But do you think they'll actually do those things? Raise speed limits?
Absolutely. The only reason no one cares to lobby to raise the speed limit is cause it's not enforced. You say "they", but the fact is that "we" have the power to tell "them" what to do.
Car manufacturers tune their vehicles to get their best MPG at 55mph.
Actually it's more like 65, and to the extent that it's done intentionally, they'll just tune them higher.
Montana had virtually no speed limit until they were threatened by the federal government that they'd lose their funding if they didn't enforce the 75mph speed limit.
Clinton eliminated that several years ago. But to the extent that emissions are increased at higher speeds, this is an excellent way to get people to pay for the pollution they are creating.
Insurance providers won't lower rates for those who don't break the law - they'll just really jack up rates for those who do.
That's just not true. In a competitive marketplace profits are minimized. But if it does turn out to be true, I'll be sure to have bought stock in the auto insurance companies far ahead of time anyway.
It's the same with speed/rpm limiters on vehicles - you're more likely to be in an accident at 25-50 mph than 75-100+ because of traffic density and the "I'm almost home" syndrome.
I agree. But I'm not arguing about having the lower speed limits, I'm arguing about fairly enforcing those speed limits. IMHO (and apparently that of Abraham Lincoln), enforcing speed limit laws will tend to get those laws repealed.
So you *want* your insurance company and the state police to mail your parking tickets and speeding tickets to your house?
If I knew I was going to get caught, I wouldn't speed. Besides, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln
My God, insurance companies already have a racket going - and the sheep like you will blindly swallow it in the name of "think of the children" and "public safety".
No, I support it in the name of eliminating selective enforcement, lowering the tax burden of traffic police, raising the speed limits now that they don't have to be artificially lowered, and lowering the insurance rates of those who don't break the law.
If the time on the device isn't correct, the location it reports won't be correct. The average person working at a rental car company doesn't know anything about GPS, so it's likely to be off, but the average consumer won't think to question it.
Umm... You know nothing about GPS. The time is received from the satellite.
I give it ten years before U.S. insurance companies start providing generous "discounts" on your (state mandated) insurance in return for you allowing similar black-box technology.
And this is bad why?
Only the very wealthy and self-insured will be able to drive cars without GPS logging and remotely storing your position, velocity, and the time. Rates will be adjusted for forays into "unsafe" neighborhoods, parking outside of bars, etc.
Again, why is this bad? I wish my insurance company had this.
You'll die without sufficient sodium chloride (table salt), but more than 1 part per million of straight chloride will harm you (OSHA permissible exposure limit).
What is "straight chloride"? Are you talking about chlorine gas? The two are not comparible in terms of chemical effect.
I dunno... Slashdot readers watching a movie about a paranoid schizophrenic computer nerd who thinks he has the solution to everything and that everyone is out to get him. Might hit too close to home.
The movie was pathetic. I know some people liked it, but I consider it a waste of time. Almost everything they mentioned was some dream of the authors crazy imagination.
I think that was the point, considering that the character clearly suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Most of it wasn't supposed to be actually happening.
What I'd like to see is a low cost, low power, hard drive adapter which I can plug into my cigarette lighter to recharge and access from my iPaq whenever I'm within a few hundred feet of my car.
Maybe silly is a better word than stupid. It's silly because it's an arbitrary meaningless question which we almost surely won't even find the answer to.
a capitalist regime could restrict freedom to only the richest, with monopolies on everything from the supply of oil to the supply of chocolate to those who bid the highest to governments for a licence.
True, I guess, but then I have a problem with his statment that "captialism works".
I do believe that "capitalism works" in a free market, but the United States is far from a free market. As such a lot of what you learn in Economics 101 and 102 about fair prices being set by the market goes out the window.
Ah, but most libraries, and especially university libraries, have several photocopiers.
But if they make the copies themselves, and then give them to you, and they don't fall under fair use, they are just as guilty as a napster user. In fact, even if they just watch you copying an entire book they are guilty of contributory infringement. So in that sense, yeah, libraries are an excellent example.
Yeah, but the anti-circumvention clause can be said to violate the "limited time" portion of the Copyright clause.
No, because you are only guilty of circumvention of "a work protected under this title". If the work is public domain, it's not illegal to circumvent the protection.
Besides, 2600 wasn't being sued over the circumvention clause.
If the DMCA has the basic effect of inhibiting this progress, it is unconstitutional.
That's a big if. Take a look at Eldred v. Ashcroft for an idea of how hard it is to prove that a law does not promote science and useful arts. If a retroactive copyright extension of works already created can be said to promote science and useful arts, pretty much anything could. Even if not (the supreme court has agreed to hear Eldred v. Ashcroft), the DMCA quite clearly has the potential to promote science and useful arts. The idea is that if artists can lock up their works with DRM systems then more of them are likely to create art.
Then on top of that, the trafficking portions of the DMCA can be said to rely on the commerce clause, rather than the copyright clause.
How would the user respond to such notices as a Freenet node, given that he wouldn't know what he has or how to remove it?
If someone really wanted to go through all the harassment and legal fighting to register with the copyright office as an ISP just so they can help other people pirate music (and not make any money off it themselves), then they could. I doubt that's going to happen.
Furthermore, even if the individual user you download from can be identified and sued, wouldn't the people suing the freenet users have to sue all of them to get the content removed?
You only have to sue a few people before the word gets out that crime doesn't pay.
Slashdot Mirror
To enforce laws uniformly is the only way to have a just society.
That's my whole point.
Municipalities (especially small, backwoods ones) have an incentive to keep ticketing because it brings in revenue from outsiders.
Sure, but only because those laws generally aren't enforced upon the townies.
How many tales have you heard about the corrupt local cop in a po-dunk town who pulls over folks doing 5 over and charges them with doing 15 over?
Something which this GPS system would completely eliminate.
But do you think they'll actually do those things? Raise speed limits?
Absolutely. The only reason no one cares to lobby to raise the speed limit is cause it's not enforced. You say "they", but the fact is that "we" have the power to tell "them" what to do.
Car manufacturers tune their vehicles to get their best MPG at 55mph.
Actually it's more like 65, and to the extent that it's done intentionally, they'll just tune them higher.
Montana had virtually no speed limit until they were threatened by the federal government that they'd lose their funding if they didn't enforce the 75mph speed limit.
Clinton eliminated that several years ago. But to the extent that emissions are increased at higher speeds, this is an excellent way to get people to pay for the pollution they are creating.
Insurance providers won't lower rates for those who don't break the law - they'll just really jack up rates for those who do.
That's just not true. In a competitive marketplace profits are minimized. But if it does turn out to be true, I'll be sure to have bought stock in the auto insurance companies far ahead of time anyway.
It's the same with speed/rpm limiters on vehicles - you're more likely to be in an accident at 25-50 mph than 75-100+ because of traffic density and the "I'm almost home" syndrome.
I agree. But I'm not arguing about having the lower speed limits, I'm arguing about fairly enforcing those speed limits. IMHO (and apparently that of Abraham Lincoln), enforcing speed limit laws will tend to get those laws repealed.
So you *want* your insurance company and the state police to mail your parking tickets and speeding tickets to your house?
If I knew I was going to get caught, I wouldn't speed. Besides, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln
My God, insurance companies already have a racket going - and the sheep like you will blindly swallow it in the name of "think of the children" and "public safety".
No, I support it in the name of eliminating selective enforcement, lowering the tax burden of traffic police, raising the speed limits now that they don't have to be artificially lowered, and lowering the insurance rates of those who don't break the law.
If the time on the device isn't correct, the location it reports won't be correct. The average person working at a rental car company doesn't know anything about GPS, so it's likely to be off, but the average consumer won't think to question it.
Umm... You know nothing about GPS. The time is received from the satellite.
I give it ten years before U.S. insurance companies start providing generous "discounts" on your (state mandated) insurance in return for you allowing similar black-box technology.
And this is bad why?
Only the very wealthy and self-insured will be able to drive cars without GPS logging and remotely storing your position, velocity, and the time. Rates will be adjusted for forays into "unsafe" neighborhoods, parking outside of bars, etc.
Again, why is this bad? I wish my insurance company had this.
Hmm, I've downloaded it several times and I can't seem to find any pages on it. Which client are you using?
No, I mean something that actually works.
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln
Then I can finally get rid of these big fucking ads.
You'll die without sufficient sodium chloride (table salt), but more than 1 part per million of straight chloride will harm you (OSHA permissible exposure limit).
What is "straight chloride"? Are you talking about chlorine gas? The two are not comparible in terms of chemical effect.
I dunno... Slashdot readers watching a movie about a paranoid schizophrenic computer nerd who thinks he has the solution to everything and that everyone is out to get him. Might hit too close to home.
The movie was pathetic. I know some people liked it, but I consider it a waste of time. Almost everything they mentioned was some dream of the authors crazy imagination.
I think that was the point, considering that the character clearly suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Most of it wasn't supposed to be actually happening.
What I'd like to see is a low cost, low power, hard drive adapter which I can plug into my cigarette lighter to recharge and access from my iPaq whenever I'm within a few hundred feet of my car.
Why exactly is it a stupid question?
Maybe silly is a better word than stupid. It's silly because it's an arbitrary meaningless question which we almost surely won't even find the answer to.
Whoever modded you "Troll" is probably right.
I wasn't being serious. If you haven't seen the movie (about a paranoid schizophrenic who believed in all this crap), you won't get the joke.
What is the oldest unsolved math problem? I'm not about to dignify such a stupid question with a serious answer.
Sounds double-plus-good.
What is the name of God? (cliff's notes for the lazy)
From Verizon. On my cell phone.
a capitalist regime could restrict freedom to only the richest, with monopolies on everything from the supply of oil to the supply of chocolate to those who bid the highest to governments for a licence.
True, I guess, but then I have a problem with his statment that "captialism works".
I do believe that "capitalism works" in a free market, but the United States is far from a free market. As such a lot of what you learn in Economics 101 and 102 about fair prices being set by the market goes out the window.
Ah, but most libraries, and especially university libraries, have several photocopiers.
But if they make the copies themselves, and then give them to you, and they don't fall under fair use, they are just as guilty as a napster user. In fact, even if they just watch you copying an entire book they are guilty of contributory infringement. So in that sense, yeah, libraries are an excellent example.
Yeah, but the anti-circumvention clause can be said to violate the "limited time" portion of the Copyright clause.
No, because you are only guilty of circumvention of "a work protected under this title". If the work is public domain, it's not illegal to circumvent the protection.
Besides, 2600 wasn't being sued over the circumvention clause.
If the DMCA has the basic effect of inhibiting this progress, it is unconstitutional.
That's a big if. Take a look at Eldred v. Ashcroft for an idea of how hard it is to prove that a law does not promote science and useful arts. If a retroactive copyright extension of works already created can be said to promote science and useful arts, pretty much anything could. Even if not (the supreme court has agreed to hear Eldred v. Ashcroft), the DMCA quite clearly has the potential to promote science and useful arts. The idea is that if artists can lock up their works with DRM systems then more of them are likely to create art.
Then on top of that, the trafficking portions of the DMCA can be said to rely on the commerce clause, rather than the copyright clause.
How would the user respond to such notices as a Freenet node, given that he wouldn't know what he has or how to remove it?
If someone really wanted to go through all the harassment and legal fighting to register with the copyright office as an ISP just so they can help other people pirate music (and not make any money off it themselves), then they could. I doubt that's going to happen.
Furthermore, even if the individual user you download from can be identified and sued, wouldn't the people suing the freenet users have to sue all of them to get the content removed?
You only have to sue a few people before the word gets out that crime doesn't pay.
And if you get sued for a DMCA violation, counter-sue for unfair abuse of monopoly power.