Yeah - we think we're hot shit, but everyone else's Mom and Dad thinks we are vulgar and violent.
And when they aren't looking, all their kids try to get inside us, sometimes when we don't want it, but we let it happen anyway 'cause it feels so good.
I got the best illustration of the power of circumstantial evidence in an undergrad Intro to Law class.
"A five year old holding an empty pie plate and having a face full of blueberry filling is all circumstantial, but you can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt he ate the pie."
This was before "American Pie" came out, so I'm sure his analogy has changed by now.
The law allows for this kind of reasoning all the time. For instance, if there is a 2 car accident, if one of the cars hits the other with the front end, it is presumed that that driver is at fault, unless shown otherwise. This is because the driver should always be in control of the front end of his car.
That doesn't mean that it is irrevocably that driver's fault, just that he has a little bit more burden. I was in a situation like this in school - I hit the fender of another car. Whn she tried using "front end" logic to blame me, I pointed out that she had cut the corner and was in my lane, and I had the police report to prove it. It went to insurance, and I won, but I had to go the extra step of getting the police report.
Regarding your specific example, so what? I know plenty of folks that swear they are more careful drivers after drinking, but that doesn't make them right. And I believe there have been studies showing that reaction times for talking on a hands free phone are worse than those while legally drunk. BTW, your Onstar IS a cell phone for all intents and purposes - the talking and concentration is a distraction, not only the dialing
If you are in an accident while talking on the phone and it's someone elses fault, be damned sure you get evidence of that, because strict liability for cell use is coming. It may not come via the criminal or civil code, but common law is already there - If I'm the other driver in your accident, you can be sure I or my insurance company will ask to see the phone records.
The problem is tat, although what she was doing was illegal, how does the state enforce it? Without a police cruiser there to witness it, the law won't be enforced. (If a person is an asshole and there is no one there to bitchslap them, is it a social offense?)
One upshot of laws such as these is that, due to the nature of the offense, it can be PROVEN that the person broke the law by subpoenaing the phone records. They can't argue "But I really WASN'T swerving, officer (shaking tits), I was just readjusting my panties!"
I don't agree that this should be attacked piecemeal - law against cell phones, law against texting, etc. It should be treated like drunk driving - evidence of using a handheld interactive electronic device shall be prima facie evidence of wreckless driving. Likewise, if someone is on the phone - handheld or not - and they are in an accident, it is presumed to be their fault unless proven otherwise. These circumstances can be proven or disproven by looking up 3rd party records, like a breathalyzer gives evidence of DUI, or exhonerates (happened to me - Boy was the cop pissed off when I blew 0.02)
Penalties? Same as other wreckless driving or DUI.
Then why would the Democrats want to remove firearms from the hands of individual citizens? I guess they think the National Guard will defend the citizenry against their own government [cough.KentState.cough]
Not to worry - the Euoropean horse is so high that, even if they do fall off of it, it will be decades before the plummet to the depths in which the ignorant, fat, jingoistic US citizenry is mired.
Dude - you spent 3 paragraphs giving the "operation", but still didn't say what it DOES. What function does it perform? You sound like the professor in my ECE81 class at Lehigh. He could give us chapter and verse about how a circuit did what it did, but as a mechanical engineer I first wanted to know what the damned thing was used for.
"I would never, for a minute, consider this a threat to Wikipedia's reputation, however."
I disagree. Much is made of the idea of Wikipedia as a *community*, and that the strength of that community compensates for other structural vulnerabilities. The general response when someone posits mischief on Wikipedia is: "the community will catch it." So far, so good.
However, a community is composed of individuals, and the strength of that community is directly proportional to the strength of those individuals. An academic community's strength is relies on the individual credentials of it's members. Same with an athletic community (sports team), or a business community.
But the Wikipedia community members, being effectively anonymous, have no characteristics by which to be judged. Their strengths are judged solely on a subjective basis: do people trust and respect them? So far, the Wikipedia community has been doing OK in that regard, and is generally trusted and respected by the public at large.
But here comes a guy who had built up a high level of trust and respect who turns out to be highly untrustworthy. Let's face it - the guy invented a grand CV out of whole cloth. He lied, which is the antithesis to trustworthiness. So now here is a memmber of the wikipedia community who cannot be trusted, and has lost all respect. This diminishes the community, not only by the incremental loss, but by the questions it raises: who else is faking their credentials? Who else can't be trusted?
The damage from this one guy may be trivial, but it isn't inconsequential. If you pluck a hair from your head, you aren't bald all of a sudden. But if you keep doing it, you will definitely become bald, and it will be way before the last hair is plucked. It's all a matter of perception.
In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).
My guess is it's your motherboard, not the keyboard. Some later motherboards don't adhere to the original standards - kinda like the "lame serial port" problem in some laptops.
Drop the guy at http://www.clickykeyboards.com/ a line - he's quite helpful. They also have an adapter that will convert the PS/2 plug to USB, which might be a way around your problem.
The US history of fucking over Europeans only dates back to the beginning of the Bush administration - for some an eternity, but really only 6 years. I'll even give up 60 years, to post WWII - we all know the Marshall plan was just a big conspiracy.
The history of Europe fucking over the rest of the world goes back over 2000 years - Rome, Crusades, Colonialism. Find me a speck on the globe that wasn't exploited by some European.
"Since you bring up McCain, why not bring up Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, whose son is serving in Iraq, yet he also wants to bring the troops home. A few months ago Webb's son was almost killed by an IED explosion, and when Webb met Bush at the White House a few days later, Bush was explicitly told to be sensitive about this to Webb. Yet Bush still managed to be a dickhead to Webb when Webb said he wants to bring the troops home."
Huh? Bush asked how Webb's son was doing. That was being insensitive?
Then Webb replied with his "He wants to come home" comment - Can you honestly say that wasnt a political response? And Bush says "You know that's not what I meant". Who was being the insensitive one here? Should Bush have simply walked away, and thus be perceived as snubbing Webb?
Then Webb comes back with something about "Don't tell me about my relationship with my son." WTF?
Webb has a genuine greivance as a father, but he also has a chip on his shoulder, and acted like an ass. Instead of using his new position to further his goal of getting the troops home, he used his first face-to-face
Webb has shown his political hand for all to see - Bush says black, Webb says white; Bush says the sky is blue, Webb says it's green. The fact that the Dems put him up for the response to the State of the Union show they know this very well, and are amplifying it, which make them look just as politically motivated. Webb's been neutralized - he won't take part in any substantive negotiations, as his position was crystallized on the first week of his term. He also won't be important in any non-Iraq issues - he's defined himself as a one-issue politician.
If you are going to pick a politiian to ride as a white charger against the Dark Forces of the Republicans, pick a beter one - Webb serves both his cause, and the people of Virginia, poorly.
Dude, California is a state, not a nation, even though they pretend otherwise. Why go to Guam (lovely place, btw) when you can "import" them from, say, Arizona or Oregon?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah - we think we're hot shit, but everyone else's Mom and Dad thinks we are vulgar and violent.
And when they aren't looking, all their kids try to get inside us, sometimes when we don't want it, but we let it happen anyway 'cause it feels so good.
I got the best illustration of the power of circumstantial evidence in an undergrad Intro to Law class.
"A five year old holding an empty pie plate and having a face full of blueberry filling is all circumstantial, but you can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt he ate the pie."
This was before "American Pie" came out, so I'm sure his analogy has changed by now.
The law allows for this kind of reasoning all the time. For instance, if there is a 2 car accident, if one of the cars hits the other with the front end, it is presumed that that driver is at fault, unless shown otherwise. This is because the driver should always be in control of the front end of his car.
That doesn't mean that it is irrevocably that driver's fault, just that he has a little bit more burden. I was in a situation like this in school - I hit the fender of another car. Whn she tried using "front end" logic to blame me, I pointed out that she had cut the corner and was in my lane, and I had the police report to prove it. It went to insurance, and I won, but I had to go the extra step of getting the police report.
Regarding your specific example, so what? I know plenty of folks that swear they are more careful drivers after drinking, but that doesn't make them right. And I believe there have been studies showing that reaction times for talking on a hands free phone are worse than those while legally drunk. BTW, your Onstar IS a cell phone for all intents and purposes - the talking and concentration is a distraction, not only the dialing
If you are in an accident while talking on the phone and it's someone elses fault, be damned sure you get evidence of that, because strict liability for cell use is coming. It may not come via the criminal or civil code, but common law is already there - If I'm the other driver in your accident, you can be sure I or my insurance company will ask to see the phone records.
The problem is tat, although what she was doing was illegal, how does the state enforce it? Without a police cruiser there to witness it, the law won't be enforced. (If a person is an asshole and there is no one there to bitchslap them, is it a social offense?)
One upshot of laws such as these is that, due to the nature of the offense, it can be PROVEN that the person broke the law by subpoenaing the phone records. They can't argue "But I really WASN'T swerving, officer (shaking tits), I was just readjusting my panties!"
I don't agree that this should be attacked piecemeal - law against cell phones, law against texting, etc. It should be treated like drunk driving - evidence of using a handheld interactive electronic device shall be prima facie evidence of wreckless driving. Likewise, if someone is on the phone - handheld or not - and they are in an accident, it is presumed to be their fault unless proven otherwise. These circumstances can be proven or disproven by looking up 3rd party records, like a breathalyzer gives evidence of DUI, or exhonerates (happened to me - Boy was the cop pissed off when I blew 0.02)
Penalties? Same as other wreckless driving or DUI.
are the opiate of the pretentious.
I guess my question above is answered - a shill.
What twat modded this "Insightful?
A cure for the goatese problem...
Then why would the Democrats want to remove firearms from the hands of individual citizens? I guess they think the National Guard will defend the citizenry against their own government [cough.KentState.cough]
Not to worry - the Euoropean horse is so high that, even if they do fall off of it, it will be decades before the plummet to the depths in which the ignorant, fat, jingoistic US citizenry is mired.
"However, this raises yet another important point: Using *REAL* credentials to win a debate is a VeryBadThing(TM)"
I think my sarcasm detector is broken here, but It almost looks like you're serious.
Do you write copy for those Holiday Inn Express commercials?
Dude - you spent 3 paragraphs giving the "operation", but still didn't say what it DOES. What function does it perform? You sound like the professor in my ECE81 class at Lehigh. He could give us chapter and verse about how a circuit did what it did, but as a mechanical engineer I first wanted to know what the damned thing was used for.
You've been waiting months to post that, havent' you?
(Just bitter I didn't think of it first)
"I would never, for a minute, consider this a threat to Wikipedia's reputation, however."
I disagree. Much is made of the idea of Wikipedia as a *community*, and that the strength of that community compensates for other structural vulnerabilities. The general response when someone posits mischief on Wikipedia is: "the community will catch it." So far, so good.
However, a community is composed of individuals, and the strength of that community is directly proportional to the strength of those individuals. An academic community's strength is relies on the individual credentials of it's members. Same with an athletic community (sports team), or a business community.
But the Wikipedia community members, being effectively anonymous, have no characteristics by which to be judged. Their strengths are judged solely on a subjective basis: do people trust and respect them? So far, the Wikipedia community has been doing OK in that regard, and is generally trusted and respected by the public at large.
But here comes a guy who had built up a high level of trust and respect who turns out to be highly untrustworthy. Let's face it - the guy invented a grand CV out of whole cloth. He lied, which is the antithesis to trustworthiness. So now here is a memmber of the wikipedia community who cannot be trusted, and has lost all respect. This diminishes the community, not only by the incremental loss, but by the questions it raises: who else is faking their credentials? Who else can't be trusted?
The damage from this one guy may be trivial, but it isn't inconsequential. If you pluck a hair from your head, you aren't bald all of a sudden. But if you keep doing it, you will definitely become bald, and it will be way before the last hair is plucked. It's all a matter of perception.
I have *GOT* to see that movie.
(Honey, can I have a Netflix selection? Pleeeease?)
"In other words, you're overwhelmingly ignorant on the real world."
No, just apparently underwhelmingly funny/satiric.
Oh well, can't get it right every time.
In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).
I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.
My guess is it's your motherboard, not the keyboard. Some later motherboards don't adhere to the original standards - kinda like the "lame serial port" problem in some laptops.
Drop the guy at http://www.clickykeyboards.com/ a line - he's quite helpful. They also have an adapter that will convert the PS/2 plug to USB, which might be a way around your problem.
After all, Yahoo is the definitive source for financial information.
The US history of fucking over Europeans only dates back to the beginning of the Bush administration - for some an eternity, but really only 6 years. I'll even give up 60 years, to post WWII - we all know the Marshall plan was just a big conspiracy.
The history of Europe fucking over the rest of the world goes back over 2000 years - Rome, Crusades, Colonialism. Find me a speck on the globe that wasn't exploited by some European.
"Care to provide some data to back that up? I call bullshit."
When even Charles Schumer, uber-Dem from NY, says SOX needs changes to be more business friendly, it's a good sign that it REALLY has problems.
"Since you bring up McCain, why not bring up Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, whose son is serving in Iraq, yet he also wants to bring the troops home. A few months ago Webb's son was almost killed by an IED explosion, and when Webb met Bush at the White House a few days later, Bush was explicitly told to be sensitive about this to Webb. Yet Bush still managed to be a dickhead to Webb when Webb said he wants to bring the troops home."
Huh? Bush asked how Webb's son was doing. That was being insensitive?
Then Webb replied with his "He wants to come home" comment - Can you honestly say that wasnt a political response? And Bush says "You know that's not what I meant". Who was being the insensitive one here? Should Bush have simply walked away, and thus be perceived as snubbing Webb?
Then Webb comes back with something about "Don't tell me about my relationship with my son." WTF?
Webb has a genuine greivance as a father, but he also has a chip on his shoulder, and acted like an ass. Instead of using his new position to further his goal of getting the troops home, he used his first face-to-face
Webb has shown his political hand for all to see - Bush says black, Webb says white; Bush says the sky is blue, Webb says it's green. The fact that the Dems put him up for the response to the State of the Union show they know this very well, and are amplifying it, which make them look just as politically motivated. Webb's been neutralized - he won't take part in any substantive negotiations, as his position was crystallized on the first week of his term. He also won't be important in any non-Iraq issues - he's defined himself as a one-issue politician.
If you are going to pick a politiian to ride as a white charger against the Dark Forces of the Republicans, pick a beter one - Webb serves both his cause, and the people of Virginia, poorly.
"Because having first-mover advantage is actually worth much more."
The 90's called - they want their lameass-internet-stock-bubble-VC-speak back.
Dude, California is a state, not a nation, even though they pretend otherwise. Why go to Guam (lovely place, btw) when you can "import" them from, say, Arizona or Oregon?