You questioned my definition of abuse. So I clarified. What are you confused about?
It's not about whether I can watch a movie, it's about the government taxing me and using my tax money to spy on me to make sure I'm not downloading Rihanna. Or using my tax dollars to extradite Kim Dotcom. Or any of the large numbers of real abuses done in the name of making a civil copyright issue criminal. If the copyright laws were all civil, or only used for actual criminal incidents (bootlegs being sold as legitimate), there wouldn't be an issue. Send the take-down notices, block Internet connections for sharing. Sue them in court. But it's hard to sue, so we've criminalized "downloading" so MGM doesn't have to suffer by suing people in breach of the civil law. Now, we are using tax dollars to hunt down downloaders. And you don't know what "abuse" means.
Becauase they know the US government will foot the bill, they can be as abusive as they want to customers, to downloaders. Or is Sony's rootkit not an abuse?
Do you lower the seat, or recline it? The recline isn't safe, when you can't get a good grip on the wheel at all positions. But I see people over-recline all the time.
I concur. The idea I've had is that we'll eventually get to a wearable visor that projects 360 degrees in 180 degrees, and as you move your head, changes the view. The middle 90 or 120 degrees will be real-space, and the remainder will be compressed to fill the visual field and give full 360 view.
That always made more sense than having the rear 180 projected above or below the front 180. That, and you'd have massive discussions on whether to mirror or "true" view. The current mirrors mirror because that's all they can do. But when you can do either, which is better? I'd guess that true view would be better (what you'd see if you turned your head), rather than the mirrored image, but someone should test that before it's implemented.
Though, when talking with "good" drivers, one thing I've seen in common is that they "see" around them in a radar way. They keep distance-vector image of traffic in their head. Why not do a top down radar screen, like we the military use in movies? That'd highlight any nearby vehicles.
But driverless cars are where the future is, anyway.
So fast it's street legal, but not track legal because it's too unsafe.
That's how it should be. Why should the person that buys the performance car be saddled with the weight of a roll cage and tranny shield when they'll drive it around in town all the time and never see 40 MPH? And that's NHRA rules. To take a car on a banked track and go 100+ mph in it, you need seatbelts and a motorbike helmet. SA isn't needed unless you have a cage. And NHRA rules are more strict because they assume a greater likelihood that you put your car together with bailing wire. The track days generally are quite lenient on standards, for generally stock cars.
So your 11 second car is NHRA illegal, but SCCA legal. Are you asserting that NHRA is "safer" than the SCCA for that? I've not seen stats, but from the number of crashes that end up on YouTube, I'd guess that NHRA is less safe, but that may be because NHRA is more likely to be filmed. When I was heavily active in the SCCA (and only barely active in the NHRA), any SCCA incident, of any kind was well known for hundreds, if not thousands of miles.
I've never met anyone who complained about other's mirrors who had their own adjusted properly. All could hide a bicycle or motorbike in tight traffic. At least the people with the "improper" settings can see behind them from their side mirrors, actually eliminating blind spots, though requiring a head-check (as recommended).
I needed a larger family car, and I looked at the Subaru Tribeca. I refused to consider it because the A-pillar was unsafe. I looked it up, and there were regulations on how much vision you are allowed to block, and makers use that as a target. So many want the stiffness and strength from a strong A-pillar that they compromise vision to get it.
It wasn't really any wider than any other, but it was closer, and that made it bigger.
If they go wrong, you are no worse off than if they weren't there in the first place. They are a benefit when working, and no worse than missing for all reasonable failure modes.
If the content producer doesn't give you permission to view the content, then you don't have a legal right to view it.
So? I don't have a "right" to view it, but by law, I don't have any responsibility not to, should I find it available. Unlike actual stolen items, where if I know something is stolen, i'm required by law to attempt to return it.
I have the right to do anything I want, so long as it isn't prohibited by law. As such (there are no prohibitions on seeking viewing content not "available") I do have The Right to view it. And even if I didn't have The Right to do it, when there's explicitly no law against it, it's legal, regardless of The Rights I have.
Not at dealerships. Last time I went to a new car dealer, I found the 2-year old like-new certified pre-owned car at 90% of the MSRP. Sure, I could have looked in the classifieds, but I haven't found the prices drop as fast as people assert.
Many people assert that you have an increased chance of a lemon. If you have a lemon, are you more likely to sell it when it's showing no problems, or keep it? So, lemons would be disproportionately for sale. If you disagree, what part do you disagree with?
Content region restrictions, malware in DVDs to enforce usage terms you didn't agree to. Having to wait years to be able to buy it because they wanted to milk the more profitable markets first before making it legal in your area. Do you really not understand the intentional abuse the cartel inflicts?
Copyright is an exchange. The government protects content, for a limited time, in exchange for the "owner" releasing it into the public domain.
Though I've moved out of the US (too 3rd world for me), and the copyright laws here mean that if it's "not available" then you can't "steal" it. So, if the Game of Thrones isn't available on DVD, or on TV/cable, then it's legal to download/upload it. The "owner" provably loses no money on the "theft", so shouldn't have any complaint, right?
If your feces cake looked good, and the actor looked like he enjoyed it, then what's the problem? If you salivate over feces, why can't that be the point? The film maker made you fall in love with or empathize with a toaster. That is "art". That you don't like it or understand it doesn't diminish it.
IF none was needed, why is Uber doing so much better than ride sharing ever did? We've had decades to get ride sharing done right. It never happened. If ride sharing doesn't need a middleman, then nobody would use Uber.
It was an Arabic flag (thus "Islamic" in many people's minds), and the officials (I'm not sure who) asked for clear airspace, and were given it, so the effect is the same as closed airspace, it was just closed by the police, rather than the CAA.
No, they are incenting Uber drivers to drive. That's their only stated goal with paying drivers more in peak/unusual times. This will allow more people to get rides, as more drivers drive.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's not abuse because nobody cares? I guess when your momma beats you, that's not abuse, since nobody cares about you...
You questioned my definition of abuse. So I clarified. What are you confused about?
It's not about whether I can watch a movie, it's about the government taxing me and using my tax money to spy on me to make sure I'm not downloading Rihanna. Or using my tax dollars to extradite Kim Dotcom. Or any of the large numbers of real abuses done in the name of making a civil copyright issue criminal. If the copyright laws were all civil, or only used for actual criminal incidents (bootlegs being sold as legitimate), there wouldn't be an issue. Send the take-down notices, block Internet connections for sharing. Sue them in court. But it's hard to sue, so we've criminalized "downloading" so MGM doesn't have to suffer by suing people in breach of the civil law. Now, we are using tax dollars to hunt down downloaders. And you don't know what "abuse" means.
Becauase they know the US government will foot the bill, they can be as abusive as they want to customers, to downloaders. Or is Sony's rootkit not an abuse?
Now it's enforcing its own abroad.
I've never seen that as a requirement. My half-blind mother has driven all her life. Better than average crash record.
Do you lower the seat, or recline it? The recline isn't safe, when you can't get a good grip on the wheel at all positions. But I see people over-recline all the time.
Go drive a Corvette. Specifically a 1957. The mirror is on the dash. I can't think of any others like that, but at least one car came that way.
I concur. The idea I've had is that we'll eventually get to a wearable visor that projects 360 degrees in 180 degrees, and as you move your head, changes the view. The middle 90 or 120 degrees will be real-space, and the remainder will be compressed to fill the visual field and give full 360 view.
That always made more sense than having the rear 180 projected above or below the front 180. That, and you'd have massive discussions on whether to mirror or "true" view. The current mirrors mirror because that's all they can do. But when you can do either, which is better? I'd guess that true view would be better (what you'd see if you turned your head), rather than the mirrored image, but someone should test that before it's implemented.
Though, when talking with "good" drivers, one thing I've seen in common is that they "see" around them in a radar way. They keep distance-vector image of traffic in their head. Why not do a top down radar screen, like we the military use in movies? That'd highlight any nearby vehicles.
But driverless cars are where the future is, anyway.
So fast it's street legal, but not track legal because it's too unsafe.
That's how it should be. Why should the person that buys the performance car be saddled with the weight of a roll cage and tranny shield when they'll drive it around in town all the time and never see 40 MPH? And that's NHRA rules. To take a car on a banked track and go 100+ mph in it, you need seatbelts and a motorbike helmet. SA isn't needed unless you have a cage. And NHRA rules are more strict because they assume a greater likelihood that you put your car together with bailing wire. The track days generally are quite lenient on standards, for generally stock cars.
So your 11 second car is NHRA illegal, but SCCA legal. Are you asserting that NHRA is "safer" than the SCCA for that? I've not seen stats, but from the number of crashes that end up on YouTube, I'd guess that NHRA is less safe, but that may be because NHRA is more likely to be filmed. When I was heavily active in the SCCA (and only barely active in the NHRA), any SCCA incident, of any kind was well known for hundreds, if not thousands of miles.
I've never met anyone who complained about other's mirrors who had their own adjusted properly. All could hide a bicycle or motorbike in tight traffic. At least the people with the "improper" settings can see behind them from their side mirrors, actually eliminating blind spots, though requiring a head-check (as recommended).
I needed a larger family car, and I looked at the Subaru Tribeca. I refused to consider it because the A-pillar was unsafe. I looked it up, and there were regulations on how much vision you are allowed to block, and makers use that as a target. So many want the stiffness and strength from a strong A-pillar that they compromise vision to get it.
It wasn't really any wider than any other, but it was closer, and that made it bigger.
If they go wrong, you are no worse off than if they weren't there in the first place. They are a benefit when working, and no worse than missing for all reasonable failure modes.
Abuse is an artificial monopoly using their government-enforced power to harm others, no matter how small that harm is.
If the content producer doesn't give you permission to view the content, then you don't have a legal right to view it.
So? I don't have a "right" to view it, but by law, I don't have any responsibility not to, should I find it available. Unlike actual stolen items, where if I know something is stolen, i'm required by law to attempt to return it.
I have the right to do anything I want, so long as it isn't prohibited by law. As such (there are no prohibitions on seeking viewing content not "available") I do have The Right to view it. And even if I didn't have The Right to do it, when there's explicitly no law against it, it's legal, regardless of The Rights I have.
Not at dealerships. Last time I went to a new car dealer, I found the 2-year old like-new certified pre-owned car at 90% of the MSRP. Sure, I could have looked in the classifieds, but I haven't found the prices drop as fast as people assert.
Many people assert that you have an increased chance of a lemon. If you have a lemon, are you more likely to sell it when it's showing no problems, or keep it? So, lemons would be disproportionately for sale. If you disagree, what part do you disagree with?
Content region restrictions, malware in DVDs to enforce usage terms you didn't agree to. Having to wait years to be able to buy it because they wanted to milk the more profitable markets first before making it legal in your area. Do you really not understand the intentional abuse the cartel inflicts?
I thought it was created in the US to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
Copyright is an exchange. The government protects content, for a limited time, in exchange for the "owner" releasing it into the public domain.
Though I've moved out of the US (too 3rd world for me), and the copyright laws here mean that if it's "not available" then you can't "steal" it. So, if the Game of Thrones isn't available on DVD, or on TV/cable, then it's legal to download/upload it. The "owner" provably loses no money on the "theft", so shouldn't have any complaint, right?
Pirate Bay, backing up pop culture online, for your enjoyment and edification.
A place to "buy" that which is released to the public, but not for sale at any price.
So you find all magicians to be rude and condescending as well? They trick you out of hate for humankind?
Tricking you to make you think doesn't have the message you assert.
If your feces cake looked good, and the actor looked like he enjoyed it, then what's the problem? If you salivate over feces, why can't that be the point? The film maker made you fall in love with or empathize with a toaster. That is "art". That you don't like it or understand it doesn't diminish it.
IF none was needed, why is Uber doing so much better than ride sharing ever did? We've had decades to get ride sharing done right. It never happened. If ride sharing doesn't need a middleman, then nobody would use Uber.
but does really religion allow you to be 150-years retarded?
The answer seems to be, "When it's us, yes. When it's them, no."
It was an Arabic flag (thus "Islamic" in many people's minds), and the officials (I'm not sure who) asked for clear airspace, and were given it, so the effect is the same as closed airspace, it was just closed by the police, rather than the CAA.
No, they are incenting Uber drivers to drive. That's their only stated goal with paying drivers more in peak/unusual times. This will allow more people to get rides, as more drivers drive.
You get it from a store, not your belly-button.