I said you braked carelessly, and you objected in a manner I thought indicated you didn't brake. Instead, you were objecting to the characterization of your unsafe actions, not the actions taken.
I agree that I fucked up. That's not why I was objecting. I objected because I had already experienced an exception to the "universal rule" mentioned earlier in this thread.
Just because braking can be done stupidly (And we'd expect nothing less from you) doesn't mean that it would be the wrong "default" action.
The point here is that swerving was the right action for this real life scenario - not braking and not risking taking a hit from the side which could cause me to lose control of my car as I get pushed into oncoming traffic. This illustrates a common problem with general rules for complex environments. They often have exceptions that break them. Anyone who says such a rule always works simply hasn't yet experienced the exceptions.
It's not known how the grinning pirates 160 kilometers off the coast of the Horn of Africa reacted as they suddenly were hit by the LRAD. But they were close, and the closer one is to the sonic cannon, the worse the effect is. It's possible they received permanent hearing damage, but at the very least they experienced an excruciating headache and ear pain to the point that they could no longer see or hear. They also quickly lost the desire to board the ship. Of course, even Captain Blackbeard would have quickly set sail when confronted with 150 decibels of pure noise.
Excruciating headache and permanent hearing damage? That's so humane. Plus it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to defeat the system. Then where are you?
Oh, so you lied to make up a scenario that fit your argument, but didn't happen, and doesn't happen. " Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car." is an absolute in the past tense. Proper English in a rhetorical statement would have been something closer to "If, instead of dodging, I had braked, I'd have totaled my car." But basic English is beyond your abilities. You spent all your time on advanced assholery, and missed all the classes on basic grammar.
Man, this is profoundly stupid even for you. The example was not rhetorical and hence, the tense of the verbs were correct. Basic reading comprehension would have caught that.
I know you probably won't listen, because you have a track record of years of saying stupid shit, but please, get in the habit of thinking first before you write. You don't have to be a idiot man-child for the rest of your life. You can grow up and use that brain that's currently hanging uselessly off the end of your neck.
Being dead is a sure way to not profit. I'll just note here that we have yet to come up with a humane, peaceful way to stop piracy, but we have come up with a large variety of violent, but effective ways to stop piracy.
Ultimately the Three Laws were a literary device. Asimov was tired of stories where robots run amok, so he made up rules that would, on the face of it, make robots running amok seem impossible. He then used these rules to make superior robots-run-amok stories.
[...]
I very much doubt Asimov thought that people would ever build something like the Three Laws into technology in such a fundamental way; that was just a literary device that enabled him to display his astounding cleverness. I don't think it'll ever happen either, for the simple reason that killing people will be a driving for in the adoption of autonomous robot technology.
OTOH, what's really going to be different? When humanity builds something smarter than humans and it becomes NP-hard to figure out the loopholes in the thicket of governing rules that allow said AI to kill unauthorized people and cause other mischief, there will be a need for failsafe rules that always work. You will end up with something like the Three Rules as a result.
One could also say the same of murder mysteries and crime dramas. In the good old days, primitive man inflicted all sorts of violence on fellow primitive man. In the good new days, there are laws against doing that and specialized organizations to enforce those laws. It still doesn't keep bad things like murder from happening. In other words, the entirety of human law is just a literary device for making superior caveman on caveman violence stories.
That these laws also help create our vast, technologically advanced, complex societies is beneath our notice.
You braked hard for a non-obstruction without regard to your surroundings, and take that as a reason to always swerve?
Let us note that you are the only one making that assertion. It was quite clear from my writing that I did not. My statement is a standard rhetorical counterargument. When someone asserts a universal statement, bringing up even a single real world counterexample invalidates the universal statement. Said counterexample doesn't imply some other universal statement.
A side-swipe is not something to bother avoiding.
A side swipe easily becomes an uncontrolled swerve which in my case could have resulted in a head on collision. The pickup truck in question was to the right of me, there was an empty center turn lane, and then a bunch of oncoming traffic in the next lane. You do agree that avoiding head on collisions is a good idea, right?
The proper move in this particular scenario was a controlled swerve into the unoccupied center land and then brake. I say nothing about other scenarios here.
if you have the luxury of dodging it, you could have braked to stop hitting it.
I don't buy that. One when it really mattered, I had the luxury of dodging a pickup truck which I thought was going to swerve into my lane (his lane very suddenly ended due to a construction site which was poorly marked). But the fully loaded dump truck tailgating me didn't have the luxury of braking. Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car.
Moral: sometimes you don't have the luxury of braking, particularly on a crowded highway with people riding your ass.
Better situational awareness and driver skill would have helped, but it's still a situation where your "universal solution" wouldn't have worked. I had plenty of open space in front of me (the usual solution to tailgaters) until that pickup truck threatened to merge while braking hard.
Also, one of the advertised advantages of self-driving cars is safe tailgating at highway speed. If something bad happens, there's going to be a lot of swerving in addition to that braking.
A lot of places have laws on who can be excluded from businesses and such. For example, the US has laws that proscribe discrimination by those who provide public accommodations on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin" with some US states going further. California's version probably can be extended to including discrimination on the basis of political belief (The courts have ruled that similar personal characteristics to the protected list are also protected, should some court decide to extend that to personal political beliefs).
Facebook and Google primary services are public accommodations and hence, subject to a lot of anti-discrimination statutes world-wide. So yes, they can be forced to distribute and popularize your opinions as long as they fall under the protected categories of anti-discrimination and similar regulations.
Finally, there is the truth in advertising here. Where's the legal boiler plate that states that such companies can exclude on the basis of political belief or similarly criteria?
So what? There are several levels at which your arguments don't make sense. It's not just lack of evidence to support your claimed degree of impact from climate change. It's also that objectively any given climate is a sunk cost. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again would be just as harmful climate change as what it took to get to that point. And that ignores that current mitigation efforts to date have been remarkably ineffective at mitigating climate change while generating a considerable amount of economic harm.
I'm an pants-peeing idiot and I diddle kittens. -- CaptainDork
I quite agree. There's little need for copy/pasting. We can for example, capture perfectly the sentiments of another writer by paraphrasing what they said.
You know, slashcode could do an automatic find and replace for common Unicode which just happens to represent standard recognized characters (or better, just support Unicode). I have tremendous trouble with this in my copy/pastes due to that.
It's not bullying to say that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Depends on the behavior.
In return for access to the common market Norway and Switzerland pay 60% of a full membership fee, get no subsidies.
Oh look, two more candidates for departure. Note that now Norway and Switzerland's access is a bit less valuable due to the departure of the UK.
The EU isn't much less democratic than most member states.
Which isn't saying much.
This is a common misconception promoted by anti-EU politicians and reinforced by passive voters who aren't interested in how the EU operates. It has orders of magnitude fewer bureaucrats than any member state per capita (although arguably with higher pay than those in many member states).
There isn't a trend here towards stable or diminishing bureaucracy. As to the state of the EU's democracy, someone has already mentioned the state of the EU Constitution, which has a variety of rights which can be readily revoked by conveniently vague circumstances.
Anyway, getting back to my first point, punishing someone for leaving the EU when there was no obligation to stay, is bullying. You can couch that behavior in whatever language you choose, but it remains. And we have this peculiar attitude of entitlement on the part of the EU. The UK contributed greatly to the success of the EU and predecessor organizations and treaties, but rather than showing regret or any sort of humble contrition for chasing away a founding member, we get this sullen, spiteful attitude from a bunch of EU supporters.
Not everyone is on board and membership is voluntary. You may want to think about the consequences, but I still think it's for the best, if you don't. After all, I think the EU is one of the many anti-democratic influences on this world that we can diminish.
As for "ISO-based protectionsim" - what are you talking about?
You have to have certification in particular ISO standards (particularly, ISO 9001), in order to do business in large parts of the EU economy. This has had the important effect of reducing competition at least for the last couple of decades to European businesses which can afford a bunch of relatively cheap but educated paperpushers to meet the standards.
having to follow the same standards means, among other things, that companies have to make their products somewhat compatible, which increases competition in the market and means that consumers have more choice.
You're increasing the barrier to entry by developing world businesses. So no, that would not increase competition.
I read what you write. I don't care about Goering-style "What Hitler really meant was..." reinterpretation after the fact. Write something different, if you want to be interpreted differently.
That's not spite, it is business and you could say self-preservation.
The problem here is that the EU is voluntary membership. If they start bullying those who leave, it'll encourage the rest to leave as well.
Personally, I hope the EU tries to punish the UK. It'll end that anti-democratic experiment in short order.
In fact, the UK already had a special status, since the EU was willing to bend many rules for their promise to stay (Schengen, Euro, trade law etc), so there is absolutely no reason to be accommodating when they break away after all that.
Aside from the reasons for being accommodating in the first place which haven't gone away. The UK still has considerable economic, political, military, and diplomatic power. For example, they were the strongest and most experienced military power of the EU.
And now we get to the babble about slavery. You know the definition of slavery and this is not slavery.
Also, once you start on your litany of why I'm wrong, please keep in mind that the more employers and the easier it is to employ people (in other words, more demand for labor), then the greater the power of the worker.
Most of the world's workers are greatly improving their lot in life. It's time we joined them.
And don't forget that the EU will have to give them a pretty louse "exit package", or risk making exiting the EU "appealing" to others.
That would provide evidence that the EU is a bad place to be (as well as a slap in the face to the 48% who voted to stay in the EU). Spite will make the EU even less stable in the long term.
Just to mention one, very important aspect: UK has built up a close relationship with China in recent years, and we have a massive trade deal with them. One of the main reasons why China chose UK instead of Germany was that we have the best climate for foreign investors, the most liberal labour market - and we were firmly embedded in the EU - or so they thought. So, UK was an attractive entry point to the European market - yesterday. Today we have turned out to be a less reliable partner. It may be that our relationship with China will become significantly less warm, unless we tread carefully. Some people may think this is a good thing, but realistically, this is not likely to be good for our economy.
Why would this be a negative for China? Now they have an opportunity to increase exports to Europe with less of the ISO-based standards protectionism.
Slashdot Mirror
I said you braked carelessly, and you objected in a manner I thought indicated you didn't brake. Instead, you were objecting to the characterization of your unsafe actions, not the actions taken.
I agree that I fucked up. That's not why I was objecting. I objected because I had already experienced an exception to the "universal rule" mentioned earlier in this thread.
Just because braking can be done stupidly (And we'd expect nothing less from you) doesn't mean that it would be the wrong "default" action.
The point here is that swerving was the right action for this real life scenario - not braking and not risking taking a hit from the side which could cause me to lose control of my car as I get pushed into oncoming traffic. This illustrates a common problem with general rules for complex environments. They often have exceptions that break them. Anyone who says such a rule always works simply hasn't yet experienced the exceptions.
Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car.
Pretty straightforward there. I braked and I didn't swerve. You even quoted it.
It's not known how the grinning pirates 160 kilometers off the coast of the Horn of Africa reacted as they suddenly were hit by the LRAD. But they were close, and the closer one is to the sonic cannon, the worse the effect is. It's possible they received permanent hearing damage, but at the very least they experienced an excruciating headache and ear pain to the point that they could no longer see or hear. They also quickly lost the desire to board the ship. Of course, even Captain Blackbeard would have quickly set sail when confronted with 150 decibels of pure noise.
Excruciating headache and permanent hearing damage? That's so humane. Plus it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to defeat the system. Then where are you?
Oh, so you lied to make up a scenario that fit your argument, but didn't happen, and doesn't happen. " Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car." is an absolute in the past tense. Proper English in a rhetorical statement would have been something closer to "If, instead of dodging, I had braked, I'd have totaled my car." But basic English is beyond your abilities. You spent all your time on advanced assholery, and missed all the classes on basic grammar.
Man, this is profoundly stupid even for you. The example was not rhetorical and hence, the tense of the verbs were correct. Basic reading comprehension would have caught that.
I know you probably won't listen, because you have a track record of years of saying stupid shit, but please, get in the habit of thinking first before you write. You don't have to be a idiot man-child for the rest of your life. You can grow up and use that brain that's currently hanging uselessly off the end of your neck.
Being dead is a sure way to not profit. I'll just note here that we have yet to come up with a humane, peaceful way to stop piracy, but we have come up with a large variety of violent, but effective ways to stop piracy.
Ultimately the Three Laws were a literary device. Asimov was tired of stories where robots run amok, so he made up rules that would, on the face of it, make robots running amok seem impossible. He then used these rules to make superior robots-run-amok stories.
[...]
I very much doubt Asimov thought that people would ever build something like the Three Laws into technology in such a fundamental way; that was just a literary device that enabled him to display his astounding cleverness. I don't think it'll ever happen either, for the simple reason that killing people will be a driving for in the adoption of autonomous robot technology.
OTOH, what's really going to be different? When humanity builds something smarter than humans and it becomes NP-hard to figure out the loopholes in the thicket of governing rules that allow said AI to kill unauthorized people and cause other mischief, there will be a need for failsafe rules that always work. You will end up with something like the Three Rules as a result.
One could also say the same of murder mysteries and crime dramas. In the good old days, primitive man inflicted all sorts of violence on fellow primitive man. In the good new days, there are laws against doing that and specialized organizations to enforce those laws. It still doesn't keep bad things like murder from happening. In other words, the entirety of human law is just a literary device for making superior caveman on caveman violence stories.
That these laws also help create our vast, technologically advanced, complex societies is beneath our notice.
You braked hard for a non-obstruction without regard to your surroundings, and take that as a reason to always swerve?
Let us note that you are the only one making that assertion. It was quite clear from my writing that I did not. My statement is a standard rhetorical counterargument. When someone asserts a universal statement, bringing up even a single real world counterexample invalidates the universal statement. Said counterexample doesn't imply some other universal statement.
A side-swipe is not something to bother avoiding.
A side swipe easily becomes an uncontrolled swerve which in my case could have resulted in a head on collision. The pickup truck in question was to the right of me, there was an empty center turn lane, and then a bunch of oncoming traffic in the next lane. You do agree that avoiding head on collisions is a good idea, right?
The proper move in this particular scenario was a controlled swerve into the unoccupied center land and then brake. I say nothing about other scenarios here.
if you have the luxury of dodging it, you could have braked to stop hitting it.
I don't buy that. One when it really mattered, I had the luxury of dodging a pickup truck which I thought was going to swerve into my lane (his lane very suddenly ended due to a construction site which was poorly marked). But the fully loaded dump truck tailgating me didn't have the luxury of braking. Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car.
Moral: sometimes you don't have the luxury of braking, particularly on a crowded highway with people riding your ass.
Better situational awareness and driver skill would have helped, but it's still a situation where your "universal solution" wouldn't have worked. I had plenty of open space in front of me (the usual solution to tailgaters) until that pickup truck threatened to merge while braking hard.
Also, one of the advertised advantages of self-driving cars is safe tailgating at highway speed. If something bad happens, there's going to be a lot of swerving in addition to that braking.
A lot of places have laws on who can be excluded from businesses and such. For example, the US has laws that proscribe discrimination by those who provide public accommodations on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin" with some US states going further. California's version probably can be extended to including discrimination on the basis of political belief (The courts have ruled that similar personal characteristics to the protected list are also protected, should some court decide to extend that to personal political beliefs).
Facebook and Google primary services are public accommodations and hence, subject to a lot of anti-discrimination statutes world-wide. So yes, they can be forced to distribute and popularize your opinions as long as they fall under the protected categories of anti-discrimination and similar regulations.
Finally, there is the truth in advertising here. Where's the legal boiler plate that states that such companies can exclude on the basis of political belief or similarly criteria?
You're pretty confident about your conclusions. I think scientists have a better chance of being right.
Back at you. I at least allow for the possibility I am wrong.
Time will tell.
Indeed.
So what? There are several levels at which your arguments don't make sense. It's not just lack of evidence to support your claimed degree of impact from climate change. It's also that objectively any given climate is a sunk cost. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again would be just as harmful climate change as what it took to get to that point. And that ignores that current mitigation efforts to date have been remarkably ineffective at mitigating climate change while generating a considerable amount of economic harm.
Fine. I still think it would be a huge mistake on the part of the EU to go punishing the UK.
I like to squat on the ground naked and pretend the Earth is my mighty steed. -- CaptainDork
I'm glad we agree.
I'm an pants-peeing idiot and I diddle kittens. -- CaptainDork
I quite agree. There's little need for copy/pasting. We can for example, capture perfectly the sentiments of another writer by paraphrasing what they said.
You know, slashcode could do an automatic find and replace for common Unicode which just happens to represent standard recognized characters (or better, just support Unicode). I have tremendous trouble with this in my copy/pastes due to that.
It's not bullying to say that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Depends on the behavior.
In return for access to the common market Norway and Switzerland pay 60% of a full membership fee, get no subsidies.
Oh look, two more candidates for departure. Note that now Norway and Switzerland's access is a bit less valuable due to the departure of the UK.
The EU isn't much less democratic than most member states.
Which isn't saying much.
This is a common misconception promoted by anti-EU politicians and reinforced by passive voters who aren't interested in how the EU operates. It has orders of magnitude fewer bureaucrats than any member state per capita (although arguably with higher pay than those in many member states).
There isn't a trend here towards stable or diminishing bureaucracy. As to the state of the EU's democracy, someone has already mentioned the state of the EU Constitution, which has a variety of rights which can be readily revoked by conveniently vague circumstances.
Anyway, getting back to my first point, punishing someone for leaving the EU when there was no obligation to stay, is bullying. You can couch that behavior in whatever language you choose, but it remains. And we have this peculiar attitude of entitlement on the part of the EU. The UK contributed greatly to the success of the EU and predecessor organizations and treaties, but rather than showing regret or any sort of humble contrition for chasing away a founding member, we get this sullen, spiteful attitude from a bunch of EU supporters.
Not everyone is on board and membership is voluntary. You may want to think about the consequences, but I still think it's for the best, if you don't. After all, I think the EU is one of the many anti-democratic influences on this world that we can diminish.
Ok, then. What did you mean by that?
As for "ISO-based protectionsim" - what are you talking about?
You have to have certification in particular ISO standards (particularly, ISO 9001), in order to do business in large parts of the EU economy. This has had the important effect of reducing competition at least for the last couple of decades to European businesses which can afford a bunch of relatively cheap but educated paperpushers to meet the standards.
having to follow the same standards means, among other things, that companies have to make their products somewhat compatible, which increases competition in the market and means that consumers have more choice.
You're increasing the barrier to entry by developing world businesses. So no, that would not increase competition.
I read what you write. I don't care about Goering-style "What Hitler really meant was..." reinterpretation after the fact. Write something different, if you want to be interpreted differently.
That's not spite, it is business and you could say self-preservation.
The problem here is that the EU is voluntary membership. If they start bullying those who leave, it'll encourage the rest to leave as well.
Personally, I hope the EU tries to punish the UK. It'll end that anti-democratic experiment in short order.
In fact, the UK already had a special status, since the EU was willing to bend many rules for their promise to stay (Schengen, Euro, trade law etc), so there is absolutely no reason to be accommodating when they break away after all that.
Aside from the reasons for being accommodating in the first place which haven't gone away. The UK still has considerable economic, political, military, and diplomatic power. For example, they were the strongest and most experienced military power of the EU.
So it sounds we might have evidence for your assertions in a few decades? Fine.
And now we get to the babble about slavery. You know the definition of slavery and this is not slavery.
Also, once you start on your litany of why I'm wrong, please keep in mind that the more employers and the easier it is to employ people (in other words, more demand for labor), then the greater the power of the worker.
Most of the world's workers are greatly improving their lot in life. It's time we joined them.
And don't forget that the EU will have to give them a pretty louse "exit package", or risk making exiting the EU "appealing" to others.
That would provide evidence that the EU is a bad place to be (as well as a slap in the face to the 48% who voted to stay in the EU). Spite will make the EU even less stable in the long term.
Sounds more like a split along urban/rural lines with the "elite" being more urban.
Just to mention one, very important aspect: UK has built up a close relationship with China in recent years, and we have a massive trade deal with them. One of the main reasons why China chose UK instead of Germany was that we have the best climate for foreign investors, the most liberal labour market - and we were firmly embedded in the EU - or so they thought. So, UK was an attractive entry point to the European market - yesterday. Today we have turned out to be a less reliable partner. It may be that our relationship with China will become significantly less warm, unless we tread carefully. Some people may think this is a good thing, but realistically, this is not likely to be good for our economy.
Why would this be a negative for China? Now they have an opportunity to increase exports to Europe with less of the ISO-based standards protectionism.