He'll be off the court in under 2, watch. Not only that, you realize it's entirely Constitutional to ADD SCOTUS SEATS, right? It could be best 9 out of 17. You can still get fucked.
FDR tried that. It didn't turn out well for him. He generally well regarded, but that was a particularly black mark in the history books on his presidency.
If I still had mod points, I would definitely mod this up, because it's factually accurate, relevant to the discussion, didn't fling around the personal attacks so popular in Slashdot arguing today, and yet it was still moderated troll.
Too bad meta-moderating is dead. It would be nice to catch a few of these abuses of the moderation system.
No, the point is to pay for the content you're interested it, instead of having to buy some large bundle of crap costing more which includes that content.
People tell themselves that, but that's not how the services are set up. That's the cable channel model, and it's what people asked for even though it's not what they meant.
What people really want and have always really wanted, is to watch specific shows. They want to watch Mad Men and Better Call Saul, not the other 20-hours-a-day programming on AMC. They're interested in Game of Thrones and Last Week Tonight, not Ballers and whatever goofiness HBO is trying to promote. This is the way it's always worked -- I have maybe five shows I really want to watch, and each is on a different network. Purchasing five different streaming services for one show each is the exact same problem we had because, buying a basic cable package, of which 90% of the channels we aren't interested in.
And they also expect me to pay for this streaming service that wants to play ads when I pause. Absolutely brilliant!
Most people pay huge prices for cable which is inundated by ads. I don't blame networks for thinking they can get away with ads on a streaming subscription service as well. Yes, I know some people have cut the cable cord, but they do that because the content they want is available from streaming, not because they hate ads so much. If there were ads on cable and on streaming services, I'll bet that very very few of them would cancel everything. They'd just put up with the ads.
Slashdot was pretty united against the TPP too in many of the articles here before Clinton or Trump got involved. It was just a horrible idea all around.
Not just left-wingers. Right-wing Breitbart only says negative, sarcastic things about Musk and his companies.
If you're "in bed"** with the fossil fuel industry, you'll have a vested interest in dissing electric cars, especially if it's a company that produces only electric cars as opposed to the car being part of a more diverse line-up. They don't like environmentalism in general, so they'll always throw darts at this.
** In bed meaning not necessarily financially, but philosophically.
Somehow he gets to shuffle everything bad off to Bush - but everything good that Trump does goes to him.
Not everything bad gets to be shuffled off to Bush -- just what he'd inherited. To be honest, Trump hasn't really been in office long enough for us to tell the long-term effects of his presidency on the economy, so I'm not really ready to say economically "he's great" or "he sucks."
I guess that's why the markets exploded literally the day after the election - because Obama?
The markets were about the same. The market average has been pretty much a straight line since Jan 2016. The trend really goes back to Feb 2009, with mini-downturns in Aug 2011, Aug 2015, and early Jan 2016 putting on the brakes a bit without changing the overall trajectory of the Dow.
I'm also wondering what the grounds for pulling the driver over was.
The law states that all cars must have, at the very minimum, a capable operator.
If the car is capable of self-driving then the person at the wheel wasn't actually the driver, they were the operator. When they fell asleep they also forfeited that role to the vehicle and degraded to being a passenger.
The law does not allow the downgrading to passenger status. He becomes an impaired operator. There must always be a non-impaired operator or driver.
Wouldn't the real issue be that the police should have some means of telling a self driving vehicle to pull over?
They should, and Slashdot has posted many a story about this issue, and you also have many people worried about what others would do with this capability, as there is no such thing as a technical measure in a car that the police can use that hackers won't also exploit.
I never had a single accident because I didn't act like an entitled idiot.
You didn't have a car turn right in front of you to enter a driveway? (The driver's excuse was "well I had my signal on when I was coming up behind you.") You didn't have someone cut the brake lines of your bike while it was parked and locked and not find out that happened until the brakes locked to the front wheel, sending you spinning through the air like in a Tony Hawk game? Sometimes accidents happen because OTHER people act like entitled idiots. Always protect yourself, you can't control the behavior of other people.
Bicycle helmets are not designed for impacts at the speeds you claim to ride at and don't prevent the injuries you want them to prevent
Bicycle helmets are designed for impacts against the ground, which you are going to have most of the time if you totally crash. If you're going 30MPH, your head is not ramming into the ground at 30MPH. It's bouncing off the ground with a vertical momentum generated from the six-foot fall, and a helmet will help protect a bit against the horizontal friction from that 30MPH. If you're going 30MPH and you ride head-first into a stationary object, no shit you're in a world of trouble, helmet or not. That isn't the situation in most bicycle crashes.
I respectfully disagree. When there is no need for a steering wheel, brake and acellerator pedal, and you just tell the car where you want to go and relax by reading a book or watching a Harry Potter movie, then that's a self driving car. We are on our way to that, by no means are any vehicles fully autonomous and self driving.
We have full autonomy, but they are not allowed to call it self-driving, yet, because you legally can't have full-self driving, it must still be human assisted. The software is also not good enough yet, and not vetted enough yet to take the human away from the equation either. So even if the Tesla was capable of doing all that stuff, it cannot be called 'self-driving.'
Winston's line from Ghostbusters, "I've seen shit that will turn you WHITE" confused me as a young kid. I thought "the guy he was talking to was already white... wait, Winston's still black, he didn't get turned white!"
What is it that separates some of us, who believe that a proper, immutable archive is more important to our species than copyright restriction, from those who feel otherwise?
Is it just money? Is that all it is? Or is it something deeper?
There are many in the copyright/content industry who consider copyright to be akin to physical property, and that their property rights trump anyone's desire to do things with their property.
Sound absorbing treatments are usually, at the very least, flame retardant, as they are designed for use in commercial applications and have to follow fire codes for building materials.
A very unfortunate situation, but the foam used was provided by the band, not as part of the building, and the building was also out of code (it was supposed to have sprinklers, but did not).
If you read the first sentence of the summary, it says the tunnel in question was planned to run under the 405 freeway. There are no houses on the freeway.
But freeway subsidence or collapse can be just as bad. The collapse of the Nimitz Freeway in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was that disaster's single largest death toll; 73% of the earthquake deaths occurred on the freeway rather than in collapsing/damaged homes.
Or you know, this is LA. What happens to the tunnel in the case of an earthquake? Is it hardened against causing collapse? Would it exacerbate earthquake damage? Would we even know?
You do realize music existed for tens of thousands of years before the music industry existed, don't you?
Yup, and it wasn't nearly as good nor nearly as ubiquitous. Almost anything still played now was reflective of the tastes of a very small group of elite rich men.
So people buy legal knockoffs all the time, where it's a MIC purse instead of an MK purse where the MIC kinda looks like a MK. Totally legal, though designers sometimes scream about it.
But they're still buying a PHYSICAL item. You're comparing the copying of a digital work to mimicing a physical item. What you're thinking of is more akin to the mockbuster, a knock-off that is similar to an original work, enough that someone not-too-discerning might confused it with the original work. Under copyright law, a mockbuster is legal. Imitation is legal.
But even if the person is buying an imitation purse, they're still purchasing a physical product. Copying a movie, there is no purchase there.
Its purpose is suppose to be to increase the public domain, instead it has been subverted to make individuals, many of whom are not creators, rich.
I've got no problems with copyright making the creators, or whomever they sold the rights to, rich. I just don't think it should be for a long time period as the current system allows. The reason for copyright as given in the Constitution is valid: copyright incentivizes content creation. I don't think there's any controversy over that statement (god dammit, there'd better not be), the problem has really come from the transition of copyright from a tool to increase the public domain, to a tool that turns content into permanent property. I don't think the goal should be to get rid of copyright; hell, even the current system is better than that. But it should be reformed to reflect its original purpose.
*don't give me "but...but...per capita emissions are lower in China!" First, it's an absolute problem, not a per capita problem. We don't talk about per capita CO2 levels. Per capita is West-hating ecomarxist apologists' desperate to find a way to blame the US for everything.
If you have, say, 100 in group A generating a total of 500x pollutants, and you have 1000 people in group B generating a total of 1000x pollutants, if A tells B that 1000 is more than 500, so group B needs to cut their outputs more than group A... why should B listen? Group A sounds like a group of greedy hypocrites, having a much higher standard of living that energy use brings while denying it to others.
Per-capita is extremely important unless you want to argue that one group of people is just far more important than another, and thus entitled to pollute more. If you go down that path, don't expect that the other people are going to pay much heed to your demands that they cut their emissions. Lack of per-capita controls is why I opposed climate treaties that put big caps on the US, but was fine with allowing, say, India to greatly increase their own per-capita pollution.
We take color TV, an electric refrigerator, a dishwasher, and a washing machine for granted. Back when "single house hold earner could provide for a family" those were all considered luxuries to be aspired to.
These are related. All of those advances are much cheaper now than they once were. And they are needed (well, maybe not multiple TVs) because we don't have time to spend all day home-making anymore. Staying home and living life like we did before the modern age? That's the luxury, though people only sometimes aspire to that.
It's good that things are being talked about... Light a fire under everyone's asses because it needs to happen. Believe me, I remember niftier times... But right now, the world is on fire, and all the bullshit needs to burn.
The world is the same as it's always been. We just view it differently, and we're always talking about it, and there is no escaping the fighting over it.
Low sellers in the short term; with low gasoline prices people are favoring larger cars, trucks and SUVs. Light truck sales respond pretty dramatically to fluctuations in gasoline. It's like a see-saw: gasoline prices go up, SUV sales go down; gasoline prices go down, SUV sales go up.
But SUV and truck sales don't go down enough enough during the downward trends to wipe out the gains made during the high-gas-price eras.
LMC Automotive, an automotive industry tracker, estimates by 2022 that GM's fleet will be 84% SUVs and trucks, Ford will be at 90%, Chrysler at 97%. What's changed? SUV technology, they're more fuel-efficient than they used to be, more advanced than they used to be. A new SUV has about the same amount of mpg (or pretty close) as an old, old sedan that someone might be willing to look to trade in. And SUV and truck sales are an arms race. My mom doesn't ever need to haul a lot of stuff, but she got an SUV rather than a car because she just feels "safer" in it. She felt that driving around in a small car was actually dangerous with all these trucks, light trucks, and other large vehicles on the road. So she got one from a safety standpoint to keep up.
Since 2013, SUV sales are up 87%, with car sales down 8%. Back then, there were only four SUVs in the top 20 sales models, now there are seven, and it's a trend that's just picking up the pace.
I used to work in San Francisco, long ago. There are certain areas that I was fine biking in (south of market wasn't bad). A good chunk of the city, including the Financial District, I would not take my life in my hands to do that. If a city is too dense, it is not bikable. I know there are a lot of cyclists who are a bit more.. militant, are of the mindset of "I can take over any lane I want, because I'm legally allowed to ride here." Not sure that's an attitude I like. Then again, if traffic is gridlock, a bike is far faster.
Much of Europe does have laws against it. It's more a matter of enforcement: Only in America (And apparently China) do police routinely issue citations or occasional arrests.
In the US, or in many boroughs of the US, the police rely on tickets to fund their own departments. So they have a financial incentive to issue speeding tickets, jaywalking tickets, and to impound property.
a very brief glance at statistics shows a suspiciously high percentage of jaywalking tickets go to blacks.
Because Black (though it's more correlated to income than race) neighborhoods tend to be higher crime neighborhoods. So the police hang out there a lot more. So they see a lot more. They issue more tickets, bust more illicit behavior. And the crime stats for that neighborhood tick up, and the cycle continues.
Slashdot Mirror
He'll be off the court in under 2, watch. Not only that, you realize it's entirely Constitutional to ADD SCOTUS SEATS, right? It could be best 9 out of 17. You can still get fucked.
FDR tried that. It didn't turn out well for him. He generally well regarded, but that was a particularly black mark in the history books on his presidency.
If I still had mod points, I would definitely mod this up, because it's factually accurate, relevant to the discussion, didn't fling around the personal attacks so popular in Slashdot arguing today, and yet it was still moderated troll.
Too bad meta-moderating is dead. It would be nice to catch a few of these abuses of the moderation system.
No, the point is to pay for the content you're interested it, instead of having to buy some large bundle of crap costing more which includes that content.
People tell themselves that, but that's not how the services are set up. That's the cable channel model, and it's what people asked for even though it's not what they meant.
What people really want and have always really wanted, is to watch specific shows. They want to watch Mad Men and Better Call Saul, not the other 20-hours-a-day programming on AMC. They're interested in Game of Thrones and Last Week Tonight, not Ballers and whatever goofiness HBO is trying to promote. This is the way it's always worked -- I have maybe five shows I really want to watch, and each is on a different network. Purchasing five different streaming services for one show each is the exact same problem we had because, buying a basic cable package, of which 90% of the channels we aren't interested in.
And they also expect me to pay for this streaming service that wants to play ads when I pause. Absolutely brilliant!
Most people pay huge prices for cable which is inundated by ads. I don't blame networks for thinking they can get away with ads on a streaming subscription service as well. Yes, I know some people have cut the cable cord, but they do that because the content they want is available from streaming, not because they hate ads so much. If there were ads on cable and on streaming services, I'll bet that very very few of them would cancel everything. They'd just put up with the ads.
Slashdot was pretty united against the TPP too in many of the articles here before Clinton or Trump got involved. It was just a horrible idea all around.
Not just left-wingers. Right-wing Breitbart only says negative, sarcastic things about Musk and his companies.
If you're "in bed"** with the fossil fuel industry, you'll have a vested interest in dissing electric cars, especially if it's a company that produces only electric cars as opposed to the car being part of a more diverse line-up. They don't like environmentalism in general, so they'll always throw darts at this.
** In bed meaning not necessarily financially, but philosophically.
Somehow he gets to shuffle everything bad off to Bush - but everything good that Trump does goes to him.
Not everything bad gets to be shuffled off to Bush -- just what he'd inherited.
To be honest, Trump hasn't really been in office long enough for us to tell the long-term effects of his presidency on the economy, so I'm not really ready to say economically "he's great" or "he sucks."
I guess that's why the markets exploded literally the day after the election - because Obama?
The markets were about the same. The market average has been pretty much a straight line since Jan 2016. The trend really goes back to Feb 2009, with mini-downturns in Aug 2011, Aug 2015, and early Jan 2016 putting on the brakes a bit without changing the overall trajectory of the Dow.
I'm also wondering what the grounds for pulling the driver over was.
The law states that all cars must have, at the very minimum, a capable operator.
If the car is capable of self-driving then the person at the wheel wasn't actually the driver, they were the operator. When they fell asleep they also forfeited that role to the vehicle and degraded to being a passenger.
The law does not allow the downgrading to passenger status. He becomes an impaired operator. There must always be a non-impaired operator or driver.
Wouldn't the real issue be that the police should have some means of telling a self driving vehicle to pull over?
They should, and Slashdot has posted many a story about this issue, and you also have many people worried about what others would do with this capability, as there is no such thing as a technical measure in a car that the police can use that hackers won't also exploit.
Yeah, that's why seat belts are mandatory.
I never had a single accident because I didn't act like an entitled idiot.
You didn't have a car turn right in front of you to enter a driveway? (The driver's excuse was "well I had my signal on when I was coming up behind you.")
You didn't have someone cut the brake lines of your bike while it was parked and locked and not find out that happened until the brakes locked to the front wheel, sending you spinning through the air like in a Tony Hawk game?
Sometimes accidents happen because OTHER people act like entitled idiots. Always protect yourself, you can't control the behavior of other people.
Bicycle helmets are not designed for impacts at the speeds you claim to ride at and don't prevent the injuries you want them to prevent
Bicycle helmets are designed for impacts against the ground, which you are going to have most of the time if you totally crash. If you're going 30MPH, your head is not ramming into the ground at 30MPH. It's bouncing off the ground with a vertical momentum generated from the six-foot fall, and a helmet will help protect a bit against the horizontal friction from that 30MPH. If you're going 30MPH and you ride head-first into a stationary object, no shit you're in a world of trouble, helmet or not. That isn't the situation in most bicycle crashes.
I respectfully disagree. When there is no need for a steering wheel, brake and acellerator pedal, and you just tell the car where you want to go and relax by reading a book or watching a Harry Potter movie, then that's a self driving car. We are on our way to that, by no means are any vehicles fully autonomous and self driving.
We have full autonomy, but they are not allowed to call it self-driving, yet, because you legally can't have full-self driving, it must still be human assisted. The software is also not good enough yet, and not vetted enough yet to take the human away from the equation either. So even if the Tesla was capable of doing all that stuff, it cannot be called 'self-driving.'
Winston's line from Ghostbusters, "I've seen shit that will turn you WHITE" confused me as a young kid. I thought "the guy he was talking to was already white... wait, Winston's still black, he didn't get turned white!"
What is it that separates some of us, who believe that a proper, immutable archive is more important to our species than copyright restriction, from those who feel otherwise?
Is it just money? Is that all it is? Or is it something deeper?
There are many in the copyright/content industry who consider copyright to be akin to physical property, and that their property rights trump anyone's desire to do things with their property.
Sound absorbing treatments are usually, at the very least, flame retardant, as they are designed for use in commercial applications and have to follow fire codes for building materials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire
A very unfortunate situation, but the foam used was provided by the band, not as part of the building, and the building was also out of code (it was supposed to have sprinklers, but did not).
If you read the first sentence of the summary, it says the tunnel in question was planned to run under the 405 freeway. There are no houses on the freeway.
But freeway subsidence or collapse can be just as bad. The collapse of the Nimitz Freeway in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was that disaster's single largest death toll; 73% of the earthquake deaths occurred on the freeway rather than in collapsing/damaged homes.
Or you know, this is LA. What happens to the tunnel in the case of an earthquake? Is it hardened against causing collapse? Would it exacerbate earthquake damage? Would we even know?
You do realize music existed for tens of thousands of years before the music industry existed, don't you?
Yup, and it wasn't nearly as good nor nearly as ubiquitous. Almost anything still played now was reflective of the tastes of a very small group of elite rich men.
So people buy legal knockoffs all the time, where it's a MIC purse instead of an MK purse where the MIC kinda looks like a MK. Totally legal, though designers sometimes scream about it.
But they're still buying a PHYSICAL item. You're comparing the copying of a digital work to mimicing a physical item. What you're thinking of is more akin to the mockbuster, a knock-off that is similar to an original work, enough that someone not-too-discerning might confused it with the original work. Under copyright law, a mockbuster is legal. Imitation is legal.
But even if the person is buying an imitation purse, they're still purchasing a physical product. Copying a movie, there is no purchase there.
Its purpose is suppose to be to increase the public domain, instead it has been subverted to make individuals, many of whom are not creators, rich.
I've got no problems with copyright making the creators, or whomever they sold the rights to, rich. I just don't think it should be for a long time period as the current system allows. The reason for copyright as given in the Constitution is valid: copyright incentivizes content creation. I don't think there's any controversy over that statement (god dammit, there'd better not be), the problem has really come from the transition of copyright from a tool to increase the public domain, to a tool that turns content into permanent property. I don't think the goal should be to get rid of copyright; hell, even the current system is better than that. But it should be reformed to reflect its original purpose.
*don't give me "but...but...per capita emissions are lower in China!" First, it's an absolute problem, not a per capita problem. We don't talk about per capita CO2 levels. Per capita is West-hating ecomarxist apologists' desperate to find a way to blame the US for everything.
If you have, say, 100 in group A generating a total of 500x pollutants, and you have 1000 people in group B generating a total of 1000x pollutants, if A tells B that 1000 is more than 500, so group B needs to cut their outputs more than group A... why should B listen? Group A sounds like a group of greedy hypocrites, having a much higher standard of living that energy use brings while denying it to others.
Per-capita is extremely important unless you want to argue that one group of people is just far more important than another, and thus entitled to pollute more. If you go down that path, don't expect that the other people are going to pay much heed to your demands that they cut their emissions. Lack of per-capita controls is why I opposed climate treaties that put big caps on the US, but was fine with allowing, say, India to greatly increase their own per-capita pollution.
We take color TV, an electric refrigerator, a dishwasher, and a washing machine for granted. Back when "single house hold earner could provide for a family" those were all considered luxuries to be aspired to.
These are related. All of those advances are much cheaper now than they once were. And they are needed (well, maybe not multiple TVs) because we don't have time to spend all day home-making anymore. Staying home and living life like we did before the modern age? That's the luxury, though people only sometimes aspire to that.
It's good that things are being talked about... Light a fire under everyone's asses because it needs to happen. Believe me, I remember niftier times... But right now, the world is on fire, and all the bullshit needs to burn.
The world is the same as it's always been. We just view it differently, and we're always talking about it, and there is no escaping the fighting over it.
Low sellers in the short term; with low gasoline prices people are favoring larger cars, trucks and SUVs. Light truck sales respond pretty dramatically to fluctuations in gasoline. It's like a see-saw: gasoline prices go up, SUV sales go down; gasoline prices go down, SUV sales go up.
But SUV and truck sales don't go down enough enough during the downward trends to wipe out the gains made during the high-gas-price eras.
LMC Automotive, an automotive industry tracker, estimates by 2022 that GM's fleet will be 84% SUVs and trucks, Ford will be at 90%, Chrysler at 97%. What's changed? SUV technology, they're more fuel-efficient than they used to be, more advanced than they used to be. A new SUV has about the same amount of mpg (or pretty close) as an old, old sedan that someone might be willing to look to trade in. And SUV and truck sales are an arms race. My mom doesn't ever need to haul a lot of stuff, but she got an SUV rather than a car because she just feels "safer" in it. She felt that driving around in a small car was actually dangerous with all these trucks, light trucks, and other large vehicles on the road. So she got one from a safety standpoint to keep up.
Since 2013, SUV sales are up 87%, with car sales down 8%. Back then, there were only four SUVs in the top 20 sales models, now there are seven, and it's a trend that's just picking up the pace.
I used to work in San Francisco, long ago. There are certain areas that I was fine biking in (south of market wasn't bad). A good chunk of the city, including the Financial District, I would not take my life in my hands to do that. If a city is too dense, it is not bikable. I know there are a lot of cyclists who are a bit more.. militant, are of the mindset of "I can take over any lane I want, because I'm legally allowed to ride here." Not sure that's an attitude I like. Then again, if traffic is gridlock, a bike is far faster.
Much of Europe does have laws against it. It's more a matter of enforcement: Only in America (And apparently China) do police routinely issue citations or occasional arrests.
In the US, or in many boroughs of the US, the police rely on tickets to fund their own departments. So they have a financial incentive to issue speeding tickets, jaywalking tickets, and to impound property.
a very brief glance at statistics shows a suspiciously high percentage of jaywalking tickets go to blacks.
Because Black (though it's more correlated to income than race) neighborhoods tend to be higher crime neighborhoods. So the police hang out there a lot more. So they see a lot more. They issue more tickets, bust more illicit behavior. And the crime stats for that neighborhood tick up, and the cycle continues.