I used to think so too, until I leaned this is very very easy to get around. Ballistic fingerprinting is only good for lightly used guns using the same untouched barrel.
1) I don't know how much more restrictive you can be than to treat the seeds prior to planting. The problem is leeching, which will happen with anything water soluble, which just about all pesticides are.
2) To take that "strict" approach would mean to essentially create a bucket for crop land, because it has to be isolated from everything else. These pesticides are just flat out nasty in ways that apparently don't become evident until after widespread enough use causes effects that can take years to reverse. At least chemicals have a realistic shot at being countered. GMOs, not so much.
IIRC, it took something like 20 years before the effects of DDT were removed enough from the environment to be measured. Just because you sat in the bottom of the latrine for years doesn't mean 1 shower washes the stink off of you.
It requires the judicial branch to exercise it's powers by declaring the current copyright laws unconstitutional, which they could easily do. Something is not effectively limited if it's your lifespan, much less twice your lifespan. Limited, in terms of the original law's intent, was significantly less than an average lifespan. It should return to that time span.
Which essentially says for a 100+ year old song it is in the public domain. Since there is evidence of the lyrics dating back to the late 1800s, and there are published lyric/melody records no later than 1911, it's pretty much a done deal. Whether they can claim a set of performed arrangements as being under copyright is immaterial. IANACL.
That there's still an argument over a possible existing copyright of a melody and lyrics that were both published prior to 1880, and quite likely were themselves derivatives of works dating back before 1850 show just how broken current copyright law is. Reapplying the 14+14 with registration as conditions of obtaining copyright seem more than reasonable in today's world. Most of the money is made in the first few years anyways.
100% in agreement with you there. Technical books as I use them also require lots of searching. I don't miss flipping to the various indexes and searching for whatever you're looking for and then flipping back when a quick search bar type in gets it for you in less time than you can open the back of the book. For other books, perhaps an e-ink reader would be good, the tablets are mediocre compared to reading paper. If I drop my book, the most that happens generally is I lost my page.
From Dictionary.com:
Steal:
1) to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:
2) to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Merriam Webster has similar definitions for steal.
The list wasn't his, and wasn't available to him. Sounds like theft to me.
You got them to do something, and just like they put up with a lot of crap before they went and installed blocker software, they will put up with a lot of inconvenience and "sorry, this page is not available if you block our ads" before removing it again.
I think you're incorrect - they'll just move on to a different website. The age of advertisers having free reign over ads on webpages is shutting down fast. They only have themselves to blame. I wonder if they'll try to invoke some clause in the DMCA or TTP to force people to watch their ads.
So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.
No. He is saying it because they (advertisers) are seeing so much effective pushback that it is having a real affect on their numbers. The arguments against advertisers haven't changed in the last 5 years, the amount of ad-blocking has.
I think they've already done this. On a side note, all those headlines do is train you to ignore them, which in itself could be somewhat dangerous. Better to ignore the sources generating them instead.
I'm curious when it was safe to run windows anywhere? IIRC, there's always been issues of pwnage which appear to have been reduced until MS completely pwned their own OS with that Win v7+ update that enabled automatic critical downloads. It's only a matter of time before that backfires.
Do you have any idea how to test if someone is legally fatigued? I don't.
You could test for brain activity (it's objective) for several types of fatigue. But this would also be an arbitrary measurement for the same reason as any other measurements you could come up with.
A better test concept would be whether you passed a minimum set of capability tests. Those would be objective and repeatable. The downside? There will be people that even when they are at their 100% would not pass, even though they may have a license today. That number will be higher than most would think at first, as it will almost certainly remove a large group of elderly and challenged people. It would certainly solve the hassle of when to take grandpa's keys if it was a requirement for renewing your license.
Do you have a way to test if someone's driving is impaired if he or she is driving straight down the freeway? I don't.
If they're driving straight down the freeway with no violations, then apparently they're not impaired at that point.
Do you agree we should have some sort of law addressing people driving with some impairments? If so, how? If we could measure impairment directly, at what point do we call it illegal? That's going to be arbitrary. What if we can measure just one important form of impairment?
I'd say once someone exhibits impairment with driving, at that point you investigate. If the officer believes they are impaired, book em. In fact, most laws I'm aware of are explicit in that regardless of any other factors, if the officer believes you are impaired, they can arrest you. In case you're unaware of it, the whole BAC thing is just an easier way to rubberstamp your revenue generating guilt.
As far as homicide goes
I was talking about manslaughter. Homicide is a small subset covered by circumstances.
An advantage of arbitrary known limits is that people can know them. A driver can get a good idea whether he or she is over the legal limit of alcohol, and plan accordingly. Fuzzy laws leave people uncertain whether they're violating them or now.
And they're still fuzzy, because I have no way of determining whether I'm in violation at any specific point in time.
Why on earth would I trust an untrustworthy POS to honor any configuration I set? "By strictly whitelisting what that computer can talk to" I mean an external to that computer router/firewall that can be configured to only allow certain connections. In the case of MS OSes, that appears to be behind a very restrictive firewall on separate non-MS hardware, almost the reverse of a standard network configuration internal to your own LAN.
I'd say take the revenue feature out of DWIs. Any money fined goes to a DWI victims fund. They would be the only ones to sanction programs offenders have to pay for to attend, meaning they control all funds. Also, all DWI violations should be a secondary violation similar to seat belt violations. (Otherwise, why did you think they were impaired?) Note that PI can be used to prevent a potential DWI driver from taking to the road in the first place leading to much lower problems for the violator while maintaining a greater level of safety. Today, police have been known to watch for drunks leaving a bar, and then pulling them over after they get into their cars. People should be asking "why did they wait"? The answer is in the first statement - police currently have a revenue incentive to wait for a PI to get in a car so they can get a DWI.
Drunk driving is a common cause of impairment and easy to test for. In order to test, there has to be an arbitrary limit, so that the driver is either legally drunk or not.
So, apparently it's not easy to test for, it is easy to test to an arbitrary limit however. We'll just call anything over that limit "drunk". Next year, maybe we'll drop it down to 0.01....
Fatigue is another common cause of impairment, but harder to test.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year. This results in an estimated 1,550 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. These figures may be the tip of the iceberg, since currently it is difficult to attribute crashes to sleepiness.
I added that only to show that fatigue is a pretty big problem, but somehow we're not addressing it at all.
If you remove arbitrary laws, what's left? You have to toss all criminal punishments, since they're all arbitrary. You have to let everyone vote (which might not be a bad thing).
Taking something that is not yours without permission is stealing. Hitting another person outside of a few selected organized activities is assault. Killing another person is manslaughter, with elevations in crime depending upon circumstances. These are not arbitrary laws.
The BAC limits are completely arbitrary. No one here arguing against me has yet posted a refutation of that point. They also skip over the part that I fully believe impaired drivers should not be on the road and punished more harshly when their actions result in harm than they currently are.
A meaningful objective measure will always be difficult to come by regarding this issue. Ask any anesthesiologist, not everyone reacts to drugs the same way, which is why they are present and monitoring their patients carefully throughout the application of anesthesia. You can't have BAC be 0 because you can naturally produce alcohol although that is a severe case. There are other mechanisms that will result in trace BAC amounts as well, so "zero tolerance" would mean no one drives.
Regarding police - as one on one people they're the usual mix, some you'll like and get along with, others just a civil passing. Based on a large number of stories reported on a variety of departments across the US, the use of ticket revenue to fund themselves and in some jurisdictions the judicial branch and even entire towns is completely and utterly a problem. Couple those reports with some officers being written down for not writing enough tickets, and we can say that there's a quota system in place, no matter what semantics you put around it to avoid calling it a quota. If it looks, walks, quacks like a quota.... IMNSHO tickets and revenue generated should not even be on the performance review. What should be is whether incidents in the area of responsibility are going up, staying even, or going down, and if they are within parameters. This is easily measured, btw, as those metrics (should) exist, as they should be publicly available.
As for pointing out every single logical flaw in the various rantings, that would take far too much time. My point was merely to state that the law, as it currently exists, is bad because it's arbitrary. There's not been a single post to argue against this point (because it's true:) Note that I'm not arguing about whether the intent is good or not - I believe getting impaired drivers off the road is good btw - but that this law is inherently flawed and being abused, like quite a few other laws these days.
You seem to think that you should be able to do whatever you want on a public road
Where do you get that idea?
(and your conjecture of the various BACs having no experimental backing are completely untrue -
have a study to quote? I couldn't find one.
Society says you don't drive with pretty much any level of alcohol on board.
Society says don't drive with more than 0.08 BEC. But go ahead with a wide array of drugs, disabled people are fine, newspaper readers too, old people that may not know where they are, young people (there lack of experience is an impairment), sleep deprived drivers are given a warning, and mental illness isn't a problem apparently, nor hormonal swings (esp males between 15 and 40).
Note that I'm merely pointing out how arbitrary that 0.08 BEC is, and that the law is not at all about stopping impaired drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think so too, until I leaned this is very very easy to get around. Ballistic fingerprinting is only good for lightly used guns using the same untouched barrel.
1) I don't know how much more restrictive you can be than to treat the seeds prior to planting. The problem is leeching, which will happen with anything water soluble, which just about all pesticides are.
2) To take that "strict" approach would mean to essentially create a bucket for crop land, because it has to be isolated from everything else. These pesticides are just flat out nasty in ways that apparently don't become evident until after widespread enough use causes effects that can take years to reverse. At least chemicals have a realistic shot at being countered. GMOs, not so much.
it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better.
If you just read TFS, you'd see that the seeds were treated. I am not sure how much more contained the pesticide can be.
Just another one of those unforeseen consequences of moving ahead full speed and oh, is that an ice berg?
IIRC, it took something like 20 years before the effects of DDT were removed enough from the environment to be measured. Just because you sat in the bottom of the latrine for years doesn't mean 1 shower washes the stink off of you.
It requires the judicial branch to exercise it's powers by declaring the current copyright laws unconstitutional, which they could easily do. Something is not effectively limited if it's your lifespan, much less twice your lifespan. Limited, in terms of the original law's intent, was significantly less than an average lifespan. It should return to that time span.
Which essentially says for a 100+ year old song it is in the public domain. Since there is evidence of the lyrics dating back to the late 1800s, and there are published lyric/melody records no later than 1911, it's pretty much a done deal. Whether they can claim a set of performed arrangements as being under copyright is immaterial. IANACL.
That there's still an argument over a possible existing copyright of a melody and lyrics that were both published prior to 1880, and quite likely were themselves derivatives of works dating back before 1850 show just how broken current copyright law is. Reapplying the 14+14 with registration as conditions of obtaining copyright seem more than reasonable in today's world. Most of the money is made in the first few years anyways.
100% in agreement with you there. Technical books as I use them also require lots of searching. I don't miss flipping to the various indexes and searching for whatever you're looking for and then flipping back when a quick search bar type in gets it for you in less time than you can open the back of the book. For other books, perhaps an e-ink reader would be good, the tablets are mediocre compared to reading paper. If I drop my book, the most that happens generally is I lost my page.
Theft:
a: the act of stealing
We don't need to go any further:
From Dictionary.com: Steal:
1) to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:
2) to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Merriam Webster has similar definitions for steal.
The list wasn't his, and wasn't available to him. Sounds like theft to me.
You got them to do something, and just like they put up with a lot of crap before they went and installed blocker software, they will put up with a lot of inconvenience and "sorry, this page is not available if you block our ads" before removing it again.
I think you're incorrect - they'll just move on to a different website. The age of advertisers having free reign over ads on webpages is shutting down fast. They only have themselves to blame. I wonder if they'll try to invoke some clause in the DMCA or TTP to force people to watch their ads.
the recent trend toward throwing 42 javascript-heavy ads in your face
There's a reason to off JS before heading to certain sites.
So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.
No. He is saying it because they (advertisers) are seeing so much effective pushback that it is having a real affect on their numbers. The arguments against advertisers haven't changed in the last 5 years, the amount of ad-blocking has.
At its root, "theft" is described as taking something that is not yours. I do believe this qualifies under that definition.
Ted 2 was actually 9 half stars, because no one could figure out how to rate it 0.
How many people had running water, toilets, and electricity in 1915?
I think they've already done this. On a side note, all those headlines do is train you to ignore them, which in itself could be somewhat dangerous. Better to ignore the sources generating them instead.
And I'd say running water, followed by toilets, and then electricity. Everything else flows from there.
I'm curious when it was safe to run windows anywhere? IIRC, there's always been issues of pwnage which appear to have been reduced until MS completely pwned their own OS with that Win v7+ update that enabled automatic critical downloads. It's only a matter of time before that backfires.
Do you have any idea how to test if someone is legally fatigued? I don't.
You could test for brain activity (it's objective) for several types of fatigue. But this would also be an arbitrary measurement for the same reason as any other measurements you could come up with.
A better test concept would be whether you passed a minimum set of capability tests. Those would be objective and repeatable. The downside? There will be people that even when they are at their 100% would not pass, even though they may have a license today. That number will be higher than most would think at first, as it will almost certainly remove a large group of elderly and challenged people. It would certainly solve the hassle of when to take grandpa's keys if it was a requirement for renewing your license.
Do you have a way to test if someone's driving is impaired if he or she is driving straight down the freeway? I don't.
If they're driving straight down the freeway with no violations, then apparently they're not impaired at that point.
Do you agree we should have some sort of law addressing people driving with some impairments? If so, how? If we could measure impairment directly, at what point do we call it illegal? That's going to be arbitrary. What if we can measure just one important form of impairment?
I'd say once someone exhibits impairment with driving, at that point you investigate. If the officer believes they are impaired, book em. In fact, most laws I'm aware of are explicit in that regardless of any other factors, if the officer believes you are impaired, they can arrest you. In case you're unaware of it, the whole BAC thing is just an easier way to rubberstamp your revenue generating guilt.
As far as homicide goes
I was talking about manslaughter. Homicide is a small subset covered by circumstances.
An advantage of arbitrary known limits is that people can know them. A driver can get a good idea whether he or she is over the legal limit of alcohol, and plan accordingly. Fuzzy laws leave people uncertain whether they're violating them or now.
And they're still fuzzy, because I have no way of determining whether I'm in violation at any specific point in time.
Why on earth would I trust an untrustworthy POS to honor any configuration I set? "By strictly whitelisting what that computer can talk to" I mean an external to that computer router/firewall that can be configured to only allow certain connections. In the case of MS OSes, that appears to be behind a very restrictive firewall on separate non-MS hardware, almost the reverse of a standard network configuration internal to your own LAN.
I'd say take the revenue feature out of DWIs. Any money fined goes to a DWI victims fund. They would be the only ones to sanction programs offenders have to pay for to attend, meaning they control all funds. Also, all DWI violations should be a secondary violation similar to seat belt violations. (Otherwise, why did you think they were impaired?) Note that PI can be used to prevent a potential DWI driver from taking to the road in the first place leading to much lower problems for the violator while maintaining a greater level of safety. Today, police have been known to watch for drunks leaving a bar, and then pulling them over after they get into their cars. People should be asking "why did they wait"? The answer is in the first statement - police currently have a revenue incentive to wait for a PI to get in a car so they can get a DWI.
Drunk driving is a common cause of impairment and easy to test for. In order to test, there has to be an arbitrary limit, so that the driver is either legally drunk or not.
So, apparently it's not easy to test for, it is easy to test to an arbitrary limit however. We'll just call anything over that limit "drunk". Next year, maybe we'll drop it down to 0.01....
Fatigue is another common cause of impairment, but harder to test.
This sounds like a cop-out. From drowsydriving.org
I added that only to show that fatigue is a pretty big problem, but somehow we're not addressing it at all.
If you remove arbitrary laws, what's left? You have to toss all criminal punishments, since they're all arbitrary. You have to let everyone vote (which might not be a bad thing).
Taking something that is not yours without permission is stealing. Hitting another person outside of a few selected organized activities is assault. Killing another person is manslaughter, with elevations in crime depending upon circumstances. These are not arbitrary laws.
The BAC limits are completely arbitrary. No one here arguing against me has yet posted a refutation of that point. They also skip over the part that I fully believe impaired drivers should not be on the road and punished more harshly when their actions result in harm than they currently are.
A meaningful objective measure will always be difficult to come by regarding this issue. Ask any anesthesiologist, not everyone reacts to drugs the same way, which is why they are present and monitoring their patients carefully throughout the application of anesthesia. You can't have BAC be 0 because you can naturally produce alcohol although that is a severe case. There are other mechanisms that will result in trace BAC amounts as well, so "zero tolerance" would mean no one drives.
Regarding police - as one on one people they're the usual mix, some you'll like and get along with, others just a civil passing. Based on a large number of stories reported on a variety of departments across the US, the use of ticket revenue to fund themselves and in some jurisdictions the judicial branch and even entire towns is completely and utterly a problem. Couple those reports with some officers being written down for not writing enough tickets, and we can say that there's a quota system in place, no matter what semantics you put around it to avoid calling it a quota. If it looks, walks, quacks like a quota.... IMNSHO tickets and revenue generated should not even be on the performance review. What should be is whether incidents in the area of responsibility are going up, staying even, or going down, and if they are within parameters. This is easily measured, btw, as those metrics (should) exist, as they should be publicly available.
As for pointing out every single logical flaw in the various rantings, that would take far too much time. My point was merely to state that the law, as it currently exists, is bad because it's arbitrary. There's not been a single post to argue against this point (because it's true:) Note that I'm not arguing about whether the intent is good or not - I believe getting impaired drivers off the road is good btw - but that this law is inherently flawed and being abused, like quite a few other laws these days.
By strictly whitelisting what that computer can talk to. Perhaps just tech.slashdot.org?
You seem to think that you should be able to do whatever you want on a public road
Where do you get that idea?
(and your conjecture of the various BACs having no experimental backing are completely untrue -
have a study to quote? I couldn't find one.
Society says you don't drive with pretty much any level of alcohol on board.
Society says don't drive with more than 0.08 BEC. But go ahead with a wide array of drugs, disabled people are fine, newspaper readers too, old people that may not know where they are, young people (there lack of experience is an impairment), sleep deprived drivers are given a warning, and mental illness isn't a problem apparently, nor hormonal swings (esp males between 15 and 40).
Note that I'm merely pointing out how arbitrary that 0.08 BEC is, and that the law is not at all about stopping impaired drivers.