But how am I to get the correct geo-coded ads? I'll be disappointed when the ad says "Meet single ladies in $fakeregion," if $fakeregion isn't where I'm sitting.
As Jimmy Carr said, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
So either you admit that even an overwhelming majority IS NOT IN ITSELF enough evidence to show that the rights of another can be infringed because of the majority opininon, or you are admitting you think gang rape is cool.
No, the OP is either the victim or the perpetrator in your scenario.
Your personal bias of your example versus my anecdote, as I previously pointed out. On average, my data was vague? Really, I was unaware you could average vagueness. Also, the difference between vagueness and unreliability is the same as the difference between precision and accuracy, though I can hardly fault you as that is a common failing among the populace.
Opinions over what is and is not constitutional by citizens in a democratic nation most certainly matter. Even "in terms of it's effects". Welcome to politics.
Yet, my point still stands. Nothing is unconstitutional until the courts say it is.
Just two copies of a book are probably enough to learn how to break the system, and a few more to know how to rig the text to target a particular poor schmuk.
At least all the pirates will be buying multiple copies!
Just to clarify, I never called you a liar. I also don't doubt your personal anecdotes or that major prejudice is in place. I only pointed out that long hair is not necessarily relevant, as my example showed.
You mentioned a bunch of generalized places where you say you've lived, and stated that the sidewalks were paid for by the government in those places.
I mentioned a specific instance of a thing characteristic of its kind (not a general rule as you seem to think).
One of these claims can be independently verified. The other cannot be.
Guess which one is more reliable?
It's not a question of bias. It is an example (there's that word again) of the notion that not all statements are created equally.
I did not mention "generalized places" I've lived. Washington, DC is specific as it gets. Okay, the states were large, so here's the cities: Santa Ana, CA; Orange, CA; Leesburg, VA. You clearly used the word anecdote to bias your data above mine.
I never had any intention of baiting anyone into looking up the rules in the places I've lived. I was just stating what the rules (as they were applied) were in the places I've lived as a counterpoint to a claim that the "North American way" was to make the homeowner pay for sidewalk repairs. I understand skepticism when reading claims on the interwebs, but really why would someone lie about such a trivial observation in a small sample of places? It seemed awfully unusual to me for such a minor point to argued so heavily.
No, it's how far you're going to disprove my point. My point was always about SIDEWALK REPAIR as practically enforced in the USA in my experience (as said multiple times above). And yet you try to "dispute" my point by changing what I'm saying. Just keep right on justifying yourself, because someone with your outsized ego must surely realize that an outsized ego is a negative quality and must therefore argue that they don't have one. Have a nice day.
No, I don't have a problem with random people on the Internet disagreeing. However, your zealousness does seem to indicate that your ego is well engaged on the topic.
So if you want a shot at lawsuit lotto and don't mind risking your life there ya go, just be a long hair with a black in your car in MS,AL,GA,or WV and see how far your ass gets before you see flashing lights, you can bet your last buck it sure as fuck won't be very far, they don't cotton no salt and pepper friendships down there..
I have long hair and was pulled over in WV for having no lights on my trailer. The officer was genuinely concerned that someone could rear-end me. He did not cite or warn me. He recommended me using my hazard lights (one brake light was working) until I got home (non-WV plates on car and trailer). Granted, I was with my white daughter, but still the long hair evoked nothing.
If you look back to the top of the thread (poster: Trepidity), his claim was that the "North American" approach was that "the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house." That was what I was responding to. "Anything" meant "anything in maintaining." And please don't respond and say that shoveling snow is maintaining unless your ego requires you to always be right.
Perhaps it is state law in CA, but in practice the cities I've lived in there (Anaheim, Santa Ana, Orange) have always done the repair work and have never asked me for compensation (other than the same tax rate all property owners pay). I think the state law is purely for liability purposes when someone trips and falls in front of your house.
I live in a small rural town, with maybe 500 yards of sidewalk. About half of it is between and near the school, library, and town hall. The town does indeed run a tiny snowplow to clear all the sidewalks - it's a question of safety and efficiency; it would be a bit foolish to insist everyone with a 50 foot frontage keep their own portion clean.
I'm impressed. Every city I've ever lived in required the homeowners to clear their own walks. I guess in a town of only 500 yards of sidewalk, the town can easily do the job.
You fail to understand my point. Interpretation of the Constitution happens through the courts. Court rulings are legal OPINIONS. The only legal OPINION that matters (in terms of its effects) is that of the courts, and ultimately SCOTUS. Anyone can say something is unconstitutional IN THEIR OPINION. But that doesn't make it so. Only a ruling by the courts actually makes it unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
But how am I to get the correct geo-coded ads? I'll be disappointed when the ad says "Meet single ladies in $fakeregion," if $fakeregion isn't where I'm sitting.
More speculation. When a similar rumor came out about Apple, all the haters here cried about how /. was reporting on imaginary hardware.
geeze, they let dogs drive in Russia?!!
If you've watched some of those videos, it's easy to conclude that dogs wouldn't be much worse at driving than the Russians.
If a Christian family is debasing a gay person they are not devout and especially not Christian.
No true Scotsman.
As Jimmy Carr said, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
So either you admit that even an overwhelming majority IS NOT IN ITSELF enough evidence to show that the rights of another can be infringed because of the majority opininon, or you are admitting you think gang rape is cool.
No, the OP is either the victim or the perpetrator in your scenario.
Reliable data can be verified, much as reliable software can be. It can be proven.
Vague data cannot be. And it can not be proven, much less verified.
There, an analogy! This being Slashdot, I think we're done here.
You and your anecdotes can go and play together now.
Like I said, you don't know the difference between precision and accuracy.
What bias?
Your personal bias of your example versus my anecdote, as I previously pointed out. On average, my data was vague? Really, I was unaware you could average vagueness. Also, the difference between vagueness and unreliability is the same as the difference between precision and accuracy, though I can hardly fault you as that is a common failing among the populace.
You sure are trying hard to justify your bias.
I Patent useing the letter E in a URL cost $0.0005 per use
Although E is extremely common in written English, you might prefer O - as in .com, .org, .gov
... but I'll play a game every now and then at the airport because it beats watching the guy sitting across from me pick his nose.
What if I pick my nose in 1080p?
Leave out the "pm", and you double the accuracy while saving ink!
Hell, leave out the 5 instead and "pm" will be accurate half the day!
My data was not any vaguer than yours. Washington, DC is as non-vague as Findlay, Ohio. In addition, vagueness does not imply unreliability.
Opinions over what is and is not constitutional by citizens in a democratic nation most certainly matter. Even "in terms of it's effects". Welcome to politics.
Yet, my point still stands. Nothing is unconstitutional until the courts say it is.
Just two copies of a book are probably enough to learn how to break the system, and a few more to know how to rig the text to target a particular poor schmuk.
At least all the pirates will be buying multiple copies!
Just to clarify, I never called you a liar. I also don't doubt your personal anecdotes or that major prejudice is in place. I only pointed out that long hair is not necessarily relevant, as my example showed.
The two accounts are different.
You mentioned a bunch of generalized places where you say you've lived, and stated that the sidewalks were paid for by the government in those places.
I mentioned a specific instance of a thing characteristic of its kind (not a general rule as you seem to think).
One of these claims can be independently verified. The other cannot be.
Guess which one is more reliable?
It's not a question of bias. It is an example (there's that word again) of the notion that not all statements are created equally.
I did not mention "generalized places" I've lived. Washington, DC is specific as it gets. Okay, the states were large, so here's the cities: Santa Ana, CA; Orange, CA; Leesburg, VA. You clearly used the word anecdote to bias your data above mine.
I never had any intention of baiting anyone into looking up the rules in the places I've lived. I was just stating what the rules (as they were applied) were in the places I've lived as a counterpoint to a claim that the "North American way" was to make the homeowner pay for sidewalk repairs. I understand skepticism when reading claims on the interwebs, but really why would someone lie about such a trivial observation in a small sample of places? It seemed awfully unusual to me for such a minor point to argued so heavily.
No, it's how far you're going to disprove my point. My point was always about SIDEWALK REPAIR as practically enforced in the USA in my experience (as said multiple times above). And yet you try to "dispute" my point by changing what I'm saying. Just keep right on justifying yourself, because someone with your outsized ego must surely realize that an outsized ego is a negative quality and must therefore argue that they don't have one. Have a nice day.
No, I don't have a problem with random people on the Internet disagreeing. However, your zealousness does seem to indicate that your ego is well engaged on the topic.
So if you want a shot at lawsuit lotto and don't mind risking your life there ya go, just be a long hair with a black in your car in MS,AL,GA,or WV and see how far your ass gets before you see flashing lights, you can bet your last buck it sure as fuck won't be very far, they don't cotton no salt and pepper friendships down there..
I have long hair and was pulled over in WV for having no lights on my trailer. The officer was genuinely concerned that someone could rear-end me. He did not cite or warn me. He recommended me using my hazard lights (one brake light was working) until I got home (non-WV plates on car and trailer). Granted, I was with my white daughter, but still the long hair evoked nothing.
If you look back to the top of the thread (poster: Trepidity), his claim was that the "North American" approach was that "the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house." That was what I was responding to. "Anything" meant "anything in maintaining." And please don't respond and say that shoveling snow is maintaining unless your ego requires you to always be right.
Perhaps it is state law in CA, but in practice the cities I've lived in there (Anaheim, Santa Ana, Orange) have always done the repair work and have never asked me for compensation (other than the same tax rate all property owners pay). I think the state law is purely for liability purposes when someone trips and falls in front of your house.
I live in a small rural town, with maybe 500 yards of sidewalk. About half of it is between and near the school, library, and town hall. The town does indeed run a tiny snowplow to clear all the sidewalks - it's a question of safety and efficiency; it would be a bit foolish to insist everyone with a 50 foot frontage keep their own portion clean.
I'm impressed. Every city I've ever lived in required the homeowners to clear their own walks. I guess in a town of only 500 yards of sidewalk, the town can easily do the job.
As I have said previously, I was referring to sidewalk repairs, not snow removal.
My point is that you consider my account to be unreliable and yet your account is illustrating a general rule. You can't even see your own bias.
You fail to understand my point. Interpretation of the Constitution happens through the courts. Court rulings are legal OPINIONS. The only legal OPINION that matters (in terms of its effects) is that of the courts, and ultimately SCOTUS. Anyone can say something is unconstitutional IN THEIR OPINION. But that doesn't make it so. Only a ruling by the courts actually makes it unconstitutional.