Yes, it certainly does. A sudden splash that opaques your windshield and/or distorts your view -- which a water balloon can most definitely do -- can startle and disorient the driver, leading to dire consequences. Throwing water balloons at vehicles is not a harmless prank. It is a thoughtless act that can directly endanger others. It is shortsighted and naive to characterize it any other way.
So assume they hit the roof, a startling sound, but no impairment to vision. If the driver reacts and crashes, is that the fault of the person reacting, or the person acting?
As for "capricious" it's not. Capricious would mean without precedent, and "on a whim", while the decision was before the FCC for 10+ years, and not taken lightly, and it just confirms the state of the Internet that existed for most of its life. That doesn't meet the definition of the word, though I've not dealt with the legal definition of capricious. If it were truly arbitrary and capricious, one would not need file a legal challenge, as one would expect it to change before such a challenge were concluded.
It's not a proprietary solution. It's a single OEM-only drive that's similar to (and meets the standards of) many others available now and before. The article inappropriately calls a standards-based OEM drive "proprietary".
So it only protects from shock waves? I was thinking of something that would help replace the expensive, heavy, and error prone reactive armor on tanks.
Eskimo is a tribe. It'd be like calling Tahoe, Taos, and all the others you can think of based in the Southwest US "Pueblo". It's wrong, and indicates that you don't know or care what the correct label is.
In the United States and Canada the term "Eskimo" was commonly used to describe the Inuit, and Alaska's Yupik and Iñupiat. "Inuit" is not accepted as a term for the Yupik, and "Eskimo" is the only term that includes Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit. However, Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Greenland view "Eskimo" as pejorative, and "Inuit" has become more common.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Though, being around the Alaskan natives, I've found that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. Canada, Greenland, and Alaska would be more accurate. Eskimo was one tribe, but it was one of the first, so all the other arctic tribes were (wrongly) called Eskimo.
Isn't ignorance the lack of knowledge? Sure, wasting lectures on the willfully ignorant is a waste of time, but on the mere ignorant?
Offense is nothing like physical force, which is what a water balloon imparts.
So if I blow on your hand, I've used "physical force" and thus committed an assault? Does it matter of the "blowing" of air was from speaking? I can measure the "physical force" speech causes. Microphones are designed to measure and record that physical force.
But you have an inarticulable line between speech and "force" where the force has no force.
For the water balloon, what if it misses the car, and the driver still panicked and crashed?
Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car.
The water balloon constitutes physical interference with your property, your path, and your ability to drive in a safe manner, thereby additionally and (further) irresponsibly constituting risk to yet others via potential secondary and tertiary effects
So water hitting your car causes risk. I guess you never drive when rain is predicted.
In reality, a water balloon thrown at your car holds a near-zero risk. Yet people go ape-shit over it. Is the problem the person that causes offense, or the person that over-reacts? You assert that if it's assault with water, then it's the fault of the thrower (do you sue God every time it rains?), but if it's words, the fault is with the people that hear.
I think your logic is flawed.
Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?
This is not "offense." This is incitement and inappropriate exercise of power. You are moving the goalposts quite a distance here.
I'm taking a real incident of speech that was prosecuted. You speak in platitudes and generalities, but nothing concrete and definable. So I'm trying to identify the edges, if any. Inciting someone to do something through speech should be illegal, according to you. Unless that "something" done is be offended. I don't see your logic. Offense is real, and measurable. It can be measured with medical tools, like you can see a bruise on someone's nose when you hit them. Yet the nose is sacred to you, and the ears aren't.
When one gets lambasted by a white person for saying "Eskimo" to describe Indians living in Northern Canada or Alaska, I don't think I'm being corrected, but bullied.
You are being corrected. You find it offensive to be corrected, why? What's bullying about someone correcting your incorrect use of language? Your language is offensive. My Inuit brother in law, inuit nephews, and mohawk son (from a tribe from Canada) aren't "Eskimos".
Being so ignorant as to bother to label someone without understanding the label is wrong is offensive. If you want to stop being "lambasted" stop deliberately insulting people.
Yes, I'm white. And no, I wouldn't correct you. Wasting lecture on the ignorant is fruitless.
But if I as a white guy refers to African-Americans as 'niggers', I expect to be corrected because the African-American community finds that extremely offensive - but not indignantly embarrassed by another white person.
So if you offend a white person saying racial slurs designed to insult and offend, then you'll get all indignant? Perhaps it would make sense that because you know all these terms you use regularly are offensive, that you'd use them less, rather than bait white people, hoping to cause sufficient offense to lecture them on their white-priviledge, or whatever perverse joy you get in offending others.
She's right, under most of the laws. The sexual harassment laws don't require a sexual element in the harassment for them to be sexual harassment by law.
Not if it's true. The best predictors of being (in the closet) gay are 1) being a Catholic Priest 2) Being a Republican in Congress talking daily about "family values", and 3) constantly talking about penises, while denying thinking about penises.
Homosexuals I've run this list past tend to agree, and none have so far indicated feeling insulted.
I believe the university will lose (and it should).
I believe the university will win (and it should). So, when will we know who's right and who's wrong?
If you don't like my speech, you can ignore me. You can denounce me. You can organize a boycott. But, you cannot compel me with law to stop.
The law doesn't agree. If you deliberately try to aggravate people, you can and will be charged. Whether it's for verbal assault or one of the nuisance laws, there are plenty of ways to compel someone deliberately causing harm from causing that harm.
Is being offended a harm? If so, should it be illegal?
That would move the discussion from "offense" to "harm" so that a rational discussion could be had.
Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car. If the person hit by it panics and crashes, is that the fault of the person who panicked from a non-harm of a water balloon? Or the fault of the person throwing it, knowing it was likely to cause harm?
Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?
The steel industry has been mostly offshored from the US since the '70's.
Yes. A time that coincides almost exactly with Nixon's EPA. The EPA killed steel mills. They were dirty poisonous endeavors. So we shipped them to China. We still mined iron, then shipped it to China for processing, then shipped steel back to the US for final shaping and sale. It was the EPA, and not the labor market that killed steel in the US.
#1 is invalid, as I've not seen the process of what to do when fraud is proven defined.
When you define what to do when there's an invalid vote in the box, then I'll consider it something other than a lie told by the fraudsters to hide the fraud.
#3 is also invalid. There is no means in most places to identify which ballots are valid. If someone stole a pile of valid ballots, and filled them out and stuffed them, how would the recount be able to separate valid ballots from invalid ballots?
#4 is not done in the US. False trust in the system is more important than valid results.
The system is designed to be abused. Open voting was used in the US for the first 10 years, and worked great, with low abuse, at least until the open Civil War, at which time, the ballots went anonymous, and should have reverted back to open after. But secret ballots were so much easier to cheat with, no politician would ever want an open ballot system. The race is to see who can cheat the most without getting caught, and nobody is trying to catch them.
I note, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger. What he says is true. The system no longer exists in practice, but exists on paper to scare people away from Shenzhen and such. If the system were ended tomorrow, the expectation is that there would be millions flooding the more prosperous cities. As it is now, it's used to prevent a homeless problem in cities. If you are in a city and homeless, then you don't have permission to be there. They ship you out to the country to hide the poverty in the countryside, where the foreigners rarely go. I've seen the country side, and the city, and talked with people who live in both. The rural people are given no chance to advance, and the city people are competing so heavily that advancement is hard.
It's not "worse" than the US, just different. China has more poverty and less homelessness. There are other things that are similarly confusing.
So by adding a "tax" on things or legislation that penalized farmers who are apparently mispricing due to not calculating the water they are "wasting",
Using fees to compensate for the tragedy of the commons is an evil tax?
That is one of the times where the government *should* step in. You are directly and provably harming your neighbor by exhausting the natural resource. The cost of pumping the water out of the ground should match the cost of replacing it. In wet areas, that's $0. In CA, that's the cost of a desalinization plant pumping clean water up to the watershed.
I'm willing to bet that the genius who came up with farmers "wasting" water has never been to a farm let alone worked one.
Nope, I'm betting that many have worked them. They've seen the large irrigation rigs that spray water. They know how much they pray for rain to cut water cost to make ends meet. But they know that if they don't "waste" water, they won't get a return on the crop. So they do it. They may not like it, but they do it. Put the cost of water up 10x, and the taxes on it will pay for enough desalinization meet demand. Sure, some farmers will have trouble, but only the ones raising water-intensive crops in a desert.
there are also stories a plenty of individuals, government officials and companies burning through millions of gallons to keep their lawns green and their cars sparkling.
That usage is much smaller than people think. People greatly under-estimate the industrial usage, because most people only see residential and commercial use, and a commercial dishwasher uses less water than washing by hand.
And don't forget, this is the watershed where it's illegal to catch the rain that falls on your property.
It would be a bit suspicious if one voting place had an unusually large number of invalid ballots.
In the US there have been places with more votes cast than people in the area. No alarms were raised. All the votes in the box were counted. This happened in more than one state in more than one election. Nobody in the US cares about voter fraud. It's asserted to not exist, despite proof to the contrary.
Find an area that your opponent will likely win. Stuff the ballot box with lots of votes for yourself. Because of the anonymous system, the votes for you will have to be counted, or the entire box will have to be discarded, throwing away more legal votes for your opponent than you. Either way, you win.
Slashdot Mirror
In Bill's case, it was the judge that defined the words poorly, and he gave the only legal answer, even if it seemed silly taken out of context.
Yes, it certainly does. A sudden splash that opaques your windshield and/or distorts your view -- which a water balloon can most definitely do -- can startle and disorient the driver, leading to dire consequences. Throwing water balloons at vehicles is not a harmless prank. It is a thoughtless act that can directly endanger others. It is shortsighted and naive to characterize it any other way.
So assume they hit the roof, a startling sound, but no impairment to vision. If the driver reacts and crashes, is that the fault of the person reacting, or the person acting?
As for "capricious" it's not. Capricious would mean without precedent, and "on a whim", while the decision was before the FCC for 10+ years, and not taken lightly, and it just confirms the state of the Internet that existed for most of its life. That doesn't meet the definition of the word, though I've not dealt with the legal definition of capricious. If it were truly arbitrary and capricious, one would not need file a legal challenge, as one would expect it to change before such a challenge were concluded.
It's not a proprietary solution. It's a single OEM-only drive that's similar to (and meets the standards of) many others available now and before. The article inappropriately calls a standards-based OEM drive "proprietary".
Stupid M.2 is why it's harder for me to get good toys for may mSATA. My 256GB boot drive will have to suffice.
So it only protects from shock waves? I was thinking of something that would help replace the expensive, heavy, and error prone reactive armor on tanks.
In the United States and Canada the term "Eskimo" was commonly used to describe the Inuit, and Alaska's Yupik and Iñupiat. "Inuit" is not accepted as a term for the Yupik, and "Eskimo" is the only term that includes Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit. However, Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Greenland view "Eskimo" as pejorative, and "Inuit" has become more common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Though, being around the Alaskan natives, I've found that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. Canada, Greenland, and Alaska would be more accurate. Eskimo was one tribe, but it was one of the first, so all the other arctic tribes were (wrongly) called Eskimo.
Isn't ignorance the lack of knowledge? Sure, wasting lectures on the willfully ignorant is a waste of time, but on the mere ignorant?
A race-baiting A/C is assumed willfully ignorant.
Then everything is sexual harassment because everyone has a gender.
Offense is nothing like physical force, which is what a water balloon imparts.
So if I blow on your hand, I've used "physical force" and thus committed an assault? Does it matter of the "blowing" of air was from speaking? I can measure the "physical force" speech causes. Microphones are designed to measure and record that physical force.
But you have an inarticulable line between speech and "force" where the force has no force.
For the water balloon, what if it misses the car, and the driver still panicked and crashed?
Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car.
The water balloon constitutes physical interference with your property, your path, and your ability to drive in a safe manner, thereby additionally and (further) irresponsibly constituting risk to yet others via potential secondary and tertiary effects
So water hitting your car causes risk. I guess you never drive when rain is predicted.
In reality, a water balloon thrown at your car holds a near-zero risk. Yet people go ape-shit over it. Is the problem the person that causes offense, or the person that over-reacts? You assert that if it's assault with water, then it's the fault of the thrower (do you sue God every time it rains?), but if it's words, the fault is with the people that hear.
I think your logic is flawed.
Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?
This is not "offense." This is incitement and inappropriate exercise of power. You are moving the goalposts quite a distance here.
I'm taking a real incident of speech that was prosecuted. You speak in platitudes and generalities, but nothing concrete and definable. So I'm trying to identify the edges, if any. Inciting someone to do something through speech should be illegal, according to you. Unless that "something" done is be offended. I don't see your logic. Offense is real, and measurable. It can be measured with medical tools, like you can see a bruise on someone's nose when you hit them. Yet the nose is sacred to you, and the ears aren't.
So you must prove malice for any noise ordinance to be enforced against a noisy neighbor? Reality proves you wrong.
When one gets lambasted by a white person for saying "Eskimo" to describe Indians living in Northern Canada or Alaska, I don't think I'm being corrected, but bullied.
You are being corrected. You find it offensive to be corrected, why? What's bullying about someone correcting your incorrect use of language? Your language is offensive. My Inuit brother in law, inuit nephews, and mohawk son (from a tribe from Canada) aren't "Eskimos".
Being so ignorant as to bother to label someone without understanding the label is wrong is offensive. If you want to stop being "lambasted" stop deliberately insulting people.
Yes, I'm white. And no, I wouldn't correct you. Wasting lecture on the ignorant is fruitless.
But if I as a white guy refers to African-Americans as 'niggers', I expect to be corrected because the African-American community finds that extremely offensive - but not indignantly embarrassed by another white person.
So if you offend a white person saying racial slurs designed to insult and offend, then you'll get all indignant? Perhaps it would make sense that because you know all these terms you use regularly are offensive, that you'd use them less, rather than bait white people, hoping to cause sufficient offense to lecture them on their white-priviledge, or whatever perverse joy you get in offending others.
She's right, under most of the laws. The sexual harassment laws don't require a sexual element in the harassment for them to be sexual harassment by law.
So you have the right to be as offensive as possible, at all times, and in all circumstances?
Not if it's true. The best predictors of being (in the closet) gay are
1) being a Catholic Priest
2) Being a Republican in Congress talking daily about "family values", and
3) constantly talking about penises, while denying thinking about penises.
Homosexuals I've run this list past tend to agree, and none have so far indicated feeling insulted.
I believe the university will lose (and it should).
I believe the university will win (and it should). So, when will we know who's right and who's wrong?
If you don't like my speech, you can ignore me. You can denounce me. You can organize a boycott. But, you cannot compel me with law to stop.
The law doesn't agree. If you deliberately try to aggravate people, you can and will be charged. Whether it's for verbal assault or one of the nuisance laws, there are plenty of ways to compel someone deliberately causing harm from causing that harm.
Is being offended a harm? If so, should it be illegal?
That would move the discussion from "offense" to "harm" so that a rational discussion could be had.
Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car. If the person hit by it panics and crashes, is that the fault of the person who panicked from a non-harm of a water balloon? Or the fault of the person throwing it, knowing it was likely to cause harm?
Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?
Monsanto doesn't have its patents on roundup ready crops expiring yet, does it?
The steel industry has been mostly offshored from the US since the '70's.
Yes. A time that coincides almost exactly with Nixon's EPA. The EPA killed steel mills. They were dirty poisonous endeavors. So we shipped them to China. We still mined iron, then shipped it to China for processing, then shipped steel back to the US for final shaping and sale. It was the EPA, and not the labor market that killed steel in the US.
Buddha never taught with a closed fist holding some knowledge back.
What information do you assert the teachers in this example are holding back?
#1 is invalid, as I've not seen the process of what to do when fraud is proven defined.
When you define what to do when there's an invalid vote in the box, then I'll consider it something other than a lie told by the fraudsters to hide the fraud.
#3 is also invalid. There is no means in most places to identify which ballots are valid. If someone stole a pile of valid ballots, and filled them out and stuffed them, how would the recount be able to separate valid ballots from invalid ballots?
#4 is not done in the US. False trust in the system is more important than valid results.
The system is designed to be abused. Open voting was used in the US for the first 10 years, and worked great, with low abuse, at least until the open Civil War, at which time, the ballots went anonymous, and should have reverted back to open after. But secret ballots were so much easier to cheat with, no politician would ever want an open ballot system. The race is to see who can cheat the most without getting caught, and nobody is trying to catch them.
I note, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger. What he says is true. The system no longer exists in practice, but exists on paper to scare people away from Shenzhen and such. If the system were ended tomorrow, the expectation is that there would be millions flooding the more prosperous cities. As it is now, it's used to prevent a homeless problem in cities. If you are in a city and homeless, then you don't have permission to be there. They ship you out to the country to hide the poverty in the countryside, where the foreigners rarely go. I've seen the country side, and the city, and talked with people who live in both. The rural people are given no chance to advance, and the city people are competing so heavily that advancement is hard.
It's not "worse" than the US, just different. China has more poverty and less homelessness. There are other things that are similarly confusing.
So by adding a "tax" on things or legislation that penalized farmers who are apparently mispricing due to not calculating the water they are "wasting",
Using fees to compensate for the tragedy of the commons is an evil tax?
That is one of the times where the government *should* step in. You are directly and provably harming your neighbor by exhausting the natural resource. The cost of pumping the water out of the ground should match the cost of replacing it. In wet areas, that's $0. In CA, that's the cost of a desalinization plant pumping clean water up to the watershed.
I'm willing to bet that the genius who came up with farmers "wasting" water has never been to a farm let alone worked one.
Nope, I'm betting that many have worked them. They've seen the large irrigation rigs that spray water. They know how much they pray for rain to cut water cost to make ends meet. But they know that if they don't "waste" water, they won't get a return on the crop. So they do it. They may not like it, but they do it. Put the cost of water up 10x, and the taxes on it will pay for enough desalinization meet demand. Sure, some farmers will have trouble, but only the ones raising water-intensive crops in a desert.
there are also stories a plenty of individuals, government officials and companies burning through millions of gallons to keep their lawns green and their cars sparkling.
That usage is much smaller than people think. People greatly under-estimate the industrial usage, because most people only see residential and commercial use, and a commercial dishwasher uses less water than washing by hand.
And don't forget, this is the watershed where it's illegal to catch the rain that falls on your property.
It would be a bit suspicious if one voting place had an unusually large number of invalid ballots.
In the US there have been places with more votes cast than people in the area. No alarms were raised. All the votes in the box were counted. This happened in more than one state in more than one election. Nobody in the US cares about voter fraud. It's asserted to not exist, despite proof to the contrary.
Find an area that your opponent will likely win. Stuff the ballot box with lots of votes for yourself. Because of the anonymous system, the votes for you will have to be counted, or the entire box will have to be discarded, throwing away more legal votes for your opponent than you. Either way, you win.