In CA and WA, the most recent two states where I've gotten a driver's license and registered a car, the proof of insurance you're required to bring is for driver's liability. Is this not the case in the states you mention? Do they require some kind of property insurance on cars? If so, that strikes me as a bit odd -- liability insurance at least has to do with protecting others, but property insurance is just about protecting one's own property value.
I'm curious -- does this mean you do not insure your car against damage, or does this mean you do not have any vehicular insurance of any kind, including liability insurance?
If the latter, I must admit I agree with state laws requiring that drivers (or in some states the cars themselves) be insured for liability, to prevent situations where Bob totals Alice's car and puts her in the hospital, but leaves Alice in the lurch and gets off scot-free because he doesn't have liability insurance and Alice doesn't have the resources to pursue him in court.
We know that traffic accidents happen. It seems reasonable to me to insist that people have proven means of taking responsibility for covering the costs of any accidents that are their fault, before granting them a driver's license. Sure, there are good people of means, who would do the honourable thing on their own volition and pay the costs of someone they've run into. But there are also skivers and the less financially blessed who might not want or be able to pay such costs, even when it may be clearly their responsibility to do so -- which is where required liability insurance makes sure that no one is left high and dry after being run into by someone else.
Uhhh...in a lot of states the government DOES force you insure your car.
Actually, what many states in US generally require is not that the *car* be insured, but rather the *driver* -- the legal requirements are for liability insurance for drivers, which makes some sense to me. The Wikipedia article on vehicle insurance goes into public policy somewhat.
If Joe collides with Kelly, and it's Joe's fault, then Joe is liable, and it's his responsibility to cover Kelly's expenses. Liability insurance makes sure that Joe can pay to cover such costs. If Joe has no liability insurance, and is too poor to pay for Kelly's expenses, then Kelly is stuck out through no fault of her own. Many states require liability insurance before they allow someone to get a driver's license, and thereby provide all drivers a measure of protection from the potential malfeasance of other drivers.
forget grey goo, I have this nightmare end of world scenario where all of the Earth's matter is converted into AOL disks
Sounds like pollutantus literati!
David Macaulay, author and artist of those wonderful books Castle, Cathedral, and City, also wrote a more tongue-in-cheek book called Motel of the Mysteries. It's a humorous look at how assumptions can be made (and be wildly off the mark) in the process of archaeology, as we try to decipher the uses and meanings of various bits of antique detritus. The key plot point is that it's thousands of years in the future, and archaeologists are finally digging North America out of a great disaster that happened in 1985:
In 1985 a cataclysmic coincidence of previously unknown proportion extinguished virtually all forms of life on the North American continent.
On the morning of November 29, an accidental reduction in postal rates on a substance called third- and fourth-class mail literally buried the North Americans under tons of brochures, fliers, and small containers called "free".
That afternoon, impurities that had apparently hung unnoticed in the air for centuries finally succumbed to the force of gravity and collapsed on what was left of an already stunned population.
In less than a day, the most advanced civilization of the ancient world had perished.
I thought (perhaps erroneously?) that the number after a monarch's name was the number of monarchs of that name that have ruled a particular country. Wouldn't that make Elizabeth QE II of the UK, but QE I of Canada?
After the Canadian colonies of France were, via war and treaties, ceded to the British Crown, and the population was greatly expanded by those loyal to George III fleeing north from persecution during and following the American Revolution, British North America was in 1867 confederated by Queen Victoria to form Canada as a kingdom in its own right. By the end of the First World War, the increased fortitude of Canadian nationalism inspired the country's leaders to push for greater independence from the King in his British Council, resulting in the creation of the uniquely Canadian monarchy through the Statute of Westminster, which was granted Royal Assent in 1931.
By way of example, Louis VIII of France was also known, albeit more obscurely, as Louis I of England, which he actually did rule for around one year, May 1216 to August 1217. This was in between the unpopular John of England and the more familiar Henry III. Terry Jones (yes, that Terry Jones) makes a fun and well-annotated argument for recognizing King Louis the First in his book, Medieval Lives. More also over at Wikipedia.
Did they offer any reason why? Persistence of state on shutdown is a basic desire, and a sensible one. Not implementing an autosave-on-shutdown feature is rather braindead, unless there's some technical issue getting in the way. Are they just being curmudgeons, or do they have some rationale?
Sometimes I think Nintendo harvests energy from people shouting 'gimmick' and uses it to power their R&D division.
I wouldn't be too surprised; it's at least a renewable energy source.;)
In all seriousness, I think they might actually do something similar -- Nintendo has long focused on gaining and maintaining a lead in the industry by being disruptive, and seeing how many people are upset can be one way of gauging how disruptive you're being. This fellow has written quite a bit about Nintendo's disruptive strategies, and most of what I've read sounds spot-on.
Breaking rules is a nice romantic picture of original/creative thought, but it's not the only expression of original/creative thought, and, as a general rule, it is not a great idea (even if you think you understand the situation).
Yes, I agree -- my original point was simply that lawbreaking, in and of itself, would not necessarily be a dealbreaker for me in a hiring situation. It would depend very much on what the law was, what the reasoning was behind the infraction, and what contexts in which the person feels it appropriate to break the law(s) in question.
As in translation (my business), context is everything.:)
A thinking person won't ignore bad laws, they will try to change them.
I have one name for you: Rosa Parks.
I understand your point, but sometimes the way to go about changing a law is by disobeying it. This is not so much ignoring that the law exists, but rather acknowledging it, and deciding purposefully to not follow it.
Selectively choosing which laws to follow and which ones not to follow is not a sign of thinking. It's a sign of selfishness.
I think that very much depends on the person and the circumstances. Which leads me back to part of my previous statement: it's best to be discriminating, in the carefully-thinking-things-through meaning.
The best bosses I've ever had, and the ones who seemed to run their bailiwicks most effectively, were those who were not scared by the capabilities of others. Instead, they were eager to capitalize on the strengths of those on their team, and were happy to give people as much free rein as was appropriate for the job and situation.
As your post implies, however, such managers are sadly not as common as one might like.
If the planet is tidally locked, there would be permanent shade on the dark side, and on the shady side of any mountains near the terminator line, which would provide UV shielding of a sort.
And even with no tidally induced tectonics, might there not be some thermally induced tectonics, depending on how hot things get on the sunny side? All that heat has gotta go somewhere, possibly leading to magma convection...
Your phrase people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit sounds to me like a euphemism for "people who think". I know that's not how you intend it, and I'm not sure if the opinions in your post are yours, or your view of how employers operate, but it bears noting that laws are sometimes ridiculous, sometimes capricious, sometimes arbitrary. Frankly, I wouldn't *want* to hire someone who blindly follows all laws, without regard to how sensible they are -- not least because such a person would very likely be bad company. I'd much prefer hiring someone who thinks.
Granted, that can be difficult to ascertain from an online profile. But online evidence of lawbreaking wouldn't automatically rule someone out for me -- depending on the law(s) in question. Being discriminating is not in and of itself a bad thing; it's all in how one goes about it.
Sure, the NSA is undoubtedly up on the best crytpo around. While encryption will secure a message payload, it doesn't ensure that the message gets where it's going -- routing traffic over the Internet leaves the end- and midpoints open to DDOS and other attacks, tying up servers and preventing message transmission. A physically separate network, however, would avoid much of the harmful noise that happens in teh intarwebs.
Although the signal content might be secure, the signal itself would still be prone to disruption through various shenanigans like DDOS attacks and the like. A dedicated physically separate network would not face the same issues unless physically compromised. On the wide-open Internet, though, some bored teenager in Kuala Lumpur or Rotorua or Arkhangelsk could conceivably disrupt government systems, especially when so many such systems seem to be run on known-insecure Windows.
That's just it, though, the only way to truly securely establish a separate network would be to run separate lines -- build in separate hardware, build in an air gap. Attempting to "partition" the Internet at the software level is pure silliness -- unless you command both ends of the pipe, and all points in between, there's a chance that someone may be able to intercept your traffic. And with deep packet inspection and similar tools these days, they could thus also alter your traffic, meaning any communications over the Internet cannot be secure, at least not in the way this Keith Alexander is talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
In CA and WA, the most recent two states where I've gotten a driver's license and registered a car, the proof of insurance you're required to bring is for driver's liability. Is this not the case in the states you mention? Do they require some kind of property insurance on cars? If so, that strikes me as a bit odd -- liability insurance at least has to do with protecting others, but property insurance is just about protecting one's own property value.
Curious,
I'm curious -- does this mean you do not insure your car against damage, or does this mean you do not have any vehicular insurance of any kind, including liability insurance?
If the latter, I must admit I agree with state laws requiring that drivers (or in some states the cars themselves) be insured for liability, to prevent situations where Bob totals Alice's car and puts her in the hospital, but leaves Alice in the lurch and gets off scot-free because he doesn't have liability insurance and Alice doesn't have the resources to pursue him in court.
We know that traffic accidents happen. It seems reasonable to me to insist that people have proven means of taking responsibility for covering the costs of any accidents that are their fault, before granting them a driver's license. Sure, there are good people of means, who would do the honourable thing on their own volition and pay the costs of someone they've run into. But there are also skivers and the less financially blessed who might not want or be able to pay such costs, even when it may be clearly their responsibility to do so -- which is where required liability insurance makes sure that no one is left high and dry after being run into by someone else.
But that's just my 2p. :)
Cheers,
Actually, what many states in US generally require is not that the *car* be insured, but rather the *driver* -- the legal requirements are for liability insurance for drivers, which makes some sense to me. The Wikipedia article on vehicle insurance goes into public policy somewhat.
If Joe collides with Kelly, and it's Joe's fault, then Joe is liable, and it's his responsibility to cover Kelly's expenses. Liability insurance makes sure that Joe can pay to cover such costs. If Joe has no liability insurance, and is too poor to pay for Kelly's expenses, then Kelly is stuck out through no fault of her own. Many states require liability insurance before they allow someone to get a driver's license, and thereby provide all drivers a measure of protection from the potential malfeasance of other drivers.
Cheers,
Sounds like pollutantus literati!
David Macaulay, author and artist of those wonderful books Castle, Cathedral, and City, also wrote a more tongue-in-cheek book called Motel of the Mysteries . It's a humorous look at how assumptions can be made (and be wildly off the mark) in the process of archaeology, as we try to decipher the uses and meanings of various bits of antique detritus. The key plot point is that it's thousands of years in the future, and archaeologists are finally digging North America out of a great disaster that happened in 1985:
Worth the read. Enjoy!
Cheers,
Why am I suddenly worried for the state of your laundry?
Cheers,
I keep somehow expecting scientists to discover some new wrinkle of the universe that shows us that Douglas Adams might have been right after all.
Cheers,
I thought (perhaps erroneously?) that the number after a monarch's name was the number of monarchs of that name that have ruled a particular country. Wouldn't that make Elizabeth QE II of the UK, but QE I of Canada?
From Wikipedia:
By way of example, Louis VIII of France was also known, albeit more obscurely, as Louis I of England, which he actually did rule for around one year, May 1216 to August 1217. This was in between the unpopular John of England and the more familiar Henry III. Terry Jones (yes, that Terry Jones) makes a fun and well-annotated argument for recognizing King Louis the First in his book, Medieval Lives. More also over at Wikipedia.
Cheers,
Interesting. Sure sounds curmudgeonly to me, but I'm happy to admit I have a very limited view of the issues.
Cheers,
Did they offer any reason why? Persistence of state on shutdown is a basic desire, and a sensible one. Not implementing an autosave-on-shutdown feature is rather braindead, unless there's some technical issue getting in the way. Are they just being curmudgeons, or do they have some rationale?
Curious,
DC, too -- being stuck on 395 at rush hour sure makes a slime mold look like a speed demon.
Cheers,
... The One Electronic?
Gah, my brain's jumping tracks a lot lately. Enjoy the link.
Cheers,
Just a bit of linguistic trivia: yaban in Japanese means "barbarian". Made me chuckle.
Cheers,
I wouldn't be too surprised; it's at least a renewable energy source. ;)
In all seriousness, I think they might actually do something similar -- Nintendo has long focused on gaining and maintaining a lead in the industry by being disruptive, and seeing how many people are upset can be one way of gauging how disruptive you're being. This fellow has written quite a bit about Nintendo's disruptive strategies, and most of what I've read sounds spot-on.
I'd recommend Birdmen and the Casual Fallacy for starters. The article is long, but worth the read.
Cheers,
Yes, I agree -- my original point was simply that lawbreaking, in and of itself, would not necessarily be a dealbreaker for me in a hiring situation. It would depend very much on what the law was, what the reasoning was behind the infraction, and what contexts in which the person feels it appropriate to break the law(s) in question.
As in translation (my business), context is everything. :)
Cheers,
I have one name for you: Rosa Parks.
I understand your point, but sometimes the way to go about changing a law is by disobeying it. This is not so much ignoring that the law exists, but rather acknowledging it, and deciding purposefully to not follow it.
I think that very much depends on the person and the circumstances. Which leads me back to part of my previous statement: it's best to be discriminating, in the carefully-thinking-things-through meaning.
Cheers,
The best bosses I've ever had, and the ones who seemed to run their bailiwicks most effectively, were those who were not scared by the capabilities of others. Instead, they were eager to capitalize on the strengths of those on their team, and were happy to give people as much free rein as was appropriate for the job and situation.
As your post implies, however, such managers are sadly not as common as one might like.
Cheers,
If the planet is tidally locked, there would be permanent shade on the dark side, and on the shady side of any mountains near the terminator line, which would provide UV shielding of a sort.
And even with no tidally induced tectonics, might there not be some thermally induced tectonics, depending on how hot things get on the sunny side? All that heat has gotta go somewhere, possibly leading to magma convection...
Cheers,
Well, there's lawyers covered, then.
Cheers,
Your phrase people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit sounds to me like a euphemism for "people who think". I know that's not how you intend it, and I'm not sure if the opinions in your post are yours, or your view of how employers operate, but it bears noting that laws are sometimes ridiculous, sometimes capricious, sometimes arbitrary. Frankly, I wouldn't *want* to hire someone who blindly follows all laws, without regard to how sensible they are -- not least because such a person would very likely be bad company. I'd much prefer hiring someone who thinks.
Granted, that can be difficult to ascertain from an online profile. But online evidence of lawbreaking wouldn't automatically rule someone out for me -- depending on the law(s) in question. Being discriminating is not in and of itself a bad thing; it's all in how one goes about it.
Cheers,
Yeah, it's like goldy or bronzey, only it's made of iron.
Cheers,
Sure, the NSA is undoubtedly up on the best crytpo around. While encryption will secure a message payload, it doesn't ensure that the message gets where it's going -- routing traffic over the Internet leaves the end- and midpoints open to DDOS and other attacks, tying up servers and preventing message transmission. A physically separate network, however, would avoid much of the harmful noise that happens in teh intarwebs.
Cheers,
Although the signal content might be secure, the signal itself would still be prone to disruption through various shenanigans like DDOS attacks and the like. A dedicated physically separate network would not face the same issues unless physically compromised. On the wide-open Internet, though, some bored teenager in Kuala Lumpur or Rotorua or Arkhangelsk could conceivably disrupt government systems, especially when so many such systems seem to be run on known-insecure Windows.
Cheers,
Seriously.
For that matter, what the hell am I doing here? I should get back to work...
Cheers,
That's just it, though, the only way to truly securely establish a separate network would be to run separate lines -- build in separate hardware, build in an air gap. Attempting to "partition" the Internet at the software level is pure silliness -- unless you command both ends of the pipe, and all points in between, there's a chance that someone may be able to intercept your traffic. And with deep packet inspection and similar tools these days, they could thus also alter your traffic, meaning any communications over the Internet cannot be secure, at least not in the way this Keith Alexander is talking about.
Cheers,