Most states don't allow DUI defendants a jury trial. The defendant has waived the right by signing the license (which specifically states that they submit themselves to the administrative punishments outlined in the given vehicle code).
Americans in general can be pretty scary. Then again, the same could probably be said about any country as screwed up as the US. Humans are inherently untrustworthy when given power and a lack of consequences to wielding it unjustly.
The power of the US government needs to be seriously curtailed. Unfortunately, it'll probably happen the same way other governments have been historically curtailed: through catastrophe.
If I cut a finger off chopping kindling with a hatchet, should the hatchet manufacturer be liable?
It's the same thing. We're not talking about product failure. These accidents are the result of human error, period.
Realize, I'm not arguing against the inclusion of safety devices, I'm arguing against the implication that manufacturers of products that work as intended should be liable for another human's error in using that device.
Life will never be safe and sanitary. Even with all the safety features in the world, products designed to cut things will be dangerous.
What's really sick is trying to use the coercive force of the government to require everyone to buy a technology that you monopolize.
If it's about safety, they should continue selling their saws, and let people decide whether the technology fits their needs.
If it requires their special blades, and is mandated, I know I'd rip it out of a saw I bought if I had no other choices in blades. There are a lot of other circumstances I'd disable or remove it under, as well.
The street goes both ways. The saw companies make money because there is a demand for their product. If people really thought this sort of safety was that high a priority, then SawStop would be making more money than anyone else. Manufacturers make money because the end user votes with their wallet. Instead of actually building an industry reputation for manufacturing a quality product and building market share in an ethical way, this guy decides it's alright to instead force others to buy his product. F**k him.
It just seems to burn some people that others might actually choose to do something they know can injure, maim, or kill them. Natural selection at work.
For a "casual" player, PP was actually more friendly, since you could hop on a Navy vessel and just play one of the station puzzles (sailing, carpentry, bilging, navigation) without having to talk to anyone.
The "not talking to anyone" part is what makes things hard for players to advance. It's a social game, and those who engage in the social network find things vastly easier to accomplish. The game is designed to reward cooperative play and the Navy is not a part of cooperative play, thus the rewards for using the Navy are pitifully small.
I know this wasn't really what you were asking, but it seems though it would be material to satisfying any curiosity you might have about gamers of this type in general.
The age of long-term Y!PP players tends to start in the mid-20s and go up from there. Many (actually probably most) of the entrenched players have spouses and families. There are a lot of families who play together through all age ranges, from early teens well into the 60s.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of pre-teen and early teen players. Some of them even stick around a while, but mostly the players of that age just don't have the attention span or social skills to hack it in what is a highly socially-connected game. Usually only those young players who are much more adaptable and tolerant of other social groups and situations find a long-term enjoyment of the game.
Huh, all the places I've seen have either had all the lines either aerial or buried across any given segment.
Thinking about it as I typed that though, there is actually one location I can recall the POTS lines being buried while power transmission lines weren't.
As someone who lives in a hurricane prone area, many times POTS (and amateur radio:)is all you have. Cable modem, DSL, and cell usually go down.
As lines running on the same poles as the cable lines, and being the same lines as the DSL service runs over, I'd think that the outages as a result of natural disaster would tend to include POTS as well.
At least that thinking tends to follow with the communication problems after Katrina, where HAM radio was basically it for long-distance communication.
As I find it prudent to live outside of storm-ravaged areas, however, I have no firsthand knowledge of which services continue to run when the poles get knocked down.:)
The chosen name doesn't extend their power simply because it (the name) could be applied to areas outside their authority.
Or by extension do you mean they should be allowed to regulate my own personal speech?
Of course, there are people who would like to see the latter happen, and in many ways it is beginning to, but just because they have "communication" in their name does not extend regulatory power to all communication as a matter of course.
A concerted effort to harass another person would still fall under other laws. This particular issue is covered redundantly by other laws, so is therefore not an appropriate example of the side-effects of deregulation. I'm not saying there aren't other appropriate examples, just that THIS one isn't appropriate.:)
Since it appears I shouldn't have taken anything for granted, I'll rewrite my statement.
When voltage, amperage, ambient temperature, adjacent conductor temperature, and conductor length are taken into account to choose a wire gauge that provides low enough resistance to get a given VA transmission to its destination without danger of melting or unacceptable voltage loss, you're golden.
Follow the above, and it doesn't matter if it's high voltage, low voltage, high current, low current, AC, DC, long transmission, or short.
Moving 12v and 5v hundreds of feet at high current is absurd, but can be done safely and efficiently (minus the grossly oversized conductors). What's more likely is that you'd distribute something like 48v (at 1/4 the current) and do the voltage transformation at each rack, making much more economical use of transmission cables.
Running DC in your home is usually reserved for those running alternative power generation equipment (solar, hydro, wind). It's more efficient to use DC equipment when you already have DC running into your house. The point is to get rid of conversions, not create more of them.:)
Of course, society couldn't have crawled out of the dark ages without groups of people forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor to give to another person, all the while claiming "it's for your own good."
Oh wait, society climbed out of the dark ages DESPITE people doing that.
Yes, much technology has been developed with government money. Mostly, it was developed to more efficiently coerce or kill people. The non-military benefits were mostly afterthoughts.
The government does so many other things right, why not give them the job of raising children too? After all, the United States public education system is the gem of the world!
Yay kids, you too could grow up to be as smart and classy as Dubya!
I don't know how true that is in Taiwan, but my guess is that since the disease doesn't affect people yet the answer is not very
Actually the disease does affect people. The reason it isn't a pandemic yet is that it hasn't mutated to allow person-to-person infection (as far as anyone can determine, and by the time they determine for a fact it can it'll probably be too late). Many people have already been infected and died of it, they were just infected as a result of exposure to sick birds, rather than sick people.
Notice the items to be scanned were slides and/or print negatives, not an actual print. The film has a much higher effective resolution than most any print. Ergo, you're actually downsampling it to a digital resolution, which is still so high as to be effectively indistinguishable. While your point is valid, it has no bearing on the point of the post above it.
I'm pretty sure that people who want to control others have used the tact that it's in the "common good" for as long as there have been controlling, power-hungry people (i.e. since the time the idea could be conveyed).
Mmm, yes, assuming that the Feds actually followed the Constitution. That's a pretty big assumption in this day and age.
Then again, all they have to do to change the meaning to fit theirs is to redefine terms to fit their agenda. The Feds wouldn't define it as unreasonable. After all, the secret intelligence court said it was alright when told that the FBI had snuck into your house, copied your hard drive, taken select papers out of your filing cabinet, and installed a keylogger on your machine, and everyone who knows is under oath not to say anything to you. After all, you were implicated as a terrorist by a "reliable" unnamed source. What's so unreasonable about it all? </sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
If a jury doesn't convict you of drunk driving
Most states don't allow DUI defendants a jury trial. The defendant has waived the right by signing the license (which specifically states that they submit themselves to the administrative punishments outlined in the given vehicle code).
a judge will be weighing the evidence and making the decision
You should be familiar with the 7th amendment even without taking Con. Law.
Americans in general can be pretty scary. Then again, the same could probably be said about any country as screwed up as the US. Humans are inherently untrustworthy when given power and a lack of consequences to wielding it unjustly.
The power of the US government needs to be seriously curtailed. Unfortunately, it'll probably happen the same way other governments have been historically curtailed: through catastrophe.
Just another form of natural selection.
If I cut a finger off chopping kindling with a hatchet, should the hatchet manufacturer be liable?
It's the same thing. We're not talking about product failure. These accidents are the result of human error, period.
Realize, I'm not arguing against the inclusion of safety devices, I'm arguing against the implication that manufacturers of products that work as intended should be liable for another human's error in using that device.
Life will never be safe and sanitary. Even with all the safety features in the world, products designed to cut things will be dangerous.
What's really sick is trying to use the coercive force of the government to require everyone to buy a technology that you monopolize.
If it's about safety, they should continue selling their saws, and let people decide whether the technology fits their needs.
If it requires their special blades, and is mandated, I know I'd rip it out of a saw I bought if I had no other choices in blades. There are a lot of other circumstances I'd disable or remove it under, as well.
The street goes both ways. The saw companies make money because there is a demand for their product. If people really thought this sort of safety was that high a priority, then SawStop would be making more money than anyone else. Manufacturers make money because the end user votes with their wallet. Instead of actually building an industry reputation for manufacturing a quality product and building market share in an ethical way, this guy decides it's alright to instead force others to buy his product. F**k him.
It just seems to burn some people that others might actually choose to do something they know can injure, maim, or kill them. Natural selection at work.
When Forrest starts making blades for it, I'll consider one.
For a "casual" player, PP was actually more friendly, since you could hop on a Navy vessel and just play one of the station puzzles (sailing, carpentry, bilging, navigation) without having to talk to anyone.
The "not talking to anyone" part is what makes things hard for players to advance. It's a social game, and those who engage in the social network find things vastly easier to accomplish. The game is designed to reward cooperative play and the Navy is not a part of cooperative play, thus the rewards for using the Navy are pitifully small.
I know this wasn't really what you were asking, but it seems though it would be material to satisfying any curiosity you might have about gamers of this type in general.
The age of long-term Y!PP players tends to start in the mid-20s and go up from there. Many (actually probably most) of the entrenched players have spouses and families. There are a lot of families who play together through all age ranges, from early teens well into the 60s.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of pre-teen and early teen players. Some of them even stick around a while, but mostly the players of that age just don't have the attention span or social skills to hack it in what is a highly socially-connected game. Usually only those young players who are much more adaptable and tolerant of other social groups and situations find a long-term enjoyment of the game.
Huh, all the places I've seen have either had all the lines either aerial or buried across any given segment.
Thinking about it as I typed that though, there is actually one location I can recall the POTS lines being buried while power transmission lines weren't.
As someone who lives in a hurricane prone area, many times POTS (and amateur radio :)is all you have. Cable modem, DSL, and cell usually go down.
:)
As lines running on the same poles as the cable lines, and being the same lines as the DSL service runs over, I'd think that the outages as a result of natural disaster would tend to include POTS as well.
At least that thinking tends to follow with the communication problems after Katrina, where HAM radio was basically it for long-distance communication.
As I find it prudent to live outside of storm-ravaged areas, however, I have no firsthand knowledge of which services continue to run when the poles get knocked down.
Hit the nail on the head.
The chosen name doesn't extend their power simply because it (the name) could be applied to areas outside their authority.
Or by extension do you mean they should be allowed to regulate my own personal speech?
Of course, there are people who would like to see the latter happen, and in many ways it is beginning to, but just because they have "communication" in their name does not extend regulatory power to all communication as a matter of course.
A concerted effort to harass another person would still fall under other laws. This particular issue is covered redundantly by other laws, so is therefore not an appropriate example of the side-effects of deregulation. I'm not saying there aren't other appropriate examples, just that THIS one isn't appropriate. :)
Since it appears I shouldn't have taken anything for granted, I'll rewrite my statement.
When voltage, amperage, ambient temperature, adjacent conductor temperature, and conductor length are taken into account to choose a wire gauge that provides low enough resistance to get a given VA transmission to its destination without danger of melting or unacceptable voltage loss, you're golden.
Follow the above, and it doesn't matter if it's high voltage, low voltage, high current, low current, AC, DC, long transmission, or short.
Moving 12v and 5v hundreds of feet at high current is absurd, but can be done safely and efficiently (minus the grossly oversized conductors). What's more likely is that you'd distribute something like 48v (at 1/4 the current) and do the voltage transformation at each rack, making much more economical use of transmission cables.
It wouldn't be worthwhile for the most part.
:)
Running DC in your home is usually reserved for those running alternative power generation equipment (solar, hydro, wind). It's more efficient to use DC equipment when you already have DC running into your house. The point is to get rid of conversions, not create more of them.
Length isn't a problem if the wire is gauged to take voltage drop into account, just the same as AC wiring.
This isn't an issue.
Of course, society couldn't have crawled out of the dark ages without groups of people forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor to give to another person, all the while claiming "it's for your own good."
Oh wait, society climbed out of the dark ages DESPITE people doing that.
Yes, much technology has been developed with government money. Mostly, it was developed to more efficiently coerce or kill people. The non-military benefits were mostly afterthoughts.
The government does so many other things right, why not give them the job of raising children too? After all, the United States public education system is the gem of the world!
Yay kids, you too could grow up to be as smart and classy as Dubya!
I'm with you there with liberty over security.
I'd rather live in the ghetto and be able to legally protect myself than live in a gated community and be prosecuted for shooting an armed intruder.
Maybe the poster means it's still occasionally considered a "right" in the US, whereas it is most assuredly a "privilege" in Canada.
*shrug*
I don't know how true that is in Taiwan, but my guess is that since the disease doesn't affect people yet the answer is not very
Actually the disease does affect people. The reason it isn't a pandemic yet is that it hasn't mutated to allow person-to-person infection (as far as anyone can determine, and by the time they determine for a fact it can it'll probably be too late). Many people have already been infected and died of it, they were just infected as a result of exposure to sick birds, rather than sick people.
Mod (+10, Brilliant)
Notice the items to be scanned were slides and/or print negatives, not an actual print. The film has a much higher effective resolution than most any print. Ergo, you're actually downsampling it to a digital resolution, which is still so high as to be effectively indistinguishable. While your point is valid, it has no bearing on the point of the post above it.
I'm pretty sure that people who want to control others have used the tact that it's in the "common good" for as long as there have been controlling, power-hungry people (i.e. since the time the idea could be conveyed).
Mmm, yes, assuming that the Feds actually followed the Constitution. That's a pretty big assumption in this day and age.
Then again, all they have to do to change the meaning to fit theirs is to redefine terms to fit their agenda. The Feds wouldn't define it as unreasonable. After all, the secret intelligence court said it was alright when told that the FBI had snuck into your house, copied your hard drive, taken select papers out of your filing cabinet, and installed a keylogger on your machine, and everyone who knows is under oath not to say anything to you. After all, you were implicated as a terrorist by a "reliable" unnamed source. What's so unreasonable about it all? </sarcasm>
What your cable company doesn't know...
Police, arrest this fool who dares question the logic behind the actions of the State!
You must be a terrorist criminal, telling people how to hide their evil ways by confusing poor, hapless investigators!