The speed increase indicated when the car hits a bump would be roughly from 30 to 114 in.1 sec something achievable by a car only if it has a rocket up its arse.
That might be a way to tell.
There are no cliffs mentioned in the story so we can ignore that scenario.
Actually if the EDR is recording data from sensors in seatbelts and airbags the inertial data from those sensors would give some idea of the things you mention.
In Australia the speed guns need to be calibrated and signed off by a tech regularly or the readings are invalid. Thats the first thing you ask a cop if you really think they got the speed wrong. "Can I see the calibration certificate" People have won cases on this.
How quickly a court will accept readings from a persons own car that might not have been serviced for 6 months is a big if.
I can't see local cops being able to use the 15min data without some serious adjustments to the law.
Because citizens won't wear it. Not as you imply, because of the loss of revenue. Most authorities can see that less accidents happen when people obey traffic rules. Less accidents means less costs associated with those accidents.
Speeding fines are a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of road accidents but people want to be able to speed occasionally if they think they need to.
Personally I think there should be more red-light cameras.
Serious questions from someone who has serious reservations recommending Fellowship of the Rings and The Twin Towers to others.
Yeah, there I was thimnking I had an enjoyable few hours. You're right, it was such an awful movie.
Nothing happened, the special effects were shite, the acting was unconvincing (did anyone really believe there was two of those little weird guys, you couldn't get two guys that ugly).
All in all a complete waste of $10.00 for 6 hours of mindless entertainment. I really should be doing something more worthwhile. What do you suggest.
In Australia RSI has been around for 20 years as a recognized ailment in office work. It became a big issue when data entry women started to come down with various types in relatively large numbers.
It was thought at first to be malingering but soon recognized as a real problem for many workers and steps taken in workplaces to alleviate the problem.
It is not a big issue anymore. Still happens but not on the same scale.
And all our meatworkers are white men. But because they have coverage of workmans compensation for work related injuries that they get the same payments as office workers for those injuries. And because they are unionized they are not afraid to ask for help if they are injured.
As a matter of interest the premiums on the workmans compensation insurance is risk related and about the highest rate is paid for meat workers and the lowest for office workers.
But my question is this. If the meatworkers were not unionized and there was no universal compensation scheme then I have no doubt that they would not have the same benefits as office workers but (given that they are white like the office workers) it would be presumably because they were poor and economically powerless
If they were replaced by non-whites but nothing changed why would we say then that they were not getting those benefits because they aren't white.
Is that not what happened in the US. Meat workers were at one stage white. They didn't have some benefits. Now they are non-white. They still don't have some benefits. But not because they are non-white. They never had them. And their inability to get them is related to their powerless status more than their race, isn't it?
There is enough crap happening to people because of racial prejudice without inventing new stuff.
It sort of loses meaning after a while, this tyranny thing. To write off western civilization since the French Revolution as a tyranny of the rich is a bit short sighted.
That doesn't benefit the animal to take it's life.
Thank you for explaining that. Now I understand your statement better.
Not willing to face the truth is called a state of "denial"
The truth is that animals are not humans nor are they equal to humans or the same as humans. They are not better or worse than human; they just are not human. I do not have any moral problems with killing animals for food. Nor should you, it's perfectly natural for humans to eat meat. I would not knowingly cause an animal unnecessary pain or stress. Nor should you, it displays a lack of concern for obvioulsly sentient beings. It is possible to reconcile these two statements.
That is the truth.
I read somewhere on the internet that not being willing to face the truth is called a state of denial.
I hardly think I qualify as a grammar troll on the basis of one comment (meant humourously) that related one of your typing errors to the insults you were hurling at me about my lack of education and sleep.
But it is perfectly resonable to believe that there are sufficient differences between humans and the animals that we commonly eat to have no moral problems with the concept of killing them for food.
I stand by my statement in another post that i dislike people who arrive at a position through years of seeking and then expect me to believe something on their say-so. I equally dislike people who insist on me getting educated about something (going on the same years of seeking) and assume that this education will give me the same views on things as they have.
The more I learn (v.) the less I know (n.) When I help my kids with their school work I try to get them to focus on the right question. You don't get smarter getting the right answer to the wrong question.
All you have are answers. Shit, I can get them anywhere. I don't need an education for that. You prove that.
I do not understand your first statements. "solutions that work, not skeptical games". If these terms are meaningful in the context of your activism they aren't really so in the current discussion.
I read PETA and found the newslink to yahoo news. I hadn't seen that report before but I tend to get my hard info from newspapers, magazines and radio. So I assume if there is any value to it I'll hear about it next week. READing on the INTERNET is fun but you can't believe everything you see there, can you.
That was about the only fact in your entire post. The rest was basically opinion or statements about what PETA should be doing.
My scientist statement was a serious question to your statement that you were a vegitarian because it is morally wrong to take the life of one being only to benefit yourself. I didn't understand the 'only to benefit yourself' qualifier.
But I didn't particularly want to discuss freshly dead animals and the attendant disease risks etc so I picked animals that died naturally but were suitable for use. I had to invent them first. I don't see how all that exemplifies my inability to learn and change.
You've abused your already depleting brain enough for one night.
Yeah well I'm not the one who forgot the closing i / am I. And I wrote all that stuff at 10.30am Friday here on the east coast of Australia. I can believe it's very late at night wherever you are.
PETA is for Ethical treatment isn't it. Does not ethics have something to say about lessening of pain.
because it is morally wrong to take the life of one being only to benefit yourself.
So if scientists could genetically modify an animal so that at the peak of its food value it died quickly and painlessly, you would be in line with your bun.
The recent SARS outbreak is just one implication of factory farming
That may prove to be the case but you saying it doesn't make it so.
But it's the truth
I love fanatics who arrive at their firmly held belief after years of consideration and reasoned thinking and then expect me to immediately accept their truth because they shouted it out at me.
I'm not going to abuse you. You do enough of that to yourself already.
Re:I Modded Down 5 European Posts
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You think we read this stuff for comment by the elite levels of the US corporate and academic sector. In Europe and Australia/. is preloaded in the Opera hotlist under Humour.
Re:but it's more humane!
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Is it true that boeing was worried when they first used the machine that all their jet engines would have to be redesigned until they realized that the techs wheren't thawing the chicken out before use.
A 5-person shop now may buy one copy of MS Word, and make 4 copies because they can't afford 5 full copies. That does NOT mean that MS has lost the sales of 4 copies. It means the company was willing to fork over the cost of one copy of Word for 5 users to use it.
But what gives them the right to decide they only want to pay once for something that they know when they buy it is intended to be bought for each user.
That same company may now very well buy NO copies of MS Word, and go to a cheaper product because the cost of 5 copies of the product is not an acceptable value for the product they get.
In which case they wouldn't have a problem and the BSA wouldn't be on their backs.
When someone copies software who would never in a million years actually buy it,
I simply don't understand the argument "I want it, but I don't want to/can't afford to pay for it so I'll just take it if I can." as it applies to non-material things. Taken to its logical conclusion you would find it acceptable if a software company only sold one copy of any product that was then copied by anyone who wanted to use it for whatever reason. The only questiuon you culod ask them would be "Would you have bought the thing if you couldn't get it for free" to which the expected response is "No, your honour, honest"
What sort of business is forced to accept a situation where they can only sell to however can't otherwise obtain a copy of their product and let everyone else who wouldn't in a million years buy it, use it for free.
You either accept that copyright should exist and argue about limits on it or you don't accept that copyrights should exist in which case you don't justify your actions on the basis of cost.
We did in fact need that and some argued that from the first but give a polititian a choice between floating a telecom service company for $10billion and a Telecom Service Company which also owns the wires for $45billion and which will he pick.
And of course now it would cost even more to buy it back because the wires are pretty much the only way to make money in telecomms these days.
we'd all still be on noisy dialup lines because there's no incentive for them to do the upgrades needed for DSL.
You picked it in one.
The biggest problem in Australia delaying the rollout of ASDL is Telstras habit of using fibre, RIM's and pair-gain technology to keep costs down. Fibre I can accept because when Telstra began rolling out fibre it was the 'future' of telecommunications (Australia has a lot of fibre).
But they are still using pair-gain and RIMs in new developments. I live in an estate that is two years old and still being built and the new installations down the road are non-ADSL friendly. I'm not even talking about retro fitting all the old stuff which I accept might be expensive but you think they might stop using it now.
That nasty old Chinese goverment is building a big ugly dam in a pretty spot. You should care because they are also going to hurt some cute fluffy animals. They say its so they can make some electricity and stop water getting into their houses but I don't believe that for one minute.
What do you think?
As if I fucking care what someone who wants to contribute on the basis of a two sentence synopsis of the 3G project thinks.
Nobody gives a damn about two thousand year old broken clay pottery when their stomach is empty.
How the hell do you know that? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of people in dire straits who act to protect and conserve places and things of value to their community.
Just because they are hungry doesn't mean they will pay any price. The Chinese are the perfect example of a people who value education and who would be go without to ensure their children got it.
Slashdot Mirror
That might be a way to tell.
There are no cliffs mentioned in the story so we can ignore that scenario.
Actually if the EDR is recording data from sensors in seatbelts and airbags the inertial data from those sensors would give some idea of the things you mention.
How quickly a court will accept readings from a persons own car that might not have been serviced for 6 months is a big if.
I can't see local cops being able to use the 15min data without some serious adjustments to the law.
Speeding fines are a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of road accidents but people want to be able to speed occasionally if they think they need to.
Personally I think there should be more red-light cameras.
Yeah, there I was thimnking I had an enjoyable few hours. You're right, it was such an awful movie.
Nothing happened, the special effects were shite, the acting was unconvincing (did anyone really believe there was two of those little weird guys, you couldn't get two guys that ugly).
All in all a complete waste of $10.00 for 6 hours of mindless entertainment. I really should be doing something more worthwhile. What do you suggest.
It was thought at first to be malingering but soon recognized as a real problem for many workers and steps taken in workplaces to alleviate the problem.
It is not a big issue anymore. Still happens but not on the same scale.
And all our meatworkers are white men. But because they have coverage of workmans compensation for work related injuries that they get the same payments as office workers for those injuries. And because they are unionized they are not afraid to ask for help if they are injured.
As a matter of interest the premiums on the workmans compensation insurance is risk related and about the highest rate is paid for meat workers and the lowest for office workers.
But my question is this. If the meatworkers were not unionized and there was no universal compensation scheme then I have no doubt that they would not have the same benefits as office workers but (given that they are white like the office workers) it would be presumably because they were poor and economically powerless
If they were replaced by non-whites but nothing changed why would we say then that they were not getting those benefits because they aren't white.
Is that not what happened in the US. Meat workers were at one stage white. They didn't have some benefits. Now they are non-white. They still don't have some benefits. But not because they are non-white. They never had them. And their inability to get them is related to their powerless status more than their race, isn't it?
There is enough crap happening to people because of racial prejudice without inventing new stuff.
no wait. i'll host a bank on my P4 at home.
Democracy is tyranny of the majority
Capitalism is tyranny of money.
It sort of loses meaning after a while, this tyranny thing. To write off western civilization since the French Revolution as a tyranny of the rich is a bit short sighted.
Apart from that I agree with your points.
I remember a TV executive accusing those who skip ads as criminals.
They have only never attacked because there was no way they could stop it on VCR's by the time they realized it was a problem.
Backlash is a perfectly acceptable usage, isn't it?
Your alternative is more complex for no real clarity gain as far as I can see.
Thank you for explaining that. Now I understand your statement better.
Not willing to face the truth is called a state of "denial"
The truth is that animals are not humans nor are they equal to humans or the same as humans. They are not better or worse than human; they just are not human. I do not have any moral problems with killing animals for food. Nor should you, it's perfectly natural for humans to eat meat. I would not knowingly cause an animal unnecessary pain or stress. Nor should you, it displays a lack of concern for obvioulsly sentient beings. It is possible to reconcile these two statements.
That is the truth.
I read somewhere on the internet that not being willing to face the truth is called a state of denial.
I hardly think I qualify as a grammar troll on the basis of one comment (meant humourously) that related one of your typing errors to the insults you were hurling at me about my lack of education and sleep.
But it does sound more like Adelaide
nobody says doolally anymore mate. It's all so bloody American nowadays. The word is fuckers.
I stand by my statement in another post that i dislike people who arrive at a position through years of seeking and then expect me to believe something on their say-so. I equally dislike people who insist on me getting educated about something (going on the same years of seeking) and assume that this education will give me the same views on things as they have.
The more I learn (v.) the less I know (n.) When I help my kids with their school work I try to get them to focus on the right question. You don't get smarter getting the right answer to the wrong question.
All you have are answers. Shit, I can get them anywhere. I don't need an education for that. You prove that.
I read PETA and found the newslink to yahoo news. I hadn't seen that report before but I tend to get my hard info from newspapers, magazines and radio. So I assume if there is any value to it I'll hear about it next week. READing on the INTERNET is fun but you can't believe everything you see there, can you.
That was about the only fact in your entire post. The rest was basically opinion or statements about what PETA should be doing.
My scientist statement was a serious question to your statement that you were a vegitarian because it is morally wrong to take the life of one being only to benefit yourself. I didn't understand the 'only to benefit yourself' qualifier.
But I didn't particularly want to discuss freshly dead animals and the attendant disease risks etc so I picked animals that died naturally but were suitable for use. I had to invent them first. I don't see how all that exemplifies my inability to learn and change.
You've abused your already depleting brain enough for one night.
Yeah well I'm not the one who forgot the closing i / am I. And I wrote all that stuff at 10.30am Friday here on the east coast of Australia. I can believe it's very late at night wherever you are.
because it is morally wrong to take the life of one being only to benefit yourself.
So if scientists could genetically modify an animal so that at the peak of its food value it died quickly and painlessly, you would be in line with your bun.
The recent SARS outbreak is just one implication of factory farming
That may prove to be the case but you saying it doesn't make it so.
But it's the truth
I love fanatics who arrive at their firmly held belief after years of consideration and reasoned thinking and then expect me to immediately accept their truth because they shouted it out at me.
I'm not going to abuse you. You do enough of that to yourself already.
You think we read this stuff for comment by the elite levels of the US corporate and academic sector. In Europe and Australia /. is preloaded in the Opera hotlist under Humour.
Is it true that boeing was worried when they first used the machine that all their jet engines would have to be redesigned until they realized that the techs wheren't thawing the chicken out before use.
But what gives them the right to decide they only want to pay once for something that they know when they buy it is intended to be bought for each user.
That same company may now very well buy NO copies of MS Word, and go to a cheaper product because the cost of 5 copies of the product is not an acceptable value for the product they get.
In which case they wouldn't have a problem and the BSA wouldn't be on their backs.
When someone copies software who would never in a million years actually buy it,
I simply don't understand the argument "I want it, but I don't want to/can't afford to pay for it so I'll just take it if I can." as it applies to non-material things. Taken to its logical conclusion you would find it acceptable if a software company only sold one copy of any product that was then copied by anyone who wanted to use it for whatever reason. The only questiuon you culod ask them would be "Would you have bought the thing if you couldn't get it for free" to which the expected response is "No, your honour, honest"
What sort of business is forced to accept a situation where they can only sell to however can't otherwise obtain a copy of their product and let everyone else who wouldn't in a million years buy it, use it for free.
You either accept that copyright should exist and argue about limits on it or you don't accept that copyrights should exist in which case you don't justify your actions on the basis of cost.
I absolutely refuse to have an address that is somehow patented or subject to copyright or some such bullshit.
And of course now it would cost even more to buy it back because the wires are pretty much the only way to make money in telecomms these days.
You picked it in one.
The biggest problem in Australia delaying the rollout of ASDL is Telstras habit of using fibre, RIM's and pair-gain technology to keep costs down. Fibre I can accept because when Telstra began rolling out fibre it was the 'future' of telecommunications (Australia has a lot of fibre).
But they are still using pair-gain and RIMs in new developments. I live in an estate that is two years old and still being built and the new installations down the road are non-ADSL friendly. I'm not even talking about retro fitting all the old stuff which I accept might be expensive but you think they might stop using it now.
But I don't think they will; I wouldn't. I mean just asking for it like that is pretty lame. You could at least make it funny.
What do you think?
As if I fucking care what someone who wants to contribute on the basis of a two sentence synopsis of the 3G project thinks.
How the hell do you know that? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of people in dire straits who act to protect and conserve places and things of value to their community.
Just because they are hungry doesn't mean they will pay any price. The Chinese are the perfect example of a people who value education and who would be go without to ensure their children got it.