving unscrupulous car sellers, it doesn't really measure up, and there other ways to afford those protections if they think they are needed.
But anyone who jumps on the "republicans want to ban Tesla" wagon isn't really thinking very much about what really is at the core.
Its a great idea, as there are tons of people who like to build/tinker with cars and this provides a great platform to do something different.
But I agree that, at least in the US, safety codes will as obstacle to getting them road certified, which could essentially limit them to the 'commuter golf cart' realm. An off road version would be cool.
No, not like that. That's a typical ice storm,seen plenty of em. Road ice is very bad under those conditions, but not like what we just had here this week. Its rare, and I didn't say you never get it, but if you tell me you can drive it without the right equipment, then you've never driven in it.
The key is to never use your brakes (only coast) and turn your wheel as little as possible. This requires a lot of patience, which is why I would rather avoid driving until the salt trucks have gone by.
Your right, staying home is best & the only smart thing, but the quote above is making my point. Keep straight and don't use your brakes applies for most normal ice conditions, but extreme conditions without proper equipment that doesn't even help. If the road has even the slightest incline side to side, your vehicle is going to slide that way. Its physics, and there is no way around it. I don't see ice like that very often, maybe 6 or so times in the last 30 years, but that is what we had in front of our house this week.
Of course, you really can't compare driving on snow to driving on a sheet of ice. Folks far north rarely get the kind of ice that occasionally causes snarls in the southeastern US. I grew up driving in the mountains, snow driving no problem, icy patches no problem. But nobody can drive in these ice conditions in a typical 2wd car that has no winter tires.. If you think you can, you haven't never experienced it.
I see it as a plausible approach, since a automated brute force attack will stop whenever it thinks it hits the right pw, requiring human intervention to determine it is bogus. After a few thousand bogus hits, I think that human might just get tired of hitting the NEXT button.
The key is in human evolution. We must use our limited access to space, and maybe some of our radioactive waste, to breed a strain of humans that are adapted to weightlessness & resistant to radiation. If we can create a whole class of people who can do nothing all day and live off of Cheetos and Coke, then why not this?
You'll need accelerometers mounted in various places, and some moveable counterweights along the spokes to adjust for changes in weight balance , preventing wobble.
I think that cost model totally forgot to include the cost of the servers & infrastructure to deliver that amount of content to the masses reliably and with high quality. They seem to assume almost every dollar goes to licensing.
I worked with a customer that used them for building a new data mgmt system. Instead of guiding the team to starting with the basic structure and build on it, they wanted to map every conceivable use. A huge amount of time/money wasted on hypothetical data structures and unneeded complication. But, as you said, they had executive mgmt sold that they were the right company. They have good salesmen.
Unless they are replicating an existing system, I wouldn't use them.
Is it about punishment or deterrence? In the latter case, eye for eye does not apply.
BTW, I'm atheist and don't have any problem with the death penalty, and many "Bible Thumpers" are against it...kind of ignorant to assume on that front . If there's a cleaner way, I'm all for it. Make room for the next one.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the war on drugs is stupid and causes more harm than good. However, the counter argument that "people should be allowed to do things that only hurts themselves" is pretty poor in the case of most addictions (including but definitely not limited to drugs). Personally, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want.........
Why not treat drugs like any other product. Sell it legally, with reasonable regulatory restraints like age limits and prescription requirements where applicable. Then, if someone gets addicted or hurt in any way, simply sue the living crap out of the manufacturer and/or delivering entity.
It won't hurt to try.
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
A limo service catering to customers that do not want their (or their guests) picture taken by paparazzi or any other opportunists, but with security cameras that monitor what happens outside the car.
Of course, that's just a guess/assumption. I don't pretend to actually know, but I find it amazing that a bunch of folks who don't have a clue seem to be able to conclude what features the actual owner of the business may or may not have a use for.
We shouldn't assume it was or wasn't from the car without even knowing the source point. But if one were to guess, the most likely answer would be an electrical short somewhere in the circuitry. Even when "off", there are still hot circuits through the vehicle. Could be something as simple as a faulty contact or connector near a source of flammable lubricant or other material. Then again, it could have been something left in the car by a passenger. Less likely, IMO, but we just won't know till we are told.
Why not just wire fucking solar cells to our brains. Then we can get a energy tax credit AND O-care coverage! Add that up!
A shocking discovery.
Valid point, although even when the local guy owns several dealerships, there are usually others not far away that offer the same vehicles owned by someone else. Certainly there are different ways to manipulate. I was really just pointing out that its not so simple as some ignorantly conclude.
Tesla may be the first, but why would you think they'd be the only? Again, its not about Tesla, its about the practice.
If all the dealerships are eventually owned by a few car manufacturers, then competition still exists but becomes much more limited. Manipulation of prices by various means can occur, particularly with high demand products where artificial shortages can occur, or dealers in higher priced markets get favorable treatment. We see this a little today with gas prices. Prices in some areas are inexplicably higher than others nearby, mainly because the stations can't individually set prices outside a certain range. There is still competition, but the competition has learned how to 'work together'.
I don't support the efforts to protect the dealers in this manner, but I'm not going to be one of the idiots that doesn't at least acknowledge there are some legitimate things behind these proposals.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Tesla or people buying Tesla's. Its about HOW cars are sold, not which cars are sold. It is dealership protection, plain and simple. Folks use Tesla to draw attention, but Teslas could be sold under the proposed law just like any car.. via dealerships.
Now, I am very much against this protection of dealerships. But it has nothing to do with Tesla, or political parties. You'll find plenty of protectionism in both parties. It stifles competition. While there may be a few legitimate consumer protection concerns involving unscrupulous car sellers, it doesn't really measure up, and there other ways to afford those protections if they think they are needed.
But anyone who jumps on the "republicans want to ban Tesla" wagon isn't really thinking very much about what really is at the core.
But does BTsync have encrypted storage? I think they don't have that ready yet. That's key for me.
Its a great idea, as there are tons of people who like to build/tinker with cars and this provides a great platform to do something different.
But I agree that, at least in the US, safety codes will as obstacle to getting them road certified, which could essentially limit them to the 'commuter golf cart' realm. An off road version would be cool.
You could even says its for the safety of the oncoming drivers.... "hey, people may brake unexpectedly ahead, so be ready."
^Excellent post.
No, not like that. That's a typical ice storm,seen plenty of em. Road ice is very bad under those conditions, but not like what we just had here this week. Its rare, and I didn't say you never get it, but if you tell me you can drive it without the right equipment, then you've never driven in it.
The key is to never use your brakes (only coast) and turn your wheel as little as possible. This requires a lot of patience, which is why I would rather avoid driving until the salt trucks have gone by.
Your right, staying home is best & the only smart thing, but the quote above is making my point. Keep straight and don't use your brakes applies for most normal ice conditions, but extreme conditions without proper equipment that doesn't even help. If the road has even the slightest incline side to side, your vehicle is going to slide that way. Its physics, and there is no way around it. I don't see ice like that very often, maybe 6 or so times in the last 30 years, but that is what we had in front of our house this week.
Of course, you really can't compare driving on snow to driving on a sheet of ice. Folks far north rarely get the kind of ice that occasionally causes snarls in the southeastern US. I grew up driving in the mountains, snow driving no problem, icy patches no problem. But nobody can drive in these ice conditions in a typical 2wd car that has no winter tires.. If you think you can, you haven't never experienced it.
I see it as a plausible approach, since a automated brute force attack will stop whenever it thinks it hits the right pw, requiring human intervention to determine it is bogus. After a few thousand bogus hits, I think that human might just get tired of hitting the NEXT button.
The key is in human evolution. We must use our limited access to space, and maybe some of our radioactive waste, to breed a strain of humans that are adapted to weightlessness & resistant to radiation. If we can create a whole class of people who can do nothing all day and live off of Cheetos and Coke, then why not this?
How about a spinning barrel full of monkeys?
You'll need accelerometers mounted in various places, and some moveable counterweights along the spokes to adjust for changes in weight balance , preventing wobble.
A big spinning wheel shaped vehicle should suffice, albeit full of technical challenges.
I think that cost model totally forgot to include the cost of the servers & infrastructure to deliver that amount of content to the masses reliably and with high quality. They seem to assume almost every dollar goes to licensing.
I worked with a customer that used them for building a new data mgmt system. Instead of guiding the team to starting with the basic structure and build on it, they wanted to map every conceivable use. A huge amount of time/money wasted on hypothetical data structures and unneeded complication. But, as you said, they had executive mgmt sold that they were the right company. They have good salesmen.
Unless they are replicating an existing system, I wouldn't use them.
Is it about punishment or deterrence? In the latter case, eye for eye does not apply.
BTW, I'm atheist and don't have any problem with the death penalty, and many "Bible Thumpers" are against it...kind of ignorant to assume on that front . If there's a cleaner way, I'm all for it. Make room for the next one.