Jesus, no! Drivers have no business texting while the car us in motion, and the law should be very clear in saying that drivers seen holding a phone while the vehicle is in motion will be treated like drunk drivers. Why even think about a HUD when drivers could simply pull over to browse the web or work on their matchstick model of Big Ben?
I see no reason to waste time making a moronic and dangerous activity slightly safer
I don't mind the fluff being taught. What I object to is the teaching of outright falsehoods. Teaching homeopathy as medicine is akin to teaching a history course in which France was founded by Kiss after they'd defeated the Samoans by destroying their Deathstar.
Courses must be rigorous to be accredited - not three years spent wankibg for course credits.
I'm similarly confused. How does story relate to Bitcoins or people asking dumb questions that are resolved with 10 minutes with any decent search engine?
Is there anything specific that we don't already know to a reasonable level that you'd propose be studied? Be specific - check the journals and see how much time and money is already being spent on this research.
Brits that love to berate your colonial brothers for our loss of rights will continue to be even less endowed. Your CCTV system is much more extensive than ours already, yet you continually say otherwise.
Who says otherwise? Any British people who'd claim that the US has more CCTV cameras per head than the UK is a bit deluded. Either that or you're pulling this stuff out of your arse, based on YouTube comments or some similarly insignificant source of opinion.
But surely the new name is bold and fresh, ideally with some reference to clouds and crowd sourcing?
Coming from the support/engineering side, I am both grateful to marketing people for their skills, and living in fear of their next "innovation". Marketing are just like everyone else, in that seemingly destructive acts are more likely to be the result of ineptitude than malice.
Or Sherlock was working to answer the question how could I best piss on freedom of speech and leave the information/tech industry at the mercy of the whims of an Irish judiciary that has already demonstrated willingness to impose draconian and ultimately ineffective measures?
He appears to have done a rather good job of solving this poser. What next, Sherlock? Oblige bus drivers to confiscate music players if their owners can't on demand present the CDs for the music contained on them? Too subtle? Okay, then why not get yourself a hot air balloon and a rifle, and hover over Dublin, taking potshots at the people below?
This is why we have constitutions and similar documents that provide protections against the mob. We also separate government in to various branches that should, at least in the US, prevent a populist movement in any one branch from doing something batshit crazy, such as banning fat people from wearing tight clothing. Unfortunately progress can be a little slow - such as with the shameful persistence of racial segregation well in to the 60s and 70s.
Indeed. There's no good reason why there should be exemptions for political organisations. If I want to stop companies from calling me, then why would I be happy to be similarly dragged out of the shower by some twonk looking to secure my vote for the MPAA's next stooge?
Thanks. If that is how you describe then yes, more should have been done in the driver could reasonably have been shown to have not exercised due diligence. If someone is diagnosed with narcolepsy, continues to drive against medical advice, and ends up killing someone as a result of this, then let this be a harsher sentence as its an accident that happened largely because of their negligence.
Tell that to the families of the dead from the old man that drove through a pile of college students outside a bar and was not charged with *anything* (not even speeding or such, so he got to kill and keep his license) because, as the police said, "he didn't mean to do it." But if any of the dead were to kill driving home, being college-age and coming from a bar, they'd get murder and all sorts of crimes filed against them.
I ask again, when did this happen? Was the old man speeding? Was the old driver negligent? The comparison is only valid if age is the sole difference in the stories, yet here you need to add drunk driving to the young driver's tale. The young driver is indeed more likely to see a murder charge if, as in some jurisdictions, extreme negligence is included in the legal definition of murder. Surely though the elderly driver could face the same penalty if they drunk drive. I imagine a similar argument could be made if the old person is of sound mind, yet half blind and driving against the advice of their optometrist.
How about a guy who hangs around the local school, masturbating on to a sandwich that he then eats? Seems like an offensive act that's best prohibited by the law. I've no problem with public nudity, and swearing is fine. Aggressive behaviour though is not necessarily okay, and Mr "I make my own mayo" certainly seems to be crossing a line in terms of obscenity.
As for " regardless of why they were committed", why is it nobody complains about the distinction when some old man plows into a building killing 10 and gets charged with "reckless driving" and not any form of homicide. If he were drunk and 18, he'd be charged with 10 counts of murder. Sure, some may complain that the old man got to murder for "free"
Or they could simply replace the TSA with an agency geared towards the secure and efficient running of the nation's airports and airlines. TSA management can return to writing shitty plots for Hollywood blockbusters, and TSA agents will no doubt find plenty of work as fluffers in the porn industry.
Hiring someone to waive policies by fiat seems to ignore the underlying problem that the TSA is more like the police of some third world nation.
Freshwater was nutty, even by Pentecostal standards. Even so, he wasn't short on support. The cross burning thing had a somewhat limiting effect on his support. The people coming out strong for Freshman were the fringe wingnuts.
Religion does indeed complicate this. While Freshwater and his fellow fundies have no regard for the constitutional protections for faith and lack thereof, the state must do things by the book. That will unfortunately lead to delays, and having to entertain spurious legal challenges. I just hope that Freshwater was required to settle the school's legal bills.
Are you suggesting that torrenting a movie isn't a serious crime worthy of attention from an agency tooled-up for tackling mobsters and terrorist threats? I look forward to the SAS being deployed by local councils to deal with people who sneak for free in to concerts.
They already tried that by telling me that downloading a couple of tracks from the Internet was equivalent to nicking a car. They then showed that piracy is masterminded by some half-naked medieval torturer with glowing red eyes and a red hot branding iron. Seems so fucking cool to me that I of course had to give it a try.
It was disappointing, but I at least came away with some free music.
Sure, it's fine, so long as it's properly regulated and we know who's making these requests and how often they're doing it. I want the right, with reasonable consideration given for ongoing investigations (not the endless war on terror shit), to ask a single agency to tell me who's been requesting a trace on me? This should go via court order or exceptional and well defined emergency circumstances, and anyone tracked must always have a right to an explanation.
Consider stop and search laws in the UK. We need stats here so we can see if a particular police force has become a little free and easy with civil liberties.
It depends on how accessible this information is, and how accountable government officials would be? I'm fine with such requests, made via a court order or under pretty strictly defined emergency situations, so long as these requests are made a matter of public record. Not necessarily a big list showing who's been tracked - stats, broken down to agency and geographical area will do. If disclosing that a request had been made would harm an ongoing investigation, then set a confidentiality period measured in weeks or months - not years. I want to be able to contact a regulator, who will within months of a tracking request, be able to tell me when I was tracked and give me contact details if I wish to raise it with the agency that requested the track. Such access, like a search warrant for a property, should not be used for fishing.
It really depends on how India plans to address these issues. I'd sure be happy to have my phone tracked if I'd collapsed somewhere, and no-one knew where the hell I was, but only if I have visibility of this. What I don't want is for some fucker to request my location, on a whim. If aforementioned fucker makes a habit of unnecessary requests then I want to know that they'll be suitably punished, and such a thing is only possible with transparency.
It's really very wrong to say skepticism is "healthy", and yet I see people say this almost daily. It's no more 'healthy' to be systematically 'skeptical' than it is to be systematically credulous. It's 'healthy' to follow the data and not make any assumptions before you analyze it.
Disbelieving things by default isn't really much better, from a scientific perspective, than believing everything you hear.
Well, kind of, if we consider the extremes at either end of the spectrum. In reality though, it's asinine to equate credulity with a willingness to "follow the data", and skepticism with an unwillingness to analyze the data. Wouldn't skepticism itself generally be the withholding of belief until adequate evidence can be provided?
Healthy skepticism would surely be of the kind that demands evidence proportional to the claims being made. What is this strawman stuff you have here?
The media thing is unclear. Some software and DVDs will be replaced for a fee, but I have not seen something similar for audio CDs. The main issues I see here are with DRM and time. If these fuckers are trying to prevent me from making a backup, then what happens if my discs craps out in 10 years time? How about 20 years? Will they still be offering me a replacement for the content I already hold a license for, or will I be forced to buy a new one? That's certainly a blurring of the transaction, and they are certainly trying to have it both ways.
License agreements should not be able to override doctrine of first sale. As digital products become more common, it's important that we maintain this doctrine if we don't want to end up in a situation in which access to products must always be a one-on-one transaction between consumer and producer. Let them use DRM if they must to try prevent resale. Rather this than law that allows such a fundamental right to be signed away in license agreements. The right to re-sell products and transfer license agreements should be integral in the law.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very long-winded way of saying "everything is in some way dangerous, some people are better able to avoid dangers, so why ban anything?"
Does that really make any sense in either long or short forms?
Jesus, no! Drivers have no business texting while the car us in motion, and the law should be very clear in saying that drivers seen holding a phone while the vehicle is in motion will be treated like drunk drivers. Why even think about a HUD when drivers could simply pull over to browse the web or work on their matchstick model of Big Ben?
I see no reason to waste time making a moronic and dangerous activity slightly safer
I don't mind the fluff being taught. What I object to is the teaching of outright falsehoods. Teaching homeopathy as medicine is akin to teaching a history course in which France was founded by Kiss after they'd defeated the Samoans by destroying their Deathstar.
Courses must be rigorous to be accredited - not three years spent wankibg for course credits.
I'm similarly confused. How does story relate to Bitcoins or people asking dumb questions that are resolved with 10 minutes with any decent search engine?
Is there anything specific that we don't already know to a reasonable level that you'd propose be studied? Be specific - check the journals and see how much time and money is already being spent on this research.
Brits that love to berate your colonial brothers for our loss of rights will continue to be even less endowed. Your CCTV system is much more extensive than ours already, yet you continually say otherwise.
Who says otherwise? Any British people who'd claim that the US has more CCTV cameras per head than the UK is a bit deluded. Either that or you're pulling this stuff out of your arse, based on YouTube comments or some similarly insignificant source of opinion.
But surely the new name is bold and fresh, ideally with some reference to clouds and crowd sourcing?
Coming from the support/engineering side, I am both grateful to marketing people for their skills, and living in fear of their next "innovation". Marketing are just like everyone else, in that seemingly destructive acts are more likely to be the result of ineptitude than malice.
Or Sherlock was working to answer the question how could I best piss on freedom of speech and leave the information/tech industry at the mercy of the whims of an Irish judiciary that has already demonstrated willingness to impose draconian and ultimately ineffective measures?
He appears to have done a rather good job of solving this poser. What next, Sherlock? Oblige bus drivers to confiscate music players if their owners can't on demand present the CDs for the music contained on them? Too subtle? Okay, then why not get yourself a hot air balloon and a rifle, and hover over Dublin, taking potshots at the people below?
This is why we have constitutions and similar documents that provide protections against the mob. We also separate government in to various branches that should, at least in the US, prevent a populist movement in any one branch from doing something batshit crazy, such as banning fat people from wearing tight clothing. Unfortunately progress can be a little slow - such as with the shameful persistence of racial segregation well in to the 60s and 70s.
Indeed. There's no good reason why there should be exemptions for political organisations. If I want to stop companies from calling me, then why would I be happy to be similarly dragged out of the shower by some twonk looking to secure my vote for the MPAA's next stooge?
Thanks. If that is how you describe then yes, more should have been done in the driver could reasonably have been shown to have not exercised due diligence. If someone is diagnosed with narcolepsy, continues to drive against medical advice, and ends up killing someone as a result of this, then let this be a harsher sentence as its an accident that happened largely because of their negligence.
Tell that to the families of the dead from the old man that drove through a pile of college students outside a bar and was not charged with *anything* (not even speeding or such, so he got to kill and keep his license) because, as the police said, "he didn't mean to do it." But if any of the dead were to kill driving home, being college-age and coming from a bar, they'd get murder and all sorts of crimes filed against them.
I ask again, when did this happen? Was the old man speeding? Was the old driver negligent? The comparison is only valid if age is the sole difference in the stories, yet here you need to add drunk driving to the young driver's tale. The young driver is indeed more likely to see a murder charge if, as in some jurisdictions, extreme negligence is included in the legal definition of murder. Surely though the elderly driver could face the same penalty if they drunk drive. I imagine a similar argument could be made if the old person is of sound mind, yet half blind and driving against the advice of their optometrist.
How about a guy who hangs around the local school, masturbating on to a sandwich that he then eats? Seems like an offensive act that's best prohibited by the law. I've no problem with public nudity, and swearing is fine. Aggressive behaviour though is not necessarily okay, and Mr "I make my own mayo" certainly seems to be crossing a line in terms of obscenity.
As for " regardless of why they were committed", why is it nobody complains about the distinction when some old man plows into a building killing 10 and gets charged with "reckless driving" and not any form of homicide. If he were drunk and 18, he'd be charged with 10 counts of murder. Sure, some may complain that the old man got to murder for "free"
When has this ever happened?
Or they could simply replace the TSA with an agency geared towards the secure and efficient running of the nation's airports and airlines. TSA management can return to writing shitty plots for Hollywood blockbusters, and TSA agents will no doubt find plenty of work as fluffers in the porn industry.
Hiring someone to waive policies by fiat seems to ignore the underlying problem that the TSA is more like the police of some third world nation.
+1 unintentionally funny
Freshwater was nutty, even by Pentecostal standards. Even so, he wasn't short on support. The cross burning thing had a somewhat limiting effect on his support. The people coming out strong for Freshman were the fringe wingnuts.
Religion does indeed complicate this. While Freshwater and his fellow fundies have no regard for the constitutional protections for faith and lack thereof, the state must do things by the book. That will unfortunately lead to delays, and having to entertain spurious legal challenges. I just hope that Freshwater was required to settle the school's legal bills.
Are you suggesting that torrenting a movie isn't a serious crime worthy of attention from an agency tooled-up for tackling mobsters and terrorist threats? I look forward to the SAS being deployed by local councils to deal with people who sneak for free in to concerts.
They already tried that by telling me that downloading a couple of tracks from the Internet was equivalent to nicking a car. They then showed that piracy is masterminded by some half-naked medieval torturer with glowing red eyes and a red hot branding iron. Seems so fucking cool to me that I of course had to give it a try.
It was disappointing, but I at least came away with some free music.
It's the "first past the post" system. It's a great way of raising the barrier for entry to keep minority interests out of the picture.
Sure, it's fine, so long as it's properly regulated and we know who's making these requests and how often they're doing it. I want the right, with reasonable consideration given for ongoing investigations (not the endless war on terror shit), to ask a single agency to tell me who's been requesting a trace on me? This should go via court order or exceptional and well defined emergency circumstances, and anyone tracked must always have a right to an explanation.
Consider stop and search laws in the UK. We need stats here so we can see if a particular police force has become a little free and easy with civil liberties.
It depends on how accessible this information is, and how accountable government officials would be? I'm fine with such requests, made via a court order or under pretty strictly defined emergency situations, so long as these requests are made a matter of public record. Not necessarily a big list showing who's been tracked - stats, broken down to agency and geographical area will do. If disclosing that a request had been made would harm an ongoing investigation, then set a confidentiality period measured in weeks or months - not years. I want to be able to contact a regulator, who will within months of a tracking request, be able to tell me when I was tracked and give me contact details if I wish to raise it with the agency that requested the track. Such access, like a search warrant for a property, should not be used for fishing.
It really depends on how India plans to address these issues. I'd sure be happy to have my phone tracked if I'd collapsed somewhere, and no-one knew where the hell I was, but only if I have visibility of this. What I don't want is for some fucker to request my location, on a whim. If aforementioned fucker makes a habit of unnecessary requests then I want to know that they'll be suitably punished, and such a thing is only possible with transparency.
Given the Indian
Zimbabwe should switch to Bitcoin. A 20% overnight drop in their national currency would be a cause for astonished celebration.
It's really very wrong to say skepticism is "healthy", and yet I see people say this almost daily. It's no more 'healthy' to be systematically 'skeptical' than it is to be systematically credulous. It's 'healthy' to follow the data and not make any assumptions before you analyze it.
Disbelieving things by default isn't really much better, from a scientific perspective, than believing everything you hear.
Well, kind of, if we consider the extremes at either end of the spectrum. In reality though, it's asinine to equate credulity with a willingness to "follow the data", and skepticism with an unwillingness to analyze the data. Wouldn't skepticism itself generally be the withholding of belief until adequate evidence can be provided?
Healthy skepticism would surely be of the kind that demands evidence proportional to the claims being made. What is this strawman stuff you have here?
The media thing is unclear. Some software and DVDs will be replaced for a fee, but I have not seen something similar for audio CDs. The main issues I see here are with DRM and time. If these fuckers are trying to prevent me from making a backup, then what happens if my discs craps out in 10 years time? How about 20 years? Will they still be offering me a replacement for the content I already hold a license for, or will I be forced to buy a new one? That's certainly a blurring of the transaction, and they are certainly trying to have it both ways.
License agreements should not be able to override doctrine of first sale. As digital products become more common, it's important that we maintain this doctrine if we don't want to end up in a situation in which access to products must always be a one-on-one transaction between consumer and producer. Let them use DRM if they must to try prevent resale. Rather this than law that allows such a fundamental right to be signed away in license agreements. The right to re-sell products and transfer license agreements should be integral in the law.