I think some automakers are moving in the opposite direction.
Recently, while looking at a Mitsubishi with the girlfriend, I noticed that the stereo controls were all over the center of the dash. I asked the salesman if the radio could be removed and replaced with an aftermarket.
I was told that it could not be. You had to just keep the factory radio or build your own custom enclosure to handle an aftermarket. He also said some automakers are installing speakers that only work with the factory radio (although I'm not sure how that's possible).
Why does an economy car need 120Hp and sport styling?
Don't know about the sport styling (other than personal preference), but if you've ever driven in Atlanta, GA traffic you might understand why someone would want some more horses under the hood.
Here, having a car that does not accelerate quick enough could get you plastered.
Re:Huh? That's how it's here in the Netherlands
on
Build-to-Order Cars?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
When you're shipping a car from Germany or Japan to the USA, you're gonna have to wait a while for them to build you a car to your specs.
This is not entirely true today. Most major foreign automakers at least have assembly plants in the USA. From an options standpoint, this puts them in the same situation as a domestic manufacturer.
You may be knowledgeable about civil cases such as this, but I maintain that if I was on the jury where a kid (of any age) crossed a 3-4 foot high fence and injured himself with any object he was not given express permission to use, I wouldn't give the parents (or the kid, as you say) a cent.
When I was a kid, we would routinely jump fences and get into things we shouldn't have. If I would have been injured it would have been my own fault. When I was much younger, my parents knew better than to allow me to stray too far from home, so getting into such trouble wasn't an issue.
You can quote case law all you want, but the fact is most people sue in instances like this to try and get rich, or cover their own financial losses for being stupid (or allowing their kids to be stupid). Lawyers support such lawsuits only because they can line their own pockets.
Yes, we should have reasonable laws on the books to protect children from unnecessary exposure to unsafe conditions. But it should, in most cases, be a criminal matter, not a civil matter, which is overly subjective, and does nothing to prevent similar future incidents from occurring.
Really care about a child's safety? Move to pass laws that protect them. This allows everyone to know beforehand what's legal and what's not, rather than making up the rules on the fly and subjecting innocent citizens to penalties for not protecting stupid people from themselves.
If Larry Flynt can publish Hustler under the guise of "Free Speech" (which I don't have a problem with), a group of people with concern for a particular issue, whatever it is, should be able to run advertisements for/against any particular candidate.
Many on Slashdot are rightfully concerned about the rights of US citizens due to things like the DMCA, Patriot Act, etc. We should also be concerned about a systematic campaign to remove our right to speak freely.
The campaign finance laws that are currently in effect are a poor way to change the system. They will be challenged in the next election, and I would bet almost 100% they will be struck down by the court system.
There is music we like and music we don't like - whether or not it's from a major label band or an "indy." Do I like everything played by Clear Channel? Nope. Do I like everything I hear from indy artists? Nope.
It's subjective, and if you're an adult and don't understand that by now, you're probably in for a sad existence.
You severely underestimate the psychology that drives people to innovate: personal gain.
If a communist government provides extra incentives to a person because they are seemingly more valuable (writing software) than others (sheep herder), it's not really true communism.
In true communism, the sheep herder would make just as much money, and have the same standard of living, as the programmer.
And what do you mean by "But with out [sic] current system we waste everything, our physical and mental resources are just left to rott, while we enslave everyone into a lifelong job with the promise of retirement."?
In our (US) system, physical and mental resources are encouraged to succeed. The difference is the individual has a choice whether or not they want to pursue success.
Granted, many human resources are "wasted" by not being utilized to benefit the collective "good." OTOH, many more human resources flourish precisely because they are able to easily pursue their goals, whether they be the betterment of society of personal wealth.
Kent State, while a tragedy, was an isolated incident by a few reactionary individuals.
The Tiananmen Square massacre was ordered and sanctioned by the Chinese government.
We have video, audio, and firsthand accounts of Kent State, which demonstrate the open nature of our society. China ordered media cameras out of Tiananmen so the soldiers could arrest/kill the protesters involved. Even today, Chinese citizens can be arrested and punished for mentioning the incident.
You're being elitist by picking and choosing which songs/artists it's "ok" for the RIAA to target users by and which ones it's not.
To say one cares about privacy rights, due process, the unconstitutionality of the DMCA, etc., when the RIAA targets you because of songs you share...but you don't care if they target users that share Brittney Spears (et al) - is blatant hypocrisy.
Either you care about the constitutionality of the RIAA's actions or you don't. Don't turn this into a "my music is better than your music" elitist argument. It has no place here.
Unfortunately, it might run right smack into the face of the latest anti-terrorist laws, since the ISP wouldn't be able to identify anyone, and this situation would piss off Mr. Jackboot Govthug to no end.
Actually, there's more to it than your reactionary opinion.
Before 9/11, and before anti-terrorism laws, law enforcement officials had the ability to track down an IP address to a specific user. There are all kinds of illegal actions that take place over the internet, including consumer fraud, kiddie porn, etc.
It's no different that the phone company having data on when you made calls and who you were talking to.
You may not like the DMCA, but referring to law enforcement officials as "Mr. Jackboot Govthug" is asinine. Attack the law, not the law enforcer...and take a chill pill.
Doesn't the list the parent posted read like an interesting story?
Busta Rhymes and Avril Lavigne are sipping on some Courvoisier.
Avril gets a little tipsy and begins to lose her grip. Her head is spinning and decides things are getting a little complicated, so she tells Busta "Nice to know you, but goodbye."
Busta says "Uh-uh...let's get it on, baby!" Avril thinks "man, this guy is halfcrazy!"
She runs to the parking lot, where Tracy Chapman gives her a ride to safety in her fast car.
Or, maybe it's just late and I'm a little imaginative.
Just because the musicians you like haven't signed with a major label doesn't make them any better musicians than those that did sign.
Just remember...before many of todays headliners were signed with a major label making the big bucks, they were doing the "indy" thing, doing gigs where they could find them in order to pay the bills...just like band X that you think is Christ incarnate because they play at your local pub every weekend.
No M$ rep showed up because they knew they would lose. They also figure that most people will eventually give up trying to claim the judgement.
Big corps are very good at covering their competition in paperwork, slowing the legal process to a snail's pace. You think they won't use the same tactics here?
I had a deaf roommate that had hearing aids in order to assist him somewhat in hearing basic, loud sounds like car horns (or so he told us).
It was funny at first...he would sometimes hear what we said (without reading lips) and sometimes wouldn't. We finally figured out that the hearing aids helped him much more than he let on. His hearing impairment had been turned into selective hearing, so that when you said something like "Steve, I need money for the power bill," he would keep on walking. But if you said "Steve, wanna beer?" he would quickly turn and accept the beer.
Right or wrong, we soon began to fuck with him. He turned out to be a lazy-ass SOB that was just taking advantage of his disability to use people, so we didn't really feel guilty.
Why is this flamebait? Talisman is merely trying to provide examples of where the parent poster may reconsider his initial ramblings.
Besides, don't the "rights" of others end where mine begin?
"Ok, Mr. Mosquito, I'll respect you and not squash you with a fly-swatter. Oh shit, Mr. Mosquito, you bit me and gave me West Nile. Why did you do that? We're supposed to respect each other's rights!"
Let's say we grant "rights" to all sharks. If a shark attacks or kills a human, what are you going to do, put it on trial?
When we discuss giving rights to a human, there's an unspoken assumption that that human will in turn respect our rights and follow our laws. Giving rights to an animal (non-human) doesn't work like that. Animals are opportunistic - if they're hungry, and you look tasty, you will be eaten. Hell, sometimes they're not even hungry, just pissed off you walked into their neck of the woods.
If we are to see ourselves as animals, and just another species on this planet, we should be able to be just as opportunistic. I'm not saying we should go around bashing the heads of baby seals just for the hell of it, but our decisions about killing other species should be left to a judgement call.
Maybe if we keep killing the black rhino its species will disappear. Should we kill it? Are you hungry and need it for food? Did it piss you off by shitting in your yard? Would another animal be similarly concerned about humans?
If we are to wholly believe in evolution, then the black rhino may come back in several million years, right? Everything adapts, kills as it wants/needs, is taken advantage of by more powerful species, etc. The cycle continues forever and ever, right?
The only way anyone would be concerned is if the 'rights' of said cyborgs would infringe on the rights of humans. I think 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' both would take objection, in that case.
Regardless (flame away on this comment), I think we're a long way off from cyborgs and AI robots that have the reasoning ability of humans. They may be able to lift a car, recite an encyclopedia entry, or calculate pi to 150 decimal places, but that does not (in my view) demonstrate true intelligence.
For someone that has a negative opinion of stem cell research from an ethical point of view, lying on the deathbed wouldn't change my opinion. Someone who truly has ethical/moral qualms about something usually doesn't change their mind based on a personal situation.
I can comprehend the fact that there's a possibility my life could be extended from stem cell research. That doesn't change my ethical point of view. To give an analogy, some people understand that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war with Japan, but still disagree on the use of H/A-bombs, regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
Recently, while looking at a Mitsubishi with the girlfriend, I noticed that the stereo controls were all over the center of the dash. I asked the salesman if the radio could be removed and replaced with an aftermarket.
I was told that it could not be. You had to just keep the factory radio or build your own custom enclosure to handle an aftermarket. He also said some automakers are installing speakers that only work with the factory radio (although I'm not sure how that's possible).
Don't know about the sport styling (other than personal preference), but if you've ever driven in Atlanta, GA traffic you might understand why someone would want some more horses under the hood.
Here, having a car that does not accelerate quick enough could get you plastered.
This is not entirely true today. Most major foreign automakers at least have assembly plants in the USA. From an options standpoint, this puts them in the same situation as a domestic manufacturer.
I said: ...or cover their own financial losses for being stupid (or allowing their kids to be stupid).
So, yes, it may be due to healthcare costs. But if the incident was your fault, you should bear the costs, not me.
When I was a kid, we would routinely jump fences and get into things we shouldn't have. If I would have been injured it would have been my own fault. When I was much younger, my parents knew better than to allow me to stray too far from home, so getting into such trouble wasn't an issue.
You can quote case law all you want, but the fact is most people sue in instances like this to try and get rich, or cover their own financial losses for being stupid (or allowing their kids to be stupid). Lawyers support such lawsuits only because they can line their own pockets.
Yes, we should have reasonable laws on the books to protect children from unnecessary exposure to unsafe conditions. But it should, in most cases, be a criminal matter, not a civil matter, which is overly subjective, and does nothing to prevent similar future incidents from occurring.
Really care about a child's safety? Move to pass laws that protect them. This allows everyone to know beforehand what's legal and what's not, rather than making up the rules on the fly and subjecting innocent citizens to penalties for not protecting stupid people from themselves.
Many on Slashdot are rightfully concerned about the rights of US citizens due to things like the DMCA, Patriot Act, etc. We should also be concerned about a systematic campaign to remove our right to speak freely.
The campaign finance laws that are currently in effect are a poor way to change the system. They will be challenged in the next election, and I would bet almost 100% they will be struck down by the court system.
On another note, where's the webcam site? ;)
It's subjective, and if you're an adult and don't understand that by now, you're probably in for a sad existence.
If a communist government provides extra incentives to a person because they are seemingly more valuable (writing software) than others (sheep herder), it's not really true communism.
In true communism, the sheep herder would make just as much money, and have the same standard of living, as the programmer.
And what do you mean by "But with out [sic] current system we waste everything, our physical and mental resources are just left to rott, while we enslave everyone into a lifelong job with the promise of retirement."?
In our (US) system, physical and mental resources are encouraged to succeed. The difference is the individual has a choice whether or not they want to pursue success.
Granted, many human resources are "wasted" by not being utilized to benefit the collective "good." OTOH, many more human resources flourish precisely because they are able to easily pursue their goals, whether they be the betterment of society of personal wealth.
It appears we are headed back to being a segregated society.
Relative to what? You've got to have a little perspective when making such a claim.
The Tiananmen Square massacre was ordered and sanctioned by the Chinese government.
We have video, audio, and firsthand accounts of Kent State, which demonstrate the open nature of our society. China ordered media cameras out of Tiananmen so the soldiers could arrest/kill the protesters involved. Even today, Chinese citizens can be arrested and punished for mentioning the incident.
See the difference?
To say one cares about privacy rights, due process, the unconstitutionality of the DMCA, etc., when the RIAA targets you because of songs you share...but you don't care if they target users that share Brittney Spears (et al) - is blatant hypocrisy.
Either you care about the constitutionality of the RIAA's actions or you don't. Don't turn this into a "my music is better than your music" elitist argument. It has no place here.
Actually, there's more to it than your reactionary opinion.
Before 9/11, and before anti-terrorism laws, law enforcement officials had the ability to track down an IP address to a specific user. There are all kinds of illegal actions that take place over the internet, including consumer fraud, kiddie porn, etc.
It's no different that the phone company having data on when you made calls and who you were talking to.
You may not like the DMCA, but referring to law enforcement officials as "Mr. Jackboot Govthug" is asinine. Attack the law, not the law enforcer...and take a chill pill.
Busta Rhymes and Avril Lavigne are sipping on some Courvoisier.
Avril gets a little tipsy and begins to lose her grip. Her head is spinning and decides things are getting a little complicated, so she tells Busta "Nice to know you, but goodbye."
Busta says "Uh-uh...let's get it on, baby!" Avril thinks "man, this guy is halfcrazy!"
She runs to the parking lot, where Tracy Chapman gives her a ride to safety in her fast car.
Or, maybe it's just late and I'm a little imaginative.
Just because the musicians you like haven't signed with a major label doesn't make them any better musicians than those that did sign.
Just remember...before many of todays headliners were signed with a major label making the big bucks, they were doing the "indy" thing, doing gigs where they could find them in order to pay the bills...just like band X that you think is Christ incarnate because they play at your local pub every weekend.
No M$ rep showed up because they knew they would lose. They also figure that most people will eventually give up trying to claim the judgement.
Big corps are very good at covering their competition in paperwork, slowing the legal process to a snail's pace. You think they won't use the same tactics here?
It was funny at first...he would sometimes hear what we said (without reading lips) and sometimes wouldn't. We finally figured out that the hearing aids helped him much more than he let on. His hearing impairment had been turned into selective hearing, so that when you said something like "Steve, I need money for the power bill," he would keep on walking. But if you said "Steve, wanna beer?" he would quickly turn and accept the beer.
Right or wrong, we soon began to fuck with him. He turned out to be a lazy-ass SOB that was just taking advantage of his disability to use people, so we didn't really feel guilty.
Besides, don't the "rights" of others end where mine begin?
"Ok, Mr. Mosquito, I'll respect you and not squash you with a fly-swatter. Oh shit, Mr. Mosquito, you bit me and gave me West Nile. Why did you do that? We're supposed to respect each other's rights!"
Right...
When we discuss giving rights to a human, there's an unspoken assumption that that human will in turn respect our rights and follow our laws. Giving rights to an animal (non-human) doesn't work like that. Animals are opportunistic - if they're hungry, and you look tasty, you will be eaten. Hell, sometimes they're not even hungry, just pissed off you walked into their neck of the woods.
If we are to see ourselves as animals, and just another species on this planet, we should be able to be just as opportunistic. I'm not saying we should go around bashing the heads of baby seals just for the hell of it, but our decisions about killing other species should be left to a judgement call.
Maybe if we keep killing the black rhino its species will disappear. Should we kill it? Are you hungry and need it for food? Did it piss you off by shitting in your yard? Would another animal be similarly concerned about humans?
If we are to wholly believe in evolution, then the black rhino may come back in several million years, right? Everything adapts, kills as it wants/needs, is taken advantage of by more powerful species, etc. The cycle continues forever and ever, right?
The only way anyone would be concerned is if the 'rights' of said cyborgs would infringe on the rights of humans. I think 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' both would take objection, in that case.
Regardless (flame away on this comment), I think we're a long way off from cyborgs and AI robots that have the reasoning ability of humans. They may be able to lift a car, recite an encyclopedia entry, or calculate pi to 150 decimal places, but that does not (in my view) demonstrate true intelligence.
I can comprehend the fact that there's a possibility my life could be extended from stem cell research. That doesn't change my ethical point of view. To give an analogy, some people understand that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war with Japan, but still disagree on the use of H/A-bombs, regardless.
Understand the difference.
"We are the deaf race. We are not impaired, this is the way we are and do not need your 'implants.'
"By the way, pass the free education handouts."