As a photographer, should you be surprised? People don't like lenses pointed at them, even amateurs know that.
People are also unaware of the degree to which they are subject to surveillance so, even if is as pervasive as you say, that would not change their discomfort.
At least it's good you realize that a constant "surveillance state", that you claim exists, doesn't give you the right to intrude in people's space. People like their privacy respected even if they don't have a right to demand it in public.
This is the true insight. The same justification used here is used for other, decidedly lower fidelity formats. It's not the fidelity.
Also note conspicuous statement "The higher the audio file resolution, the better it gets." Audio file? Audiophile? Why wouldn't you just say resolution? Of course, because the author thinks that "audio file" implies audiophile.
There is an incredible amount of study and research that has gone into digital audio formats for a long, long time. Not the slightest bit of that is reflected in anything said here.
"which is what calling a black person a "minstrel show" is"
Any evidence of this claim? What if calling a minstrel show is merely stating an observable fact? It is unclear to me whether the behavior of these women is serious or if it is parody, but there is no doubt that black people are mocked in those videos.
Regardless, you know what is morally superior? Anyone who does not act like Diamonds & Silk. Calling these clowns a "minstrel show" is not calling them "race traitors", this is how I know that people of your ilk are in a state of mass delusion.
The problem is that riders dump them wherever they want, that's part of the idea. Realistically, the companies can't ensure that the devices will be properly parked nor can they hold their riders accountable for violations since the devices can be moved.
Dockless seems fatally flawed in this regard. A solution must address compliance by not only the companies but the riders. Scooters and e-bikes are fine, dockless is not.
No, the "pro-electric crowd" is using common sense to update laws based on vehicle mass and velocity. An e-scooter, when considered with its rider, is not significantly different in mass and velocity to bicycles, nor is an e-bike.
Complaining about the nuisance of scooter dumping is one thing, lying about their utility is quite another.
e-bikes are not classified "motorized vehicles" in 31 states and DC, including the nation's two largest states by population. It is you that hasn't "read the laws" which isn't surprising considering your intolerant potty mouth.
You are right, he didn't. Riding bicycles on sidewalks is legal in CA, however, absent local regulations like in most of the country. I am not a CA resident, but I saw this: https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/...
" California Vehicle Code Sections 21650(g) and 21206 state that there is no prohibition against riding on a sidewalk in the absence of a local municipal ban."
Also note that there are other states beyond CA, most of which allow bicycles on sidewalks, and that in most areas e-bikes are legally viewed as bicycles for these purposes.
This has been known as the correct interpretation for many decades as well. Driver behavior is well understood and has been for longer than most of us have been alive.
It should also be said that any entity that presents data like this with any other interpretation is lying. This kind of stuff is backed by a pro-revenue generation agenda, plain and simple.
"30% more french drivers are breaking the law and putting others life in danger"
If you set the limit to 0 then 100% of drivers will break the law, yet that doesn't put "others life in danger". This is nothing but rhetoric.
The percentage of drivers speeding is an indicator of the reasonableness of the limits, not of the behavior of the drivers. This has been known since at least the 70's, likely much longer.
"All of us can put a price tag on an hour of our time. Based on your logic, Jeff Bezos should be allowed to drive a rocket-powered car down the freeway to get to work, safety be damned."
By who's logic do you get "safety be damned"? Even an idiot can come up with a better straw man than that.
"Is the cost of your life or someone else's worth a few minutes every commute? I hope you're not arrogant enough to think so."
Oh, the "think of the children" argument. Never mind that artificially low speed limits actually reduce safety and that "a few minutes" is really just an admission that you aren't will to even consider actual costs.
"A) inexperienced/eldery/drunk drivers, B) the other 90% who are distracted texting addicts"
Speeds of other drivers aren't the problem here.
"Automotive death historical rates say a lot here. It's not exactly getting safer out there."
Put up or shut up. It is actually getting safer out there, but let's see some data on how lower speed limits actually helps that.
Depends on what the speed limits are. You like to pretend that's not part of the equation but it's essential to this form of taxation.
Also, it simply doesn't work this way except for sociopaths like you. People drive at speeds reasonable for prevailing conditions and drivers are consistent in their perception of safe speeds. When speed limits are reasonable, compliance is high. When limits become sufficiently low, drivers tend to ignore them. Governments exploit this when they set limits. They want an adequate supply of speeders so they deliberately set limits too low. If they aren't getting enough, they lower limits. Happens everywhere in the US.
Understanding this, it's clear to see that the cost of this is actually high. People waste time, safety is actually worse and expensive infrastructure is underutilized.
It could cost everything if everyone was as "smart" as you. It's funny how, over and over, your solution is stick the problem on someone else. You're delighted as long as it's someone else is getting the ticket.
How well does your answer work when everywhere is reduced to a school zone? You do realize that roads are for transportation, right? Artificial speed limits to generate revenue, which you think is great since you're too smart to pay, are clearly contrary to the entire purpose of the infrastructure. Roads are for getting places, not for playing games.
Very much state-specific. The OP should not say "in the US". Also, in my state you have a constitutional right to "face your accuser" which should invalidate all forms of automated ticketing. They are used anyway. How law enforcement dodges this clear constitutional issue IDK since I've never faced the issue.
Sounds like you have no personal experience then. A better lawyer cannot change the law or how the courts work. He may know how play corrupt parts of the system but that's even worse.
No lawyer, BTW, would say you can't challenge it, only that you'll lose.
It appears you know that you openly advocate for a "fucked up place" then. If you don't know that this is exactly how it works, you need to shut up and learn something.
Your comment amounts to "as long as your victimizing someone else I'm cool with it". Not a good look.
Imagine a society that's paid for on the backs of the poor by telling them they are criminals and levying fines on them. Sounds like a society you prefer and that says a lot about you.
Also keep in mind that when faced with a revenue shortfall, the "posted speed limit" is lowered until you're a tax payer too. That's how it works now at least in the US and sounds like it works that way in France, too. It's not that way in many places where people see the problem with your selfish way of thinking.
Correct, and furthermore, the entire purpose of patents is to teach others your inventive ideas to further technical advancement. "Personal use for research purposes" is the entire point of patents, and in exchange you are granted a limited monopoly (which is commercial in nature).
The suggestion that patents lack "faIr use" is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Love how you quoted that article, as though it supported your claims.
Perhaps you should quote Jordan Peterson instead, he's far more your speed.
As a photographer, should you be surprised? People don't like lenses pointed at them, even amateurs know that.
People are also unaware of the degree to which they are subject to surveillance so, even if is as pervasive as you say, that would not change their discomfort.
At least it's good you realize that a constant "surveillance state", that you claim exists, doesn't give you the right to intrude in people's space. People like their privacy respected even if they don't have a right to demand it in public.
What constitutional grounds would justify SCOTUS hearing such a case regarding Illinois state law?
How many 12 month cycles is required for any size audience to become "everyone"?
I would suggest it is far more likely that not "everyone" will ever have even heard or Deezer HiFi, or even that Deezer HiFi even remains in business.
This is the true insight. The same justification used here is used for other, decidedly lower fidelity formats. It's not the fidelity.
Also note conspicuous statement "The higher the audio file resolution, the better it gets." Audio file? Audiophile? Why wouldn't you just say resolution? Of course, because the author thinks that "audio file" implies audiophile.
There is an incredible amount of study and research that has gone into digital audio formats for a long, long time. Not the slightest bit of that is reflected in anything said here.
"which is what calling a black person a "minstrel show" is"
Any evidence of this claim? What if calling a minstrel show is merely stating an observable fact? It is unclear to me whether the behavior of these women is serious or if it is parody, but there is no doubt that black people are mocked in those videos.
Regardless, you know what is morally superior? Anyone who does not act like Diamonds & Silk. Calling these clowns a "minstrel show" is not calling them "race traitors", this is how I know that people of your ilk are in a state of mass delusion.
No, it doesn't. Planting a tree specifically for the benefit received does not constitute doing harm.
Introducing a non-native species does not automatically make it invasive.
No, because they are inherently not "invasive species" nor should the be "removed immediately" because they're being put there deliberately.
You know, some conscious thought is required when stringing together words that you've heard before.
The problem is that riders dump them wherever they want, that's part of the idea. Realistically, the companies can't ensure that the devices will be properly parked nor can they hold their riders accountable for violations since the devices can be moved.
Dockless seems fatally flawed in this regard. A solution must address compliance by not only the companies but the riders. Scooters and e-bikes are fine, dockless is not.
No, the "pro-electric crowd" is using common sense to update laws based on vehicle mass and velocity. An e-scooter, when considered with its rider, is not significantly different in mass and velocity to bicycles, nor is an e-bike.
Complaining about the nuisance of scooter dumping is one thing, lying about their utility is quite another.
e-bikes are not classified "motorized vehicles" in 31 states and DC, including the nation's two largest states by population. It is you that hasn't "read the laws" which isn't surprising considering your intolerant potty mouth.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...
You are right, he didn't. Riding bicycles on sidewalks is legal in CA, however, absent local regulations like in most of the country. I am not a CA resident, but I saw this: https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/...
" California Vehicle Code Sections 21650(g) and 21206 state that there is no prohibition against riding on a sidewalk in the absence of a local municipal ban."
Also note that there are other states beyond CA, most of which allow bicycles on sidewalks, and that in most areas e-bikes are legally viewed as bicycles for these purposes.
Because there is no reason to think otherwise. To determine whether it is safe, you need to know more than just "motorized".
It is OK to ride a "motorized vehicle" on the sidewalk, for at least some kinds of motorized vehicles.
Then lower the speed limits until the accident rate increases, then demonize the speeders for that. Never underestimate what politicians will do.
This has been known as the correct interpretation for many decades as well. Driver behavior is well understood and has been for longer than most of us have been alive.
It should also be said that any entity that presents data like this with any other interpretation is lying. This kind of stuff is backed by a pro-revenue generation agenda, plain and simple.
"30% more french drivers are breaking the law and putting others life in danger"
If you set the limit to 0 then 100% of drivers will break the law, yet that doesn't put "others life in danger". This is nothing but rhetoric.
The percentage of drivers speeding is an indicator of the reasonableness of the limits, not of the behavior of the drivers. This has been known since at least the 70's, likely much longer.
"All of us can put a price tag on an hour of our time. Based on your logic, Jeff Bezos should be allowed to drive a rocket-powered car down the freeway to get to work, safety be damned."
By who's logic do you get "safety be damned"? Even an idiot can come up with a better straw man than that.
"Is the cost of your life or someone else's worth a few minutes every commute? I hope you're not arrogant enough to think so."
Oh, the "think of the children" argument. Never mind that artificially low speed limits actually reduce safety and that "a few minutes" is really just an admission that you aren't will to even consider actual costs.
"A) inexperienced/eldery/drunk drivers, B) the other 90% who are distracted texting addicts"
Speeds of other drivers aren't the problem here.
"Automotive death historical rates say a lot here. It's not exactly getting safer out there."
Put up or shut up. It is actually getting safer out there, but let's see some data on how lower speed limits actually helps that.
Depends on what the speed limits are. You like to pretend that's not part of the equation but it's essential to this form of taxation.
Also, it simply doesn't work this way except for sociopaths like you. People drive at speeds reasonable for prevailing conditions and drivers are consistent in their perception of safe speeds. When speed limits are reasonable, compliance is high. When limits become sufficiently low, drivers tend to ignore them. Governments exploit this when they set limits. They want an adequate supply of speeders so they deliberately set limits too low. If they aren't getting enough, they lower limits. Happens everywhere in the US.
Understanding this, it's clear to see that the cost of this is actually high. People waste time, safety is actually worse and expensive infrastructure is underutilized.
It could cost everything if everyone was as "smart" as you. It's funny how, over and over, your solution is stick the problem on someone else. You're delighted as long as it's someone else is getting the ticket.
How well does your answer work when everywhere is reduced to a school zone? You do realize that roads are for transportation, right? Artificial speed limits to generate revenue, which you think is great since you're too smart to pay, are clearly contrary to the entire purpose of the infrastructure. Roads are for getting places, not for playing games.
Very much state-specific. The OP should not say "in the US". Also, in my state you have a constitutional right to "face your accuser" which should invalidate all forms of automated ticketing. They are used anyway. How law enforcement dodges this clear constitutional issue IDK since I've never faced the issue.
Sounds like you have no personal experience then. A better lawyer cannot change the law or how the courts work. He may know how play corrupt parts of the system but that's even worse.
No lawyer, BTW, would say you can't challenge it, only that you'll lose.
It appears you know that you openly advocate for a "fucked up place" then. If you don't know that this is exactly how it works, you need to shut up and learn something.
Your comment amounts to "as long as your victimizing someone else I'm cool with it". Not a good look.
Imagine a society that's paid for on the backs of the poor by telling them they are criminals and levying fines on them. Sounds like a society you prefer and that says a lot about you.
Also keep in mind that when faced with a revenue shortfall, the "posted speed limit" is lowered until you're a tax payer too. That's how it works now at least in the US and sounds like it works that way in France, too. It's not that way in many places where people see the problem with your selfish way of thinking.
Correct, and furthermore, the entire purpose of patents is to teach others your inventive ideas to further technical advancement. "Personal use for research purposes" is the entire point of patents, and in exchange you are granted a limited monopoly (which is commercial in nature).
The suggestion that patents lack "faIr use" is absurd.
Copyrights and patents do not overlap and serve different purposes. The existence of copyright does not mean that patents don't apply to software.
Also, fair use is a term applied only to copyright, that doesn't mean that patents lack usage exemptions.