This argument is stupid and probably comes from people who have never actually built a product the size of Adobe's products. You think they should just bow down and use whatever new flavor of APIs apple wants them too? Including sever costs to them in rewriting large portions of an application that heavily uses carbon considering it's mostly a visual app.
Sorry but, at least Microsoft understands that backwards compatibility is a requirement for those corporations to be able to create those kinds of products. I'm a Linux user but I can admit that lack of stable APIs have affected the development of things like device drivers for Linux.
This argument is EXACTLY why Apple doesn't want flash on the iProducts.
It doesn't matter why Adobe doesn't update their software fast enough. It could be because God himself is holding Adobe back. But that is Adobe, Apple does not want to be bound by Adobe's product plan.
Using your argument, it would be ok if Dell or HP sold a combo hardware/software box that could only run manufacturer approved application. Selling a packaged combo, with a limited number of software options would minimize support cost and improve vendor margins. Software vendors would have to have their applications approved by Dell and could only sell their applications through Dell. And by the way, you'd need to use their approved browsers and accept whatever ads the manufacturer wanted to push at you. This model would improve PC reliability (only tested and approved applications could be run) and increase the manufacturer's revenue. Back in the old days, we called this crapware--but at least you could uninstall those applications or reinstall to OS (or the OS of your choice)..
Pretty much what Apple has done.
Using the same argument, it would be ok for Microsoft to sell a hardware/software box that could only run manufacturer approved applications. They could call it an "Xbox".
In part you didn't comprehend what I wrote, and in part you are just plain wrong. The size of the market for iPhone apps is the total number of apps sold by all app developers. It;s not the number sold by a singe developer, nor is it the number of devices sold.
Actually he did understand what you wrote. What you wrote is wrong.
A "market" for a product is the demand for that product. If Apple never sold a single iPhone, what is the size of the market for iPhone apps? 0. There is no demand for iPhone apps without iPhones.
The size of the market for all smart phone apps is tied to the # of smart phones sold. The more phones that are sold, the more apps you have the potential to sell.
The number of apps sold only matters when determining things like market share, or market penetration.
Thus it's wrong to say that Android sales topping iPhone sales on that study means it's a bigger market. Wrong in several different ways.
It is wrong because it is incomplete. # of phones sold is not the only factor in determining the size of the market, but it is a major player.
Why on earth would you want to use an iPad to browse the internet if you have a laptop? Tiny screen, no Flash support, no keyboard
When I wanted to sit on my comfy chair on my deck wrapped in a blanket with a coffee in one hand and/. in the other.
Or when I want to browse while standing for an hour on the train twice a day.
Or when I want to just not carry around a 5lb brick everywhere I go when not working.
Or when I don't want unblockable popups.
... when did it become hip to use crippled devices?
You mean like a motorcycle instead of a car?
You mean like a regular cell phone instead of a smart phone?
You mean like a laptop instead of a desktop?
Many people like to use whatever is appropriate to the task.
It's not about things like this?
Read the comments. See how many people are ditching Firefox because of flash? I know people in my office that switched TO IE. Who the hell switches to IE unless they're really upset?
Really? I thought it was " Jobs' " was the correct possessive (example) of anything ending in "s".
[facepalm] How do people get through elementary school without learning this? That form is correct only for *plurals* ending in "s". The possessive of Jobs is indeed Jobs's. The possessive of lawyers is lawyers'. An exception is made for words ending in a "z" sound, as that is rather hard to pronounce.
[facepalm] How do people get through college without learning this? The topic is debatable, like whether or not you put a comma before the last item in a list. Some people say "always put the s", others say "put the s unless it is difficult to pronounce." Written text (books, magazines, etc) most often ignore the "difficult to pronounce" rule and go with the first. But, this is an informal message board that is treated more like spoken word so both are acceptable.
All English rules are like that: "i before e except after c and when it's not", so, don't be an English grammar nazi... you will always lose, even when you're right.
Apple users have a good experience because Apple keeps so much control. Because they have a good experience, they are repeat customers. To say its all about money... of course it is. But not from the App store. It is from offering products that buyers enjoy.
Linux caters to developers... and as a result, only nerds want it on their desktop.
He links to a Flash Software Evangelist's website as "proof", claims Apple is "just as bad" as Flash in terms of security and performance, says anybody working with HTML5 is "foolish at best"... He is a flash loving Apple hating blogger that doesn't say anything new and uses (imo worse) similar "misleading" and "bad form" tactics that he derides in Jobs.
I think the best part though was right in the middle, where I stopped reading. He showed very clearly that he is completely missing the core of what Jobs is trying to do. Jobs is trying to ensure that the end users of the iPad/iPhone/iPod have the best experience possible. Yes, that makes the lives of developers a little more difficult at the start because they have to change a bit. He even agrees with jobs that Adobe's goal is not the same as Apple's:
“It is their(Adobe) goal to help developers write cross platform” Yes exactly. As a developer, that is exactly what I want.
But that is NOT what the USERS want.
Imagine a tool box with only a Hammer in it. That is what Steve is trying to justify here.
No, Steve is trying to justify a million dollar home. See, the fridge is shiny and cold, foundation solid, rooms large, and its energy efficient. To make sure it is all of the things he thinks the buyer wants, he doesn't let the builders use asbestos. Cancer doesn't sell houses. Crashing, unblockable popups, and buggy interfaces don't sell iPads.
No matter what computer system you're talking about, from ATMs, to the magical window based laptops they have, to alien spacecraft, all computers can talk to each other and all applications will run on all systems.
Think about Independence Day, Jeff Goldbloom wirelessly installing a virus on the alien's spacecraft that took it down.
Actually, with email, there's a very real sense in which it all does get read. Almost all email sent via the public Internet is now run through spam filters, which "read" it all to give a spam rating.
Ok. I wasn't talking about email. I said postal. Emails are read by various Governments as well through programs like Echelon and filtered for security and trade benefits. It can be done, and is the reason I feel Google should not be exempt from responsibility in cases like this.
Everybody here is crying about what the Brazilian judge did. What did he do? He protected a Brazilian citizen from a large corporation just throwing up its hands saying "Its not my problem", when morally (and legally in Brazil) it is Google's problem.
If you put up a sign for the purpose of displaying a message, you become a distributor of said message
Ok, but google didn't put up a sign for the purpose of displaying a message - they put up a sign for the purpose of
letting others
display messages.
I didn't specify who's message. Google put up a forum to display A message. Like a newspaper with an opinion section, or any media showing ads: The distributor is not necessarily the content creator, but they still have legal responsibilities regarding the content.
The postal services and private postal companies do not read every letter that comes in, so to expect them to filter them is silly.
Oh, ok, so all that google has to do is say "sorry, we don't read those messages", and they'll be fine, right?
Right now in the U.S., yes. That is the extent of their legal responsibility. As soon as they release something in another media (print, tv, whatever), then they'll have to follow the same laws as other distributors.
That is not the case in Brazil.
I think Google should be treated like any other distributor. They provide the forum, they need to police the forum.
No one implied that Google was hacked. Providing a place where people might express themselves does not make you responsible for every idea that might be expressed. It's as simple as that. Own a pub? A couple of gorillas decide to duke it out, for any number of reasons? HEY! IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR HAVING A PUBLIC PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN DRINK, TALK, OR FIGHT!
You're missing the difference.
You provide a pub, you're responsible for people being 21 and over to drink.
You provide a boxing ring, you're responsible for unlicensed drunken boxing matches.
You provide a billboard, you're responsible for libelous messages posted
You provide an internet message board... you're immune because the law says so.
If that analogy makes you happier, sure. It doesn't change the meaning much, though, since it's still completely idiotic to hold one person responsible for the writings of another.
If you put up a sign for the purpose of displaying a message, you become a distributor of said message. You are required to take reasonable actions to ensure the message is not libelous. A very specific law protects Google and other "distributors" with online content in the U.S.
Obviously not so in Brazil.
Yes it is idiotic to hold somebody responsible for a 3rd party's actions, but not for their own actions. If a newspaper prints an opinion piece that it knows to be libelous, it can, will, and should be sued. The postal services and private postal companies do not read every letter that comes in, so to expect them to filter them is silly.
I happen to be of the opinion that Brazil has it right in this situation. The internet is far more damaging than any newspaper in libel cases, and as such should be held to higher standards. Any paper that prints bad information retracts it with a later story, read by the same people. The truth gets out.
When Google posts a bad post however, even if subjected to the same laws as the papers and posts a correction, the truth will not necessarily get out. There are too many small time institutions propagating the information around.
I don't think "free speech" holds up as an argument against holding Google responsible, because of the internet. Holding Google responsible merely means Google has to think before they post, the same requirement we have for traditional distributors. That doesn't restrict you or me from speaking; we can build our own website in minutes, or post to a newspaper, or distribute flyers, or advertise on a billboard. And we'll be held responsible for our statements, as will those on the distribution line that know what they're distributing.
"Linux on the desktop" stories contain actual content and usually some important advancement.
Hence the disagreement. Linux is not ready for the desktop of anybody but a computer freak. Any story about how great linux is for "grandma" is just linux fanboy masturbation material.
Please quote the section where I say this isn't TECHNICALLY correct?
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Emphasis is mine. Note that you said "will", not "might", not "maybe", not "in most circumstances". That statement, 100% of the time you will get a ticket, is not accurate.
For that matter, read to me where it says in ANY of CAs penal code that it is illegal to steal gummie bears from 7-11s on Tuesday. You wont find it, it's not there. BUT there are other laws which cover this. The same is true for your "red light while in the intersection" scenario.
That is exactly what I've been saying idiot. Being in the intersection on red is not a violation. There are scenarios where this may come up and you will not be ticketed.
*IF* you are in the intersection when it turns red, you CAN
Never disputed
and WILL get a ticket.
Still not true.
Most likely for vc 23103.
Probably.
Call up any local CA PD.
PD are not lawyers.
I called up mine and got quoted vc 23103 and a few others.
Good for you. I encourage you to continue to use the local PD for all your law related questions. They're very knowledgeable, that's why they make the big bucks.
So, quote bits and pieces of the VC if you like. Ignore the rest. Ignore the courts.
I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the possibility of a scenario that would put somebody, legally, in an intersection when the light turns red.
Take an example: You pull out of a corner gas station at a large intersection. The light turns yellow as you're leaving the crosswalk. Can't stop, you're required to proceed. Since you're just starting out, and you're driving a '72 pinto, you're only 3/4 across when the light turns red.
Ticket? Only if some cop wants to be a prick and claim you accelerated before the intersection to "beat the light". Or, maybe I'm wrong and you can cite the vehicle code that was violated in that scenario.
Not once did I argue you would not get a ticket. My only argument was that it is not illegal, in itself, to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Any ticket you receive in such a situation is for something LEADING UP TO BEING IN THE INTERSECTION: reckless driving, red light violation, whatever.
Which goes back to my original post: If it is not illegal to just be in the intersection, and the camera only takes 1 picture of you in the middle, then the picture is not sufficient evidence that you violated a law.
Like a picture of you holding a gun is not evidence of a crime BY ITSELF. You have to show something else: the gun is not registered, you're a convicted felon, you shot someone, etc.
Moron. I gave you 4 links. The first link was to the online dmv handbook. The next 3 links were to the actual vehicle code. Its that simple. It really is. Read the fucking posts.
The law is the vehicle code.
Duh. That is why I provided both.
That is not in the handbook you dumb lump.
3rd and last time. I know. You're the only one that even suggested such.
My god you're dumb. Your mom help you figure that one out?
They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language.
Think so? Huh, oh ya, I said the same thing in my 2nd post.
What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.
I'll just ignore your morning mirror pep talk. You must have accidentally posted it.
Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook.
I never said your first post was wrong. Never. I simply corroborated my original statement that the AC is wrong and that CA law is the same as Florida's as posted by NormalVisual. I did so by providing links to the actual CA vehicle code, which was summarized in my original link to the DMV handbook.
It doesnt.
Round the mulberry bush we go.
But I could be wrong.
You are. Again. Read the entire fucking vehicle code if you like. Please quote the section that says "If you are in an intersection when it turns red, you have violated the law."
Thats funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.
or know exactly WHAT the handbook is
It is the book the DMV gives you to practice for your test. See, if you click on the very first link I provided, you'll see it is an online version of the handbook. You can read the title of the page right? You can read the bread crumbs right? You can read the url right?
-- or perhaps I'm just not very good at communicating simple concepts.
That you seem to be doing ok with. Its the reading and comprehending that troubles you.
Click on the link I provided above (it's a PDF of the handbook available at any DMV (the english version))
Ya, I know. You can also find it by clicking on my link, clicking on the right most bread crumb (hint: it says "California Driver Handbook Table of Contents"), then clicking on the pdf version link at the top of the menu.
and please tell me what page your other links appear in (and it's not page 22 -- that's just plain english, not VC).
Why do you keep going here? I never even remotely suggested the VC is repeated inside the handbook. Lets rehash the conversation shall we?
My very first post in this entire thread was a link to the DMV handbook because it coincided with NormalVisual's comment about Florida law, and disagreed with the AC
After pulling the spoon out of your ear you responded saying that the courts went by the law, not the handbook.
You drooled, repeated yourself, and added "you will get ticketed for blocking the intersection", but admitted you didn't have the actual vc to cite.
So, I corrected you by providing a link to the VC that explains what blocking an intersection is, and how you get ticketed for it. I also reminded you I earlier provided both the dmv handbook and the vc concerning traffic lights.
You briefly forgot how to sit, but recovered before hitting the floor. Unfortunately you banged your head on the keyboard, got distracted by the pretty stars, and clicked submit.
And again I'll reiterate my original point: The very fact that you're in the intersection when the light turns red does not mean you broke any law. You will never get a ticket that reads "Driver was in the intersection when the light turned red."
Being in the intersection is not the violation (Unless you're stopped or in some other way impeded cross traffic). It is merely a sign that you probably committed some other violation.
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.
No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.
If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.
Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.
Still wrong.
Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.
Always they are for these.
Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.
Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.
No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link?
How to park legally
Slashdot Mirror
Good. I can still get my Tomacco.
He's a billionaire *on paper*. That *worth* could be wiped away in seconds.
Oh, well, in that case, I'll just stick with my ... $26.31.
This argument is stupid and probably comes from people who have never actually built a product the size of Adobe's products. You think they should just bow down and use whatever new flavor of APIs apple wants them too? Including sever costs to them in rewriting large portions of an application that heavily uses carbon considering it's mostly a visual app. Sorry but, at least Microsoft understands that backwards compatibility is a requirement for those corporations to be able to create those kinds of products. I'm a Linux user but I can admit that lack of stable APIs have affected the development of things like device drivers for Linux.
This argument is EXACTLY why Apple doesn't want flash on the iProducts.
It doesn't matter why Adobe doesn't update their software fast enough. It could be because God himself is holding Adobe back. But that is Adobe, Apple does not want to be bound by Adobe's product plan.
Using your argument, it would be ok if Dell or HP sold a combo hardware/software box that could only run manufacturer approved application. Selling a packaged combo, with a limited number of software options would minimize support cost and improve vendor margins. Software vendors would have to have their applications approved by Dell and could only sell their applications through Dell. And by the way, you'd need to use their approved browsers and accept whatever ads the manufacturer wanted to push at you. This model would improve PC reliability (only tested and approved applications could be run) and increase the manufacturer's revenue. Back in the old days, we called this crapware--but at least you could uninstall those applications or reinstall to OS (or the OS of your choice).. Pretty much what Apple has done.
Using the same argument, it would be ok for Microsoft to sell a hardware/software box that could only run manufacturer approved applications. They could call it an "Xbox".
Triton could call their combo an "ATM"
And Ford could call theirs a "Mustang".
Why is it only a problem if Apple does it?
In part you didn't comprehend what I wrote, and in part you are just plain wrong. The size of the market for iPhone apps is the total number of apps sold by all app developers. It;s not the number sold by a singe developer, nor is it the number of devices sold.
Actually he did understand what you wrote. What you wrote is wrong.
A "market" for a product is the demand for that product. If Apple never sold a single iPhone, what is the size of the market for iPhone apps? 0. There is no demand for iPhone apps without iPhones.
The size of the market for all smart phone apps is tied to the # of smart phones sold. The more phones that are sold, the more apps you have the potential to sell.
The number of apps sold only matters when determining things like market share, or market penetration.
Thus it's wrong to say that Android sales topping iPhone sales on that study means it's a bigger market. Wrong in several different ways.
It is wrong because it is incomplete. # of phones sold is not the only factor in determining the size of the market, but it is a major player.
Mod -1: Not Hating Apple iPad Enough
Won't somebody think of the children? We owe future generations a planet fit to live on and capable of sustaining the future.
Don't worry, it is being developed by a private company. Private industries regulate themselves.
Why on earth would you want to use an iPad to browse the internet if you have a laptop? Tiny screen, no Flash support, no keyboard
When I wanted to sit on my comfy chair on my deck wrapped in a blanket with a coffee in one hand and /. in the other.
Or when I want to browse while standing for an hour on the train twice a day.
Or when I want to just not carry around a 5lb brick everywhere I go when not working.
Or when I don't want unblockable popups.
... when did it become hip to use crippled devices?
You mean like a motorcycle instead of a car?
You mean like a regular cell phone instead of a smart phone?
You mean like a laptop instead of a desktop?
Many people like to use whatever is appropriate to the task.
Advice from someone who requires horizontal scrolling to read the text they're quoting? I don't think so.
It is even harder to take him seriously if you actually read his rant.
It's not about things like this?
Read the comments. See how many people are ditching Firefox because of flash? I know people in my office that switched TO IE. Who the hell switches to IE unless they're really upset?
Read a little lower and you find the real culprit: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558055
Which is solved by removing flash. I did. No more FF crashes.
[facepalm] How do people get through elementary school without learning this? That form is correct only for *plurals* ending in "s". The possessive of Jobs is indeed Jobs's. The possessive of lawyers is lawyers'. An exception is made for words ending in a "z" sound, as that is rather hard to pronounce.
[facepalm] How do people get through college without learning this? The topic is debatable, like whether or not you put a comma before the last item in a list. Some people say "always put the s", others say "put the s unless it is difficult to pronounce." Written text (books, magazines, etc) most often ignore the "difficult to pronounce" rule and go with the first. But, this is an informal message board that is treated more like spoken word so both are acceptable.
All English rules are like that: "i before e except after c and when it's not", so, don't be an English grammar nazi... you will always lose, even when you're right.
Apple users have a good experience because Apple keeps so much control. Because they have a good experience, they are repeat customers. To say its all about money... of course it is. But not from the App store. It is from offering products that buyers enjoy.
Linux caters to developers... and as a result, only nerds want it on their desktop.
I think the best part though was right in the middle, where I stopped reading. He showed very clearly that he is completely missing the core of what Jobs is trying to do. Jobs is trying to ensure that the end users of the iPad/iPhone/iPod have the best experience possible. Yes, that makes the lives of developers a little more difficult at the start because they have to change a bit. He even agrees with jobs that Adobe's goal is not the same as Apple's:
“It is their(Adobe) goal to help developers write cross platform” Yes exactly. As a developer, that is exactly what I want.
But that is NOT what the USERS want.
Imagine a tool box with only a Hammer in it. That is what Steve is trying to justify here.
No, Steve is trying to justify a million dollar home. See, the fridge is shiny and cold, foundation solid, rooms large, and its energy efficient. To make sure it is all of the things he thinks the buyer wants, he doesn't let the builders use asbestos. Cancer doesn't sell houses. Crashing, unblockable popups, and buggy interfaces don't sell iPads.
No matter what computer system you're talking about, from ATMs, to the magical window based laptops they have, to alien spacecraft, all computers can talk to each other and all applications will run on all systems.
Think about Independence Day, Jeff Goldbloom wirelessly installing a virus on the alien's spacecraft that took it down.
They even tend to reject people from jury pools if they happen to have a relevant clue.
No. I've tried that one before. You can't be "too smart to be on the jury".
Ah, but they can and do.
They reject people that are not representative of the population... ie, if you're not one of the accused' "peers".
So, I hope for your sake that the accused in your case wasn't an idiot. :)
Actually, with email, there's a very real sense in which it all does get read. Almost all email sent via the public Internet is now run through spam filters, which "read" it all to give a spam rating.
Ok. I wasn't talking about email. I said postal. Emails are read by various Governments as well through programs like Echelon and filtered for security and trade benefits. It can be done, and is the reason I feel Google should not be exempt from responsibility in cases like this.
Everybody here is crying about what the Brazilian judge did. What did he do? He protected a Brazilian citizen from a large corporation just throwing up its hands saying "Its not my problem", when morally (and legally in Brazil) it is Google's problem.
If you put up a sign for the purpose of displaying a message, you become a distributor of said message
Ok, but google didn't put up a sign for the purpose of displaying a message - they put up a sign for the purpose of
letting others
display messages.
I didn't specify who's message. Google put up a forum to display A message. Like a newspaper with an opinion section, or any media showing ads: The distributor is not necessarily the content creator, but they still have legal responsibilities regarding the content.
The postal services and private postal companies do not read every letter that comes in, so to expect them to filter them is silly.
Oh, ok, so all that google has to do is say "sorry, we don't read those messages", and they'll be fine, right?
Right now in the U.S., yes. That is the extent of their legal responsibility. As soon as they release something in another media (print, tv, whatever), then they'll have to follow the same laws as other distributors.
That is not the case in Brazil.
I think Google should be treated like any other distributor. They provide the forum, they need to police the forum.
No one implied that Google was hacked. Providing a place where people might express themselves does not make you responsible for every idea that might be expressed. It's as simple as that. Own a pub? A couple of gorillas decide to duke it out, for any number of reasons? HEY! IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR HAVING A PUBLIC PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN DRINK, TALK, OR FIGHT!
You're missing the difference.
You provide a pub, you're responsible for people being 21 and over to drink.
You provide a boxing ring, you're responsible for unlicensed drunken boxing matches.
You provide a billboard, you're responsible for libelous messages posted
You provide an internet message board... you're immune because the law says so.
If that analogy makes you happier, sure. It doesn't change the meaning much, though, since it's still completely idiotic to hold one person responsible for the writings of another.
If you put up a sign for the purpose of displaying a message, you become a distributor of said message. You are required to take reasonable actions to ensure the message is not libelous. A very specific law protects Google and other "distributors" with online content in the U.S.
Obviously not so in Brazil.
Yes it is idiotic to hold somebody responsible for a 3rd party's actions, but not for their own actions. If a newspaper prints an opinion piece that it knows to be libelous, it can, will, and should be sued. The postal services and private postal companies do not read every letter that comes in, so to expect them to filter them is silly.
I happen to be of the opinion that Brazil has it right in this situation. The internet is far more damaging than any newspaper in libel cases, and as such should be held to higher standards. Any paper that prints bad information retracts it with a later story, read by the same people. The truth gets out.
When Google posts a bad post however, even if subjected to the same laws as the papers and posts a correction, the truth will not necessarily get out. There are too many small time institutions propagating the information around.
I don't think "free speech" holds up as an argument against holding Google responsible, because of the internet. Holding Google responsible merely means Google has to think before they post, the same requirement we have for traditional distributors. That doesn't restrict you or me from speaking; we can build our own website in minutes, or post to a newspaper, or distribute flyers, or advertise on a billboard. And we'll be held responsible for our statements, as will those on the distribution line that know what they're distributing.
"Linux on the desktop" stories contain actual content and usually some important advancement.
Hence the disagreement. Linux is not ready for the desktop of anybody but a computer freak. Any story about how great linux is for "grandma" is just linux fanboy masturbation material.
But it still gets posted, as does this.
Huh? Wtf?
Why is this crap posted on Slashdot anyway?
Same reason "Linux on the desktop" stories get published. People have different viewpoints of what "crap" is.
Please quote the section where I say this isn't TECHNICALLY correct?
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Emphasis is mine. Note that you said "will", not "might", not "maybe", not "in most circumstances". That statement, 100% of the time you will get a ticket, is not accurate.
For that matter, read to me where it says in ANY of CAs penal code that it is illegal to steal gummie bears from 7-11s on Tuesday. You wont find it, it's not there. BUT there are other laws which cover this. The same is true for your "red light while in the intersection" scenario.
That is exactly what I've been saying idiot. Being in the intersection on red is not a violation. There are scenarios where this may come up and you will not be ticketed.
*IF* you are in the intersection when it turns red, you CAN
Never disputed
and WILL get a ticket.
Still not true.
Most likely for vc 23103.
Probably.
Call up any local CA PD.
PD are not lawyers.
I called up mine and got quoted vc 23103 and a few others.
Good for you. I encourage you to continue to use the local PD for all your law related questions. They're very knowledgeable, that's why they make the big bucks.
So, quote bits and pieces of the VC if you like. Ignore the rest. Ignore the courts.
I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the possibility of a scenario that would put somebody, legally, in an intersection when the light turns red.
Take an example: You pull out of a corner gas station at a large intersection. The light turns yellow as you're leaving the crosswalk. Can't stop, you're required to proceed. Since you're just starting out, and you're driving a '72 pinto, you're only 3/4 across when the light turns red.
Ticket? Only if some cop wants to be a prick and claim you accelerated before the intersection to "beat the light". Or, maybe I'm wrong and you can cite the vehicle code that was violated in that scenario.
Not once did I argue you would not get a ticket. My only argument was that it is not illegal, in itself, to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Any ticket you receive in such a situation is for something LEADING UP TO BEING IN THE INTERSECTION: reckless driving, red light violation, whatever.
Which goes back to my original post: If it is not illegal to just be in the intersection, and the camera only takes 1 picture of you in the middle, then the picture is not sufficient evidence that you violated a law.
Like a picture of you holding a gun is not evidence of a crime BY ITSELF. You have to show something else: the gun is not registered, you're a convicted felon, you shot someone, etc.
What you are linking to is *NOT* the law.
Moron. I gave you 4 links. The first link was to the online dmv handbook. The next 3 links were to the actual vehicle code. Its that simple. It really is. Read the fucking posts.
The law is the vehicle code.
Duh. That is why I provided both.
That is not in the handbook you dumb lump.
3rd and last time. I know. You're the only one that even suggested such.
What you are linking to is *NOT* law
Wrong. Again. The first link I provided:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
Is to the DMV Handbook (which, again, is not the law).
After you said "but the courts go by the law", I provided the next three links:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm
And You can confirm all of this by just reading the entire thread, which I already summarized and linked for you in my last response.
Notice how they are *NOT* the same?
My god you're dumb. Your mom help you figure that one out?
They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language.
Think so? Huh, oh ya, I said the same thing in my 2nd post.
What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.
I'll just ignore your morning mirror pep talk. You must have accidentally posted it.
Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook.
I never said your first post was wrong. Never. I simply corroborated my original statement that the AC is wrong and that CA law is the same as Florida's as posted by NormalVisual. I did so by providing links to the actual CA vehicle code, which was summarized in my original link to the DMV handbook.
It doesnt.
Round the mulberry bush we go.
But I could be wrong.
You are. Again. Read the entire fucking vehicle code if you like. Please quote the section that says "If you are in an intersection when it turns red, you have violated the law."
You won't find it, it's not there.
Sadly, I don't think you know how to read
Thats funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.
or know exactly WHAT the handbook is
It is the book the DMV gives you to practice for your test. See, if you click on the very first link I provided, you'll see it is an online version of the handbook. You can read the title of the page right? You can read the bread crumbs right? You can read the url right?
-- or perhaps I'm just not very good at communicating simple concepts.
That you seem to be doing ok with. Its the reading and comprehending that troubles you.
Click on the link I provided above (it's a PDF of the handbook available at any DMV (the english version))
Ya, I know. You can also find it by clicking on my link, clicking on the right most bread crumb (hint: it says "California Driver Handbook Table of Contents"), then clicking on the pdf version link at the top of the menu.
and please tell me what page your other links appear in (and it's not page 22 -- that's just plain english, not VC).
Why do you keep going here? I never even remotely suggested the VC is repeated inside the handbook. Lets rehash the conversation shall we?
And again I'll reiterate my original point: The very fact that you're in the intersection when the light turns red does not mean you broke any law. You will never get a ticket that reads "Driver was in the intersection when the light turned red."
Being in the intersection is not the violation (Unless you're stopped or in some other way impeded cross traffic). It is merely a sign that you probably committed some other violation.
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.
No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.
If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.
Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.
Still wrong.
Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.
Always they are for these.
Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.
I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection
Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.
No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally