First time for everything. Like to think I'd do the same. Cheers.:)
Yeah, had the deer. My dad in the truck behind me says it looked like the doe jumped right over me, but what happened in fact was she bounded out and we eyeballed each other for just a moment before she decided to veer just behind me in a leap. Kind of slo-mo beautiful, in that I'm-about-to-die kinda way.
I like the jackpot idea. I still wear all the gear (in 30-40 Celcius heat) and try to keep people guessing on the road, though the cars around me probably find it annoying and don't know why.
I mean no insult, but on a motorcycle you simply cannot afford to space out the way you can in a car. There is just way too much to risk. I really do not think the average driver on the road could safely operate a motorcycle for any length of time, not because they couldn't grasp the principles of driving one, but because it takes discipline to keep scanning for danger. A poster below lists many of the things you need to watch out for -- many that a car-driver would laugh at. My instructor used to race for Honda, and this guy is saying: watch out for wet leaves, wet paint lines on the road, any kind of wet. These are not things one need concern oneself with in a car. Uneven pavement/streetcar tracks? Danger. Tennis ball rolls out? Danger. Friggin squirrel? Possible danger. Not to mention the near-invisibility of bikes on the road to most cars, if they're not constantly changing speed and position to keep you watching them. It really is a different story.
I used to laugh when my gf would want to go for a spin in rush-hour traffic. It's so fun - so relaxing! Yeah... maybe as a passenger!
I take it from your post that you have never had a deer, or a pedestrian, let alone a car wander out into your peripheral vision, with obvious intention to wander some more.
I've been on a Yahaha 650XS Heritage Special for the last 11 years; thanks for asking.
I have been in situations where a glance down at my instruments is inopportune. It has never caused an accident because I do it quickly and my eyes are back on the road. FYI I also check my side mirrors when I change lanes or turn, and in that moment my eye is also not on the road ahead.
Maybe you've been riding for 20 years. Don't know; don't care. This is not a pissing contest. In my view, having something extra in my field of view that has no relation to the background I'm constantly scanning does more harm than good. I know the approximate RPM of the bike from its feel and sound. I've never gotten so crazy on it that I'm surprised by my speed when I check it. What exactly could you put on that HUD that would offset the additional risk, pray tell?
The cool factor does not cut it. Maybe on four wheels.
Ever hear of "big sky theory"? Not a lot to run into up there.
Even if you could somehow fix the focus problem, as the poster below points out, you would still be obscuring what little visual field I have in a full-face helmet (and catch me wearing anything else). We're talking about a constantly shifting background. Wherever you put the HUD display, it's in front of what is empty space one second, and the nose of a deer the next, or a pedestrian not looking where they're going, the nose of a car or bicycle. If I have to constantly veer my gaze just to see what's behind my new, completely-in-front-of-me blind spot, that's not only a hassle, it's dangerous. Think about that for a second.
Motorcyclists already have to pay closer attention things on the road -- and the conditions of the road itself -- wet leaves, potholes, puddles -- than those on four wheels. Is putting more -- continually -- in their visual frame a good idea from the standpoint of safety? (and yes, all the cracks about why-are-you-on-a-motorcycle in the first place stand, but there's a difference between risking death and egging it on)
You know the way an interior light in a car is distracting at night because the reflection of things within the car obscure your perception of those outside? I'd feel safer sparing a glance to an instrument on my bike than having it in my face at all times. The helmet already narrows my visual field as it is.
Fine. If you haven't gathered by the previous 7 comments, I made an analogy about sanction not equalling license, and got slammed for the pre-emptive versus punishment aspect of the analogy which was not intended to demonstrate a separate point.
Which excuses not at all your take on what is a real-world practice. Here's a clue. I (and chances are you) pay into all kinds of enviro levies, although mostly it's done through taxes. So if you think you should go out and "get your money's worth", as far as I'm concerned, you're part of the problem, not any solution.
I agree that is the case when our privacy is intruded upon, but I think that's only halfway there. Even when it's "the other guy" being intruded upon, there still is this:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
The whole McCarthyistic idea that people who have nothing to hide should not be concerned about enforcing their right to privacy is the very first idea that must be tossed out with the trash.
I thought about this, and it is a point I made when I posted these points originally, below.
However, the fact remains the same: you pay more, everyday, for acts that others commit. The fact that the government is the one doing the collecting and distributing does not mean extra (or less) $ in my pockets than if the price of those blank media spiked instead for the same purpose.
I should have guessed that the analogy would be analyzed on all fronts -- the point is this: paying a penalty or levy, preemptive or not, does not result in you being able to legally carry out the act. It is not and cannot be construed as a license. They are completely different things.
I should add -- and I point this out in a post farther below -- that what you describe does happen in other industries, namely insurance and the pricing of standard goods.
Rise in traffic accidents (and you're not one of them) --> increase in your insurance to pay for it.
Increase in shoplifting --> you pay more for the goods in that store as prices rise.
We constantly pay for other people's acts. Holding to that reasoning, the media levy isn't incurred "because they think I'm going to illegally copy/download" but directly because other people are doing it. Injustice? You bet. But thems the facts in many, many aspects of consumer life.
Bingo -- and I agree with the effect. There is nothing that encourages lawbreaking like feeling ripped off and "deserving" compensation (I suppose that could apply to the RIAA, too, except that corps/orgs aren't supposed to be vindictively motivated).
I pay my levy, I want my compensation. What's that, you say? Free downloading?
Ok - not like this is a lone cry in the wilderness, but this just sickens me.
This does happen elsewhere. We pay for increased insurance rates when other people have more accidents. The prices in our stores go up when other people shoplift. The difference? The government doesn't raise the prices on tangentially connected items in order to compensate.
I'm not screwin around here. Several years ago I bought a hand-held dictaphone that used normal-sized cassette tapes. Sure, it's bulkier, but had a huge advantage -- those mini-tapes were mondo-expensive. I'd buy ten cheapo no-name standard cassette tapes (all I'd need for a lecture, etc) and I'd be set. Enter the levy -- doubling the price or more of the cheap tapes. May as well get pricey ones if I'm gonna get charged a flat fee per tape. And out goes the entire purpose of buying that particular model. Punished for an entirely erroneous assumption. And let's remember: mixed-tapes were legal, too. Mass production and use (as some DJ's would do) was a concern for the powers that be, but fair-use was still fair-use. Now we get slammed whether we break the law or no.
Is this a democracy or not? Who got to have a say on this issue?
I've heard this argument/query a lot, but think of it this way -- this is compensation (say they -- I say punishment or disincentive). When you litter and get a $50 fine, it's not you "buying a ticket to litter" though that might be the effect. And if it doesn't thwart would-be litterers, up goes the fine till it becomes a disincentive.
The difference here is that obviously they don't want people to stop purchasing blank media. That would defeat the levy. But paying it doesn't turn an illegal act into a legal one.
Since the invasion of Iraq was considered a good option by the current US administration, maybe the ppl will force them to change their mind when the next invasion's price is New York.
You're an idiot.
Titanic. Pearl Harbour. WTC.
Gotta love optimism. Isn't that what kids are calling ignorance these days?
I sympathize, strangely, with all posters on this particular thread.
Having watched America's (the country) excesses from a relatively safe vantage point, I've long slagged the country and its inhabitants for the various ills it has propagated. Only recently have I begun to realize what it would be like to be a citizen of the country and still feel this way, knowing my tax dollars are going toward idiocy and worse. That is a level of frustration and helplessness I hope never to feel.
All fine and well to play devil's advocate, especially when it makes the other guy seem narrow-minded.
But speaking from personal experience, if I ever had a mental image of the Kwisatz Haderach, it's long since morphed into Kyle MacLachlan. And I must have read LOTR... (lets not exaggerate here...) say 20 times. I'm positive I had a mental image of Frodo. What was it? I have no idea.
Is it really all that earth-shattering to admit that movies tend to burn an image into one's mind in a way that overpowers the changeable visions of the imagination? (that being said, I don't know how many times -- always a surprise -- in the past month I've thought I saw something on tv or in a movie and realized that I read it and the mental image is so strong I could swear I saw it somewhere till I remembered the source. That, however, does not diminish the argument that an external visual representation of the same thing couldn't extinguish that mental image)
Personally, I'd like to see P.Jackson's version for the sake of consistency of vision, not because I'm mentally lazy (though I am most assuredly that, paraphrased the man, er, Dude). That and to prevent Bakshi from wreaking more ruin.
The law differentiates between offences according to seriousness of the act and moral blame of the offender. Nowhere does it attempt an assessment of pathology. There's a good reason for that -- lawyers and judges are not trained in psychology, in which they generally require easy-to-digest, discrete chunks like "capable of understanding the nature and quality of his/her acts". In that field, they are laypersons, just as the majority of the public are, and I doubt many mental health professionals would back the idea that "one murder does not a murderer make." Your view of the inherent pathology of sexual offenders versus other criminal types fits the public perception, but we live in a society that glamorizes theft, robbery, even murder. Your gut reaction to the sexual offender means nothing.
Your point about separating offences according to stigma and blameworthiness has some merit, but rather than questioning whether the public is capable and willing to make such distinctions, shouldn't we be questioning whether it is their place to do so at all?
It's like those people who are saying "sometimes they find the wrong person" -- you are saying "sometimes they lump the bad in with the really, really bad". You want to lobby for tougher laws? Fine. You want to show up at parole hearings and lobby the board (often very influential)? Fine. But every man and woman who ever snagged a chocolate bar from the corner store, who smoked a joint, who cheated on their taxes, better be morally committed to the idea of their wrongs being publicly aired and left up to others to decide their punishment, if they think that taking a baseball bat to someone who may have committed a crime and then served time is a good idea. They can only be out to either i) kill the person, in which case they are no better if not worse, or ii) drive them out of their backyard and into someone else's. Not exactly the moral high road.
i) Any good social scientist will tell you that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, especially when it comes to serious acts, because the line has already been crossed. That being said...
ii) where in all of this is the sense that we believe in rehabilitation? If 100 paroles go straight for every one that doesn't, which do you think we'll hear about? I have to agree with the parent (2 removed): if we don't believe in rehab, then life sentences all around. If we do, then what kind of mindless thuggery are we perpetrating, and how can ex-cons go straight if they're constant public targets?
It's primary and secondary deviance. Brand a criminal and you'll have a criminal for life.
I have yet to attend a course (other than air traffic control and programming) that used computers other than as an inordinately expensive overhead. Even in the ATC course, most of the time these beautiful 21" monitors were used to display bullet points of a lecture (which usually end up on handouts as well since we may as well throw a few trees in while we're at it).
Add to that the enormous cost of keeping up with the tech, and I just don't see the point unless it's to teach computer skills on them.
Affleck: "To anybody who's ever thought, Did that happen or did I dream it? - you'd have to have a PhD in philosophy to get too deep into this, but it has to do with wanting to validate our own first-person experience."
This is what writers like Dick are up against -- an audience (and even actors in movies based on his works!) that thinks a doctorate is needed to look beneath the veneer. But then, if the Hollywood versions bring more readers to the original works...
and here I've been fearing
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
a return of "it's that big hunk of FUDGE" or worse yet "where's the beef?"
when what I should have been fearing is commercials that didn't make the cut??!!
Slashdot Mirror
... ... WTF?
:)
First time for everything. Like to think I'd do the same. Cheers.
Yeah, had the deer. My dad in the truck behind me says it looked like the doe jumped right over me, but what happened in fact was she bounded out and we eyeballed each other for just a moment before she decided to veer just behind me in a leap. Kind of slo-mo beautiful, in that I'm-about-to-die kinda way.
I like the jackpot idea. I still wear all the gear (in 30-40 Celcius heat) and try to keep people guessing on the road, though the cars around me probably find it annoying and don't know why.
I mean no insult, but on a motorcycle you simply cannot afford to space out the way you can in a car. There is just way too much to risk. I really do not think the average driver on the road could safely operate a motorcycle for any length of time, not because they couldn't grasp the principles of driving one, but because it takes discipline to keep scanning for danger. A poster below lists many of the things you need to watch out for -- many that a car-driver would laugh at. My instructor used to race for Honda, and this guy is saying: watch out for wet leaves, wet paint lines on the road, any kind of wet. These are not things one need concern oneself with in a car. Uneven pavement/streetcar tracks? Danger. Tennis ball rolls out? Danger. Friggin squirrel? Possible danger. Not to mention the near-invisibility of bikes on the road to most cars, if they're not constantly changing speed and position to keep you watching them. It really is a different story.
I used to laugh when my gf would want to go for a spin in rush-hour traffic. It's so fun - so relaxing! Yeah... maybe as a passenger!
I take it from your post that you have never had a deer, or a pedestrian, let alone a car wander out into your peripheral vision, with obvious intention to wander some more.
I've been on a Yahaha 650XS Heritage Special for the last 11 years; thanks for asking.
I have been in situations where a glance down at my instruments is inopportune. It has never caused an accident because I do it quickly and my eyes are back on the road. FYI I also check my side mirrors when I change lanes or turn, and in that moment my eye is also not on the road ahead.
Maybe you've been riding for 20 years. Don't know; don't care. This is not a pissing contest. In my view, having something extra in my field of view that has no relation to the background I'm constantly scanning does more harm than good. I know the approximate RPM of the bike from its feel and sound. I've never gotten so crazy on it that I'm surprised by my speed when I check it. What exactly could you put on that HUD that would offset the additional risk, pray tell?
The cool factor does not cut it. Maybe on four wheels.
My mis-ordering. As the poster above points out. My bad.
Ever hear of "big sky theory"? Not a lot to run into up there.
Even if you could somehow fix the focus problem, as the poster below points out, you would still be obscuring what little visual field I have in a full-face helmet (and catch me wearing anything else). We're talking about a constantly shifting background. Wherever you put the HUD display, it's in front of what is empty space one second, and the nose of a deer the next, or a pedestrian not looking where they're going, the nose of a car or bicycle. If I have to constantly veer my gaze just to see what's behind my new, completely-in-front-of-me blind spot, that's not only a hassle, it's dangerous. Think about that for a second.
Motorcyclists already have to pay closer attention things on the road -- and the conditions of the road itself -- wet leaves, potholes, puddles -- than those on four wheels. Is putting more -- continually -- in their visual frame a good idea from the standpoint of safety? (and yes, all the cracks about why-are-you-on-a-motorcycle in the first place stand, but there's a difference between risking death and egging it on)
You know the way an interior light in a car is distracting at night because the reflection of things within the car obscure your perception of those outside? I'd feel safer sparing a glance to an instrument on my bike than having it in my face at all times. The helmet already narrows my visual field as it is.
"The difference? The government doesn't raise the prices on tangentially connected items in order to compensate."
Or like criticizing examples made to show how they differ from the situation being discussed.
How exactly is that the same thing? It's not. That's what I said. Shall I say it again to be clear?
Fine. If you haven't gathered by the previous 7 comments, I made an analogy about sanction not equalling license, and got slammed for the pre-emptive versus punishment aspect of the analogy which was not intended to demonstrate a separate point.
Which excuses not at all your take on what is a real-world practice. Here's a clue. I (and chances are you) pay into all kinds of enviro levies, although mostly it's done through taxes. So if you think you should go out and "get your money's worth", as far as I'm concerned, you're part of the problem, not any solution.
I agree that is the case when our privacy is intruded upon, but I think that's only halfway there. Even when it's "the other guy" being intruded upon, there still is this:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
The whole McCarthyistic idea that people who have nothing to hide should not be concerned about enforcing their right to privacy is the very first idea that must be tossed out with the trash.
I thought about this, and it is a point I made when I posted these points originally, below.
However, the fact remains the same: you pay more, everyday, for acts that others commit. The fact that the government is the one doing the collecting and distributing does not mean extra (or less) $ in my pockets than if the price of those blank media spiked instead for the same purpose.
I should have guessed that the analogy would be analyzed on all fronts -- the point is this: paying a penalty or levy, preemptive or not, does not result in you being able to legally carry out the act. It is not and cannot be construed as a license. They are completely different things.
I should add -- and I point this out in a post farther below -- that what you describe does happen in other industries, namely insurance and the pricing of standard goods.
Rise in traffic accidents (and you're not one of them) --> increase in your insurance to pay for it.
Increase in shoplifting --> you pay more for the goods in that store as prices rise.
We constantly pay for other people's acts. Holding to that reasoning, the media levy isn't incurred "because they think I'm going to illegally copy/download" but directly because other people are doing it. Injustice? You bet. But thems the facts in many, many aspects of consumer life.
Bingo -- and I agree with the effect. There is nothing that encourages lawbreaking like feeling ripped off and "deserving" compensation (I suppose that could apply to the RIAA, too, except that corps/orgs aren't supposed to be vindictively motivated).
I pay my levy, I want my compensation. What's that, you say? Free downloading?
Ok - not like this is a lone cry in the wilderness, but this just sickens me.
This does happen elsewhere. We pay for increased insurance rates when other people have more accidents. The prices in our stores go up when other people shoplift. The difference? The government doesn't raise the prices on tangentially connected items in order to compensate.
I'm not screwin around here. Several years ago I bought a hand-held dictaphone that used normal-sized cassette tapes. Sure, it's bulkier, but had a huge advantage -- those mini-tapes were mondo-expensive. I'd buy ten cheapo no-name standard cassette tapes (all I'd need for a lecture, etc) and I'd be set. Enter the levy -- doubling the price or more of the cheap tapes. May as well get pricey ones if I'm gonna get charged a flat fee per tape. And out goes the entire purpose of buying that particular model. Punished for an entirely erroneous assumption. And let's remember: mixed-tapes were legal, too. Mass production and use (as some DJ's would do) was a concern for the powers that be, but fair-use was still fair-use. Now we get slammed whether we break the law or no.
Is this a democracy or not? Who got to have a say on this issue?
I've heard this argument/query a lot, but think of it this way -- this is compensation (say they -- I say punishment or disincentive). When you litter and get a $50 fine, it's not you "buying a ticket to litter" though that might be the effect. And if it doesn't thwart would-be litterers, up goes the fine till it becomes a disincentive.
The difference here is that obviously they don't want people to stop purchasing blank media. That would defeat the levy. But paying it doesn't turn an illegal act into a legal one.
Since the invasion of Iraq was considered a good option by the current US administration, maybe the ppl will force them to change their mind when the next invasion's price is New York.
You're an idiot.
Titanic. Pearl Harbour. WTC.
Gotta love optimism. Isn't that what kids are calling ignorance these days?
I sympathize, strangely, with all posters on this particular thread.
Having watched America's (the country) excesses from a relatively safe vantage point, I've long slagged the country and its inhabitants for the various ills it has propagated. Only recently have I begun to realize what it would be like to be a citizen of the country and still feel this way, knowing my tax dollars are going toward idiocy and worse. That is a level of frustration and helplessness I hope never to feel.
Peace.
All fine and well to play devil's advocate, especially when it makes the other guy seem narrow-minded.
But speaking from personal experience, if I ever had a mental image of the Kwisatz Haderach, it's long since morphed into Kyle MacLachlan. And I must have read LOTR... (lets not exaggerate here...) say 20 times. I'm positive I had a mental image of Frodo. What was it? I have no idea.
Is it really all that earth-shattering to admit that movies tend to burn an image into one's mind in a way that overpowers the changeable visions of the imagination? (that being said, I don't know how many times -- always a surprise -- in the past month I've thought I saw something on tv or in a movie and realized that I read it and the mental image is so strong I could swear I saw it somewhere till I remembered the source. That, however, does not diminish the argument that an external visual representation of the same thing couldn't extinguish that mental image)
Personally, I'd like to see P.Jackson's version for the sake of consistency of vision, not because I'm mentally lazy (though I am most assuredly that, paraphrased the man, er, Dude). That and to prevent Bakshi from wreaking more ruin.
The law differentiates between offences according to seriousness of the act and moral blame of the offender. Nowhere does it attempt an assessment of pathology. There's a good reason for that -- lawyers and judges are not trained in psychology, in which they generally require easy-to-digest, discrete chunks like "capable of understanding the nature and quality of his/her acts". In that field, they are laypersons, just as the majority of the public are, and I doubt many mental health professionals would back the idea that "one murder does not a murderer make." Your view of the inherent pathology of sexual offenders versus other criminal types fits the public perception, but we live in a society that glamorizes theft, robbery, even murder. Your gut reaction to the sexual offender means nothing.
Your point about separating offences according to stigma and blameworthiness has some merit, but rather than questioning whether the public is capable and willing to make such distinctions, shouldn't we be questioning whether it is their place to do so at all?
It's like those people who are saying "sometimes they find the wrong person" -- you are saying "sometimes they lump the bad in with the really, really bad". You want to lobby for tougher laws? Fine. You want to show up at parole hearings and lobby the board (often very influential)? Fine. But every man and woman who ever snagged a chocolate bar from the corner store, who smoked a joint, who cheated on their taxes, better be morally committed to the idea of their wrongs being publicly aired and left up to others to decide their punishment, if they think that taking a baseball bat to someone who may have committed a crime and then served time is a good idea. They can only be out to either i) kill the person, in which case they are no better if not worse, or ii) drive them out of their backyard and into someone else's. Not exactly the moral high road.
The problem with your analysis is twofold:
i) Any good social scientist will tell you that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, especially when it comes to serious acts, because the line has already been crossed. That being said...
ii) where in all of this is the sense that we believe in rehabilitation? If 100 paroles go straight for every one that doesn't, which do you think we'll hear about? I have to agree with the parent (2 removed): if we don't believe in rehab, then life sentences all around. If we do, then what kind of mindless thuggery are we perpetrating, and how can ex-cons go straight if they're constant public targets?
It's primary and secondary deviance. Brand a criminal and you'll have a criminal for life.
I totally agree.
I have yet to attend a course (other than air traffic control and programming) that used computers other than as an inordinately expensive overhead. Even in the ATC course, most of the time these beautiful 21" monitors were used to display bullet points of a lecture (which usually end up on handouts as well since we may as well throw a few trees in while we're at it).
Add to that the enormous cost of keeping up with the tech, and I just don't see the point unless it's to teach computer skills on them.
Everyone I know who hadn't read them (not many people, admittedly), has been reading them, one book/movie at a time.
Talk about attracting non-fantasy fans!
It's not just the term, people. Think about it.
By allowing one drive to dominate another, we are in fact sanctioning slavery, itself.
All drives should be equally free to decide their own destiny. Ah, within our computers. As we see fit to use them.
Nevermind.
Affleck: "To anybody who's ever thought, Did that happen or did I dream it? - you'd have to have a PhD in philosophy to get too deep into this, but it has to do with wanting to validate our own first-person experience."
This is what writers like Dick are up against -- an audience (and even actors in movies based on his works!) that thinks a doctorate is needed to look beneath the veneer. But then, if the Hollywood versions bring more readers to the original works...
a return of "it's that big hunk of FUDGE" or worse yet "where's the beef?"
when what I should have been fearing is commercials that didn't make the cut??!!