There's also the fact that previous self-driving cars were not generally available. I bought a car year before last that has collision avoidance, lane-following (albeit jerky), and adaptive cruise control, and it didn't cost all that much.
One way to look at innovation is to see what's done anywhere on the planet, another is to see what's generally available for not too much money.
I'm thinking of "known to be safe", which presumably means if the area swerved into is going to be free of obstacles for a moment. That would rule out hitting the dog. Other definitions are possible, but that's the one I think is likely to be applied.
Except that this isn't a case of lying about what the words mean. This is a case of taking the words of the Constitution and finding a clear meaning in them. It may not be the only meaning, but interpreting it my way is not any sort of distortion of meaning. This is in contrast to a ruling that governing commerce among the several States applies to a farmer doing stuff on his own land for his own consumption, which does seem to me to be a really big stretch. It's also very unclear to me how the Federal government has the power to make it illegal to create and consume a drug, provided the events happen in the same state. The Feds clearly could legally ban the transportation of marijuana across state lines.
The Constitution as written is the fundamental law in this country. That's the Constitution, not what other people wrote about it. The Federalist papers were pro-Constitution propaganda by intent. If the writers of the Constitution hadn't meant "general welfare", they didn't have to write it.
Alternately, you could type "us birth rate by year" into Google, and look at the chart that pops up at the top. In that case, you'd see that the US birth rate went significantly down from 1960, hit the present rate about 1975, and has stayed pretty steady since. That would save you from publicly claiming that the US birth rate has been climbing for 200+ years.
Given that you're wrong on your first claim, I don't feel the need to dig into the others.
I didn't read the news reports they cited. The Snopes.com article is well below their usual standards. However it contains a link to the formal proceedings, which includes the findings of fact. I'm going by that, which appears to disagree with what that news report claimed. I'm sticking with the results of formal investigation.
However, I'm referring to the Oregon Sweetcakes by Melissa case, which did indeed involve a bakery and a lesbian couple, and has been widely publicized, and therefore I assumed that was the incident being referred to. That newspaper article is about Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, and I don't have the same quality of source on that one. Perhaps, when describing bakery incidents in a vague way, you could stop to check that everybody's on the same baked page.
Actually, if the car was unoccupied, (A) should not apply. (B) doesn't apply because nobody was trying to remove the man. (C) doesn't apply since grand theft auto is not listed.
It's reasonable to think that, if I'm at home or in my car or at work, someone attempting unlawful forceful entry might well be intending to harm me or others, so I'll accept that as self-defense. Obviously, if (B) applies, the victim is in considerable danger. (C) lists cases where someone is immediately threatened with harm, so I'll go along with that.
However, shooting someone for attempting to steal your car when you're not in it is not self-defense.
As a leftist, I'm unaware of an accepted dogma. Have I been missing the memos? Or have you been getting your information on the Left from thoroughly biased sources?
The left is disorganized. We tend to seek change, and it's not all the same change. However, I don't know anybody who thinks individualism is evil, or that good can come only from the collective. We tend to appreciate differences between people. Our view of the right wing is that they want people to conform more, and so we see the right wing as the ones against individualism.
Did you look carefully at Bernie Sanders' platform? His "radical" proposals were mostly aimed at giving the disadvantaged more chance to succeed.
Oddly enough, invasions are expected to be met with organized military force. It's only legal for civilians to use armed resistance against invasions until the defending army shows up. (The civilians must also carry weapons openly and abide by the laws of war.) At that point, they can join the army if the army wants them.
Equally oddly, the US spends more money on the armed forces than anybody else, and it isn't close. The US Armed Forces have demonstrated great skill and capabilities in recent wars. It would be exceedingly difficult to make an amphibious invasion because of the dominance of the US Navy, and the Army and Air Force are more than capable of opposing invading forces from Canada and/or Mexico. Unorganized rednecks wouldn't matter.
I marvel at the number of gun nuts who seem to forget that we do, in fact, have very powerful armed forces.
Their logic is likely to be that they're facing a lot of criticism for hosting weapon-related videos, and it might work better for them commercially to ban some of them. (TFA doesn't say they're banning all weapon-related videos, by the way.)
However, that apparently doesn't stop you from jumping to your own political conclusions.
To get that figure for "defensive gun use", you have to include pretty much all incidents where someone felt threatened and pulled a gun. That's not a useful figure. In many of those cases, there wouldn't have been any violence anyway. In many cases, there wouldn't have been an incident if nobody had a gun. It isn't simple (and might be impossible) to count incidents where having a gun made the difference between felony assault or not, but listing the number of times people think a gun might have saved them is no better than listing the number of times a gun was used against someone actually attacking, which is a lot lower.
Many people who try suicide regret it immediately after, if able. People who jump off bridges and wind up all right tend not to do it again. Having a quick and reliable suicide method means that more suicide attempts will succeed, and more people will die of suicide. Comparing suicide rates across countries will involve a very large number of other factors.
There are plenty of cases where reducing guns has reduced at least some violence, and dropped the murder rate.
Violent crime has fallen in the developed world, with or without guns.
Gang violence with guns will involve some bullets that hit innocent people. Gang violence without guns is less likely to injure uninvolved people. Reducing the number of available guns will reduce the number of suicides, as I explained.
The Constitutional argument is an argument that guns are legal, not that they're good.
It's entirely possible to be free and unarmed. The majority of people in the US are unarmed at any point. I don't own a firearm, and the government isn't infringing on my rights.
But you don't even have the First Amendment, let alone the Second, so we'll understand that you're a bit behind and don't get it yet.
Someone in a society without the First is more likely to understand free speech, because it's an important topic. In the US, it tends to be a quick appeal to the First Amendment. A country where the government has to consider various issues will foster more debate, which means the politically aware will know of arguments for and against free speech.
We can't eliminate bad guys. Mass shooters are frequently not diagnosable with mental illness. You can say they must be crazy, but that's not helpful. It is possible to try to engage shooters personally (consider the teacher who stopped a potential shooting spree with a hug), but that doesn't necessarily work either.
And, when you get down to it, we're very fussy about how many shooters we want to allow. One guy shoots up a school, and it's national news and people want to stop it from happening again. It's simply not possible to deal with all potential shooters, with their variety of reasons and responses.
Allowing people to have weapons they decide to acquire is arming the bad guys, since bad guys usually want weapons. Bad guys tend to be armed. In what way do firearms compensate for a 5-1 advantage? (Bear in mind that a law-abiding homeowner will almost certainly hesitate to fire at a human if there's no immediate threat, and a bandit won't.)
If a majority of the people want an amendment, that's not enough. There's two ways to propose an amendment. Both houses of Congress can propose it with two-thirds votes, or two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention that can propose amendments without help from Congress. Then it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify each proposed amendment. It's deliberately hard to amend the Constitution. If everybody's agreed that an amendment is in order then it can go pretty fast (see the amendment establishing eighteen as voting age). If not quite enough of a majority is agreed, it goes the way of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
And now I frequently use a color GUI to bring up command line windows of one form or another.
After my first exposure to the web, i thought it wouldn't catch on. That's one of my worse calls, to be honest.
There's also the fact that previous self-driving cars were not generally available. I bought a car year before last that has collision avoidance, lane-following (albeit jerky), and adaptive cruise control, and it didn't cost all that much.
One way to look at innovation is to see what's done anywhere on the planet, another is to see what's generally available for not too much money.
I'm thinking of "known to be safe", which presumably means if the area swerved into is going to be free of obstacles for a moment. That would rule out hitting the dog. Other definitions are possible, but that's the one I think is likely to be applied.
Except that this isn't a case of lying about what the words mean. This is a case of taking the words of the Constitution and finding a clear meaning in them. It may not be the only meaning, but interpreting it my way is not any sort of distortion of meaning. This is in contrast to a ruling that governing commerce among the several States applies to a farmer doing stuff on his own land for his own consumption, which does seem to me to be a really big stretch. It's also very unclear to me how the Federal government has the power to make it illegal to create and consume a drug, provided the events happen in the same state. The Feds clearly could legally ban the transportation of marijuana across state lines.
The Constitution as written is the fundamental law in this country. That's the Constitution, not what other people wrote about it. The Federalist papers were pro-Constitution propaganda by intent. If the writers of the Constitution hadn't meant "general welfare", they didn't have to write it.
I was specifically addressing your claim immediately before my reply, not whether Lovelace was the first programmer.
Alternately, you could type "us birth rate by year" into Google, and look at the chart that pops up at the top. In that case, you'd see that the US birth rate went significantly down from 1960, hit the present rate about 1975, and has stayed pretty steady since. That would save you from publicly claiming that the US birth rate has been climbing for 200+ years.
Given that you're wrong on your first claim, I don't feel the need to dig into the others.
I didn't read the news reports they cited. The Snopes.com article is well below their usual standards. However it contains a link to the formal proceedings, which includes the findings of fact. I'm going by that, which appears to disagree with what that news report claimed. I'm sticking with the results of formal investigation.
However, I'm referring to the Oregon Sweetcakes by Melissa case, which did indeed involve a bakery and a lesbian couple, and has been widely publicized, and therefore I assumed that was the incident being referred to. That newspaper article is about Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, and I don't have the same quality of source on that one. Perhaps, when describing bakery incidents in a vague way, you could stop to check that everybody's on the same baked page.
Actually, if the car was unoccupied, (A) should not apply. (B) doesn't apply because nobody was trying to remove the man. (C) doesn't apply since grand theft auto is not listed.
It's reasonable to think that, if I'm at home or in my car or at work, someone attempting unlawful forceful entry might well be intending to harm me or others, so I'll accept that as self-defense. Obviously, if (B) applies, the victim is in considerable danger. (C) lists cases where someone is immediately threatened with harm, so I'll go along with that.
However, shooting someone for attempting to steal your car when you're not in it is not self-defense.
Thank you for supplying documentation. That makes it a lot easier to judge.
As a leftist, I'm unaware of an accepted dogma. Have I been missing the memos? Or have you been getting your information on the Left from thoroughly biased sources?
The left is disorganized. We tend to seek change, and it's not all the same change. However, I don't know anybody who thinks individualism is evil, or that good can come only from the collective. We tend to appreciate differences between people. Our view of the right wing is that they want people to conform more, and so we see the right wing as the ones against individualism.
Did you look carefully at Bernie Sanders' platform? His "radical" proposals were mostly aimed at giving the disadvantaged more chance to succeed.
A human driving 5mph in a 35mph zone is in danger of road rage or being rear-ended. It's unrealistic to expect a factor of 7 slowdown.
I am getting to be an old guy, and when I was in college (think Nixon administration) the students were assiduous jaywalkers.
Saving her night vision is fine, but if she's aware that she has to she knows that a car is coming.
Oddly enough, invasions are expected to be met with organized military force. It's only legal for civilians to use armed resistance against invasions until the defending army shows up. (The civilians must also carry weapons openly and abide by the laws of war.) At that point, they can join the army if the army wants them.
Equally oddly, the US spends more money on the armed forces than anybody else, and it isn't close. The US Armed Forces have demonstrated great skill and capabilities in recent wars. It would be exceedingly difficult to make an amphibious invasion because of the dominance of the US Navy, and the Army and Air Force are more than capable of opposing invading forces from Canada and/or Mexico. Unorganized rednecks wouldn't matter.
I marvel at the number of gun nuts who seem to forget that we do, in fact, have very powerful armed forces.
Then why does it use those exact words?
You've managed to define "far left " ideology to mean almost no people in the US, thus rendering the phrase useless around here.
Their logic is likely to be that they're facing a lot of criticism for hosting weapon-related videos, and it might work better for them commercially to ban some of them. (TFA doesn't say they're banning all weapon-related videos, by the way.)
However, that apparently doesn't stop you from jumping to your own political conclusions.
To get that figure for "defensive gun use", you have to include pretty much all incidents where someone felt threatened and pulled a gun. That's not a useful figure. In many of those cases, there wouldn't have been any violence anyway. In many cases, there wouldn't have been an incident if nobody had a gun. It isn't simple (and might be impossible) to count incidents where having a gun made the difference between felony assault or not, but listing the number of times people think a gun might have saved them is no better than listing the number of times a gun was used against someone actually attacking, which is a lot lower.
Many people who try suicide regret it immediately after, if able. People who jump off bridges and wind up all right tend not to do it again. Having a quick and reliable suicide method means that more suicide attempts will succeed, and more people will die of suicide. Comparing suicide rates across countries will involve a very large number of other factors.
There are plenty of cases where reducing guns has reduced at least some violence, and dropped the murder rate.
Violent crime has fallen in the developed world, with or without guns.
Gang violence with guns will involve some bullets that hit innocent people. Gang violence without guns is less likely to injure uninvolved people. Reducing the number of available guns will reduce the number of suicides, as I explained.
The Constitutional argument is an argument that guns are legal, not that they're good.
It's entirely possible to be free and unarmed. The majority of people in the US are unarmed at any point. I don't own a firearm, and the government isn't infringing on my rights.
Someone in a society without the First is more likely to understand free speech, because it's an important topic. In the US, it tends to be a quick appeal to the First Amendment. A country where the government has to consider various issues will foster more debate, which means the politically aware will know of arguments for and against free speech.
I've learned that, behind such an anecdote, there's almost always an important part of the story that's being omitted.
We can't eliminate bad guys. Mass shooters are frequently not diagnosable with mental illness. You can say they must be crazy, but that's not helpful. It is possible to try to engage shooters personally (consider the teacher who stopped a potential shooting spree with a hug), but that doesn't necessarily work either.
And, when you get down to it, we're very fussy about how many shooters we want to allow. One guy shoots up a school, and it's national news and people want to stop it from happening again. It's simply not possible to deal with all potential shooters, with their variety of reasons and responses.
Allowing people to have weapons they decide to acquire is arming the bad guys, since bad guys usually want weapons. Bad guys tend to be armed. In what way do firearms compensate for a 5-1 advantage? (Bear in mind that a law-abiding homeowner will almost certainly hesitate to fire at a human if there's no immediate threat, and a bandit won't.)
If a majority of the people want an amendment, that's not enough. There's two ways to propose an amendment. Both houses of Congress can propose it with two-thirds votes, or two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention that can propose amendments without help from Congress. Then it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify each proposed amendment. It's deliberately hard to amend the Constitution. If everybody's agreed that an amendment is in order then it can go pretty fast (see the amendment establishing eighteen as voting age). If not quite enough of a majority is agreed, it goes the way of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.