There seems to be a cabal of people who will spend all their mod points modding everything on your posting history down if they find you posted something they find particularly offensive. This causes a lot of people to post controversial stufff as AC.
There are also groups of people like groupies who follow topics in order to impress a particular viewpoint that seems to match their worldview. Both seem to be problems on Slashdot in the last couple of years.
You will find that with the retaliation that seems to be going on in today's environment, people just don't want their online persona associated with something controversial. There is the mass down modding to ruin your karma and restrict your posting abilities but also take Mozilla for instance. They canned a new CEO (who had been working for them in other offices since their inception) for something he did 8 years ago that had the majority support of his community at the time. What will you be driven away from or refused or jailed or whatever retaliation that happens in 8 years over a comment you made today or yesterday?
What's really funny is that most people who can make that twisted leap of logic aren't willing to accept any other form of giving people an unearned advantage based on the accident of their birth.
Don't you think that it might be a little different when a parent brings a child into the world and takes care of them verses the government or anyone taking and giving?
I mean the accident of birth happens because at least one but usually two people make a choice. It's their choice, it's their responsibility, it's their life. To para-quote Margarette Thatcher, some would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich in the process. It seems that when people talk fairness, they tend to want to attack those that have instead of bringing those without up- unless somehow it takes from those that have in the process. But it is not the same when you take from your neighbor and give to your other neighbor, its not the same when government takes from me and gives to you just because your parents spent their money on booze and boats instead of private schools for you. Your accident of birth, just like mine, is between me and my parents, not me and the government or some random stranger.
To be fair, the law makers claim they want a smaller government and it is pretty obvious the opposition wants a larger government. The choice is either picking the least of two evils or allowing the most evil win.
It's kind of like 2am and the hot chick at the end of the bar is buying you drinks. You decide to put the charm to her because she is the only one left and take her home only to find out in the morning that she was a he and your friends warned you about her 5 o'clock shadow before you even talked to her.
That's what republicans are sort of discovering. Things aren't what they seem to be. but they will go back to the bar and tie one on again and hope the next time turns out better.
I don't act like that at all. Ron Paul was completely unsuccessful in his 1988 attempt at the presidency. He also ran as a libertarian in 1988, not a TEA party candidate or republican. In 2008 and 2012, he ran as a republican and outside of 1988 was always a republican officially in office.
Even if you want to claim that Ron Paul was a libertarian running as a republican (which I specifically suggested as a valid method), I cannot think of one law he introduced or sponsored. He either criticized other laws, or his initiatives fell flat validating my point about the lack of support to get things done.
All voting third party does is take a vote away from the candidate otherwise the most aligned to your positions. It is a waste because it allows the candidate who you most appose succeed with less votes altogether and if they win, there is no support to implement their agenda. Just look at that evil Ted Cruze who got all the visibility in the world but failed to accomplish his agenda. But as a TEA party republican, he does influence legislation supported by republicans.
I particularly like how you disassembled the comment and pointed to every place in which it possibly could be wrong. Tell me, do you have a news letter I can subscribe to?
PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.
OF course it has an effect. Not having any humans at all will also. The problem is that technology allows more people to have less effect or less detrimental effect. It also allows us to deal with the changes which is why we don't have hundreds of thousands of people dieing in every natural disaster.
Third parties will never be a force in American politics until they stop trying only for the big names seats and actually start from the bottom up and take city, state, and county seats first. Until then, it is just a waste of vote- even if they do get elected.
This is how the democrats and republicans became so entrenched. And a lot of times, the local politicians do not even act like the national ones which gives a false impression of the parties. There was a poll a while back in which the majority of Americans saw their senator or representative as not being part of the problem, it was all the others in Washington.
But back to third parties, if one gets elected president, all he can do is veto what congress sends him and make speeches. Congress can ignore most of it like they did to Carter in the 70s (what an abysmal president who turned out to be better outside of office than in). But the majority of bills sent to be signed will include something important and vetos will end up with everyone calling for impeachment. If a third party gets elected to the senate or house of representatives, they will have to caucus with one of the parties or no one would support anything they attempt to bring to the table.
Voting third party is a waste of a vote pure and simple. That is until they go grass roots and start having a bottom up support structure. They would be better off infiltrating the existing parties like the TEA party does and stand their ground that way.
Interestingly, a federal court just rules that the coppers need a warrant to get cellphone location data as it is assumed to be confidential and falls within the 4th amendment scope.
There are a lot of greenies who actually believe that. They think the world is over populated and less humans is a good thing. Ted Turner, the TV network tycoon who started CNN among other stations used to be very vocal about it but has toned it down a lot in the last decade or so.
Don't pretend i said something i did not say. There is a big difference between making something more expensive just to funnel money into the government while hoping usage goes down and something with quantitative results adding cost to something. If you cannot see that, you probably should shut up while the aduylts talk.
I'm posting from my phone so links are dificult right now but i got my number from a study done at the university of california. Its the first link when google searching cost of car regulation. . I'm not sure how you managed to ignore that but either your google finger is broken or you lied in trying to find the number i used. Perhaps you pretended something was said that wasn't again.
What would actually stop someone from connecting to the cable on the pole, blasting the transmission through it every 200 minutes or something and then pretending like nothing happened?
I mean almost no one would ever know it is happening as most cable boxes and TV buffer a small amount and the packet transmission would not need to be very long. Internet provided over the cable would likely just retransmit whatever got lost as it actually had error correction built in.
Governments could put more money into research, but it would still have to come from somewhere (not that I'm saying this is necessarily a bad idea, but I think it's a false dichotomy).
It's not a false dichotomy. Just because I present only one or two options does not in any way preclude other options. I just gave an alternative that actually makes some sense as apposed to the give government money and magically it will all get better plan being offered here. You may have other ideas that make fucking sense too. The government already has money that could be spent on these types of things yet they are not doing it. All it will end up being spent on is more spying on citizens and a military style police force for ever department under the government like it currently is.
Yes, but everything hits the poor worse. If food prices rise as a result of increasing crop failures, this would hit the poor worse too.
reread what you just wrote. "if" if a powerful word there. If the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit. If the rabbit didn't stop to shit, the dog never would have caught him. Of course in both those scenarios, if is just a guess because there is no reason to believe anything would be true in the inverse (the dog catching the rabbit or the rabbit escaping capture) outside of knowing where a given failure currently is.
Well, food prices may or may not go up. You simply do not know and it will not be over night if it did unless it was purposely manipulated to do so. In the US, we have what is called a strategic reserve in which our food production was considered to be part of our national security. You may know it better as subsidies in which the government manipulates the markets in order to encourage excess food production so a natural disaster like drought in the south and flooding in the Midwest doesn't cause half the country to start. The excess is put into reserves and eventually either sold to struggling foreign nations at discounts or given as aid if not needed to go back into the US food supply. You can have over 1/4 of the food crops completely wiped out in the US and you will still see more of a fluctuation in prices on the consumer end due to the availability in oil or energy needed to produce, process, and market them.
If food prices rise will not be an issue until well into the future and only if someone manipulates the existing programs or future programs that have stabilized food prices for well over 50 years. And yes, we have had price spikes in food that would have been completely worse if this had not been in place. Today you see specific commodity spikes due to specific weather events mostly and gradual overall increases in food prices due to regulations and oil mostly.
So let me get this straight, you are saying that if we do nothing about climate change, costs are going to increase some unknown amount naturally so we need to artificially increase costs with a known amount to combat it? Do I have that correct?
How about instead of playing five knuckle shuffle while attempting to funnel more money into the government coffers we instead look at ways to sequester the carbon emissions and perhaps replace them with naturally economically viable solutions?
The entire idea behind cap and trade is to restrict usage and it hits the poor the worse. I mean seriously, all the regulations and mandated emissions crap (which is mostly a good idea BTW) on cars has increased the cost of purchasing a new one by about 1/3 from between 1967 and 2001. Who can afford new cars more easily? The rich and well off people. Who buys used cars that they are tired of driving? The poor. The same will be had with cheap imports that the poor rely on. This is a real problem because the amount of poor people seem to be increasing. But it is nothing new, take the tobacco taxes. They determined tobacco was addictive and bad for you so they tax it to fund things because you won't quit and they know there will be a source of revenue. Except you should pay because smoking is bad M'Kay. And most of the smokers are poor.
So lets stop trying to Rube Goldberg money to the government and actually find ways to make clean energy naturally competitive and sequester emissions instead of saying fuck the poor, we are doing this for your own good because the government wants more money.
Yes, the US government should have simply seeded over the Columbian arable areas with industrial hemp and cross pollinated the entire crop making it pointless to grow pot there. They should have done this instead of dropping poisons.
But I'm not sure that it matters much unless you actually mean Colombian in which case I'm not sure it matters still.
Then suffer the penalties of the law or obey it. There is no false, you either change the law, follow it, or accept it's punishment.
And you cannot say it DOES matter or we would not be having this conversation.
It does and you know it. The law is not subject to interpretation that are not interpreted the same for everyone.
Obviously if a company worth many billions exists by flouting these laws, they do not matter.
Ahh, the naivety in this. So if a company worth billions exists by dumping toxic wastes into rivers, laws against that do not matter? If a company exists by putting poisons in foods, laws against that sort of thing do not matter? Your foolishness is getting the better of you. Just because you don't like the law does not mean it is ok to ignore it altogether. Plenty of other people do not like plenty of other laws that you might find a good idea. If the law is bad, then get it changed. It really is that simple. You can change it by petitioning your government or by challenging the law in court and having it struck down. Ignoring it only subjects you to the penalties for violations of the law.
Which we can plainly see is not necessary, therefore it only exists to drive up the cost of taxi licenses and protect unions jobs.
If it is that obvious and plainly seen, then you will have absolutely no problem getting the law changed. But coming here and crying that the law is forbidding something you think is a good idea and complaining about the punishment while demanding nothing be done to change the law is a tad but stupid of you ask me. I'm sure others would think the same too. If the law is as screwed as you think it is, it shouldn't be hard at all to get it changed. Who know, you might learn something in the process. You may even help someone else learn something.
The problem is "not interfering with actual police work" is both subject to interpretation or opinion and speculative. There have been examples of court hallways being cleared because of the noise interfering with the cases in the courts or threats that have been made to witnesses and such. I remember one where some victim's advocate was waiting for a witness to finish and was ordered by the police to clear the hallway and was arrested when refusing to do so. It turns out she was within her rights to remain there. But others who were simply waiting for another case to begin and stuck around to watch the advocate argue with the cop were not. So there you had a situation where a couple people got arrested for failing to follow a lawful direction of a police officer, one was wrongly so and the others were reasonable and legit.
Now, there can also be instances where people need to leave an area for their own safety and the safety of others. A chemical or hazardous material spill can be one of them. You standing within the initial evacuation zone most likely will never interfere with actual police work. But it can cause health issues for you and possibly create a fire risk depending on the material that you could unknowingly start. Static discharge in a highly flammable area could cause a massive explosion or a small explosion or fire- you get the picture.
So a police ordering someone to leave or stop operating a camera may not be protected if there is a valid reason behind it. A police not wanting you to witness your friend getting beaten with rubber hoses is not. The ruling properly leaves that question to the specific circumstances of the specific incidents when it happens if it ever happens. The op in the story was never told not to record or to leave the area so obviously, there was no reason to rule over that.
Yes it is, if some of he regulation only exists to prevent competition. You think the limited number of taxi licenses sold is to keep people safe? Or to keep taxi medallions expensive... in what way is that regulation one that is morally right to follow?
If it isn't right, then get the law changed. However, you simply cannot say the law doesn't matter as obviously it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
and yes, they limit the number of taxis to limit competition. They do this in order to ensure the taxis are profitable enough to maintain their vehicles and stay in business. Whether you think this is morally wrong or not is a matter of opinion. Obviously, your overlords do not believe the same as you as they made it law. So get the law changed if you don't like it. Ignoring it will only put you in violation to it and subject you to the penalties of it.
lol.. The devil is in the details I guess but yes, that is what I am saying. If they can sell services where the fast lane does not degrade it, then I do not have a problem with it. If I decide to save money and buy a slower service and Netflix decides to up the speed for my connection when I'm connected to Netflix, that is alright by me.
The bottom line is that if they reserve capacity for the fast lanes, it better be capacity above what they sold to you and me. Otherwise, I believe it to be consumer fraud to purposely slow our connections to below what they sold us in order to maintain that fast lane. No matter how you slice it, up to 8 megs or whatever the speeds of your connection is supposed to be can never be up to that limit if they purposely and intentionally slow your connection down.
So just carefully turn the key the two clicks from running to off but unlocked, but not the three clicks to a locked steering column all while dealing with a rampantly accelerating car. That sounds reasonable.
Most cars I know of needs the car to be put into park in order to turn the key switch to off and lock. Standard transmissions need a lever pushed near the key. Sometimes you press the key against the column.
The point is, I'm not sure you can just turn the key back and lock the steering without actually trying to lock the steering. I'm also not sure the car will actually turn off with everything being computer controlled. I mean if the wide open throttle is a computer issue, it may not kill the engine either. Newer cars don't even need the ignition key to turn, just have it near the switch and press the start. I drove a ford explorer a couple blocks to load it on a roll off tow truck or maybe it was an excursion, that I couldn't even find the key to turn it off and had to ask someone. The key was sitting in the cup holder. I saw many cars like that when I was in New Jersey after hurricane sandy helping my brother in law pull flooded cars for the insurance companies.
Regulations and laws that have been added to over the years with a strong intent to kill all competition?
Work to get the laws and regulations changed if you truly believe that. I agree somewhat with you too.
Why SHOULD a company obey laws that are unethically sound. If a law is bad why is it not just as admirable for a company to engage in civil disobedience - we already treat companies as individuals to some extent, so why would there not be good along with bad as there is with everything else?
Bad? Because good and bad are on sliding scales and subject to interpretation. What isn't subject to interpretation is laws and regulations. What's that, fish are being over harvested and the wild populations are down to dangerous levels, well the rules are bad so I won't follow them- after all, this is how I make a living. What's that, people cannot dump petrochemicals into the river, well, in the 20 years I have been doing it, nothing bad has happened unlike all those other people who actually caught the river on fire. What's that, the sign says slow children at play speed limit 20mph, well, I'm a good driver, that's a bad law because I can go faster..... oh shit, the rug rat ran right in front of me.
Or are you saying that a law is only bad if you agree it is bad? Well, if that is the case, how are we supposed to know which laws are for real and which ones can be discarded at will because you deemed them bad? I will tell you how, you get them changed.
I personally would prefer an Uber ride in every regard to a taxi, any time it is possible... because they are simply a safer service that is much nicer to use. In what way are they not following regulations that actually matter?
I would say their levels of insurance is a key way. Cabs need to have a commercial insurance with a rider that meets a certain minimum that residential auto insurance doesn't. This limit is generally 100 to 300 thousand as that seems to be the minimum for most of the google results I found. But in almost every state, if the person is acting unlawfully in the course of creating the claim, the insurance company can get out of paying a claim. So failing to get a taxi license and operating as a taxi service can possibly create an opening for the insurance company to refuse payment for your hospital bills. This happens all the time when people deliver pizza without the commercial insurance, they get in an accident, the insurance company finds out they were driving for work and refuses to pay because it was considered a commercial trip and you didn't have commercial insurance.
Most cab cars I have been in use decommissioned police cars. They buy them up at auction at reasonable prices because the maintenance and service has been well kept up over the life of the cars as police vehicles (I've actually talked with a few drivers). They use them for a year or two and get new ones.
The interior of a couple cabs I have been in have been rough. But having the fake chrome trim on the cup holders doesn't mean the tires are going to keep traction in the corners or the brakes will stop the car or that the steering will not screw your dog and piss on a tree when you need to avoid something in the road. I suspect the maintained he is talking about is the aesthetics like a dash with no cracks and no rips in the seat cushions and stuff. I've driven some really nice cars that were dangerous. I remember a park avenue I picked up for a friend who let a relative use it until they got another car and had to stop and put brakes on it in the parts store parking lot on the way home because they were almost not there. and by not there, I mean pads and shoes down to the metal and the wheel cylinders leaking. All I can say is thank god Advanced auto parts has a tool loaner program as I had nothing but a jack and lug wrench with me.
How about your driver's car being in poor mechanical condition and their insurance company refusing to pay your medical bills when it loses power on a freeway ramp or doesn't stop at the red light and gets creamed by another motorist.
I'm thinking you most certainly would want your driver to have good insurance- even if you get killed. Your family will likely appreciate it too.
lol.. I guess they cannot use QOS then. I mean it is simple really. I said as long as they do not hamper my communications. So their fast lanes have to be speeds in excess of everyone else' and in addition to everyone else. QOS may be part of the final solution, but if it matches what I said, then it will only be to manage packets at speeds above the connection I purchased.
Here is more to what I don't have a problem with. They sell internet as normal, Netflix and Google pay for the fast lane, they install additional capacity and allow Netflix and Google to flow faster than the speeds they sold me into my connection. Everyone else is limited to what I purchased and they do nothing to slow my connection down in the process. In the end, my internet doesn't slow down ever when everyone gets on at once because they have the additional capacity necessary for Google and Netflix.
Fraud is not illegal unless it directly taks advantage of someone in an illegal way.
I have no problem with ISPs selling fast lanes if they do nothing to hamper speeds below thst in which their customers purchase. To me, as long as my connection's up to limit or any traffic from or destined to my network is delivered in good faith, i could care less if netflix or google or whatever pays for something to reach me faster than the speeds i purchased. The problem happens when the ISP ssells me 8 meg speeds and limits it to 2meg based on a third party payment or not. This is the fraud because as long as they block or limit, they are never delivering what they sold me. And no, the words "up to" are not magic and absolve them of that. When they intentionally limit the speeds, the connection can only be "up to" those limits. 2meg is up to 8meg but when they limit it, it can never be more than up to 2meg.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a cabal of people who will spend all their mod points modding everything on your posting history down if they find you posted something they find particularly offensive. This causes a lot of people to post controversial stufff as AC.
There are also groups of people like groupies who follow topics in order to impress a particular viewpoint that seems to match their worldview. Both seem to be problems on Slashdot in the last couple of years.
You will find that with the retaliation that seems to be going on in today's environment, people just don't want their online persona associated with something controversial. There is the mass down modding to ruin your karma and restrict your posting abilities but also take Mozilla for instance. They canned a new CEO (who had been working for them in other offices since their inception) for something he did 8 years ago that had the majority support of his community at the time. What will you be driven away from or refused or jailed or whatever retaliation that happens in 8 years over a comment you made today or yesterday?
Don't you think that it might be a little different when a parent brings a child into the world and takes care of them verses the government or anyone taking and giving?
I mean the accident of birth happens because at least one but usually two people make a choice. It's their choice, it's their responsibility, it's their life. To para-quote Margarette Thatcher, some would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich in the process. It seems that when people talk fairness, they tend to want to attack those that have instead of bringing those without up- unless somehow it takes from those that have in the process. But it is not the same when you take from your neighbor and give to your other neighbor, its not the same when government takes from me and gives to you just because your parents spent their money on booze and boats instead of private schools for you. Your accident of birth, just like mine, is between me and my parents, not me and the government or some random stranger.
To be fair, the law makers claim they want a smaller government and it is pretty obvious the opposition wants a larger government. The choice is either picking the least of two evils or allowing the most evil win.
It's kind of like 2am and the hot chick at the end of the bar is buying you drinks. You decide to put the charm to her because she is the only one left and take her home only to find out in the morning that she was a he and your friends warned you about her 5 o'clock shadow before you even talked to her.
That's what republicans are sort of discovering. Things aren't what they seem to be. but they will go back to the bar and tie one on again and hope the next time turns out better.
I don't act like that at all. Ron Paul was completely unsuccessful in his 1988 attempt at the presidency. He also ran as a libertarian in 1988, not a TEA party candidate or republican. In 2008 and 2012, he ran as a republican and outside of 1988 was always a republican officially in office.
Even if you want to claim that Ron Paul was a libertarian running as a republican (which I specifically suggested as a valid method), I cannot think of one law he introduced or sponsored. He either criticized other laws, or his initiatives fell flat validating my point about the lack of support to get things done.
All voting third party does is take a vote away from the candidate otherwise the most aligned to your positions. It is a waste because it allows the candidate who you most appose succeed with less votes altogether and if they win, there is no support to implement their agenda. Just look at that evil Ted Cruze who got all the visibility in the world but failed to accomplish his agenda. But as a TEA party republican, he does influence legislation supported by republicans.
I particularly like how you disassembled the comment and pointed to every place in which it possibly could be wrong. Tell me, do you have a news letter I can subscribe to?
PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.
Well, you did see through the charade pretty easily didn't you? How much more transparent do you expect it to be?
OF course it has an effect. Not having any humans at all will also. The problem is that technology allows more people to have less effect or less detrimental effect. It also allows us to deal with the changes which is why we don't have hundreds of thousands of people dieing in every natural disaster.
Third parties will never be a force in American politics until they stop trying only for the big names seats and actually start from the bottom up and take city, state, and county seats first. Until then, it is just a waste of vote- even if they do get elected.
This is how the democrats and republicans became so entrenched. And a lot of times, the local politicians do not even act like the national ones which gives a false impression of the parties. There was a poll a while back in which the majority of Americans saw their senator or representative as not being part of the problem, it was all the others in Washington.
But back to third parties, if one gets elected president, all he can do is veto what congress sends him and make speeches. Congress can ignore most of it like they did to Carter in the 70s (what an abysmal president who turned out to be better outside of office than in). But the majority of bills sent to be signed will include something important and vetos will end up with everyone calling for impeachment. If a third party gets elected to the senate or house of representatives, they will have to caucus with one of the parties or no one would support anything they attempt to bring to the table.
Voting third party is a waste of a vote pure and simple. That is until they go grass roots and start having a bottom up support structure. They would be better off infiltrating the existing parties like the TEA party does and stand their ground that way.
Interestingly, a federal court just rules that the coppers need a warrant to get cellphone location data as it is assumed to be confidential and falls within the 4th amendment scope.
http://www.cnet.com/news/court...
There are a lot of greenies who actually believe that. They think the world is over populated and less humans is a good thing. Ted Turner, the TV network tycoon who started CNN among other stations used to be very vocal about it but has toned it down a lot in the last decade or so.
Don't pretend i said something i did not say. There is a big difference between making something more expensive just to funnel money into the government while hoping usage goes down and something with quantitative results adding cost to something. If you cannot see that, you probably should shut up while the aduylts talk.
I'm posting from my phone so links are dificult right now but i got my number from a study done at the university of california. Its the first link when google searching cost of car regulation. . I'm not sure how you managed to ignore that but either your google finger is broken or you lied in trying to find the number i used. Perhaps you pretended something was said that wasn't again.
What would actually stop someone from connecting to the cable on the pole, blasting the transmission through it every 200 minutes or something and then pretending like nothing happened?
I mean almost no one would ever know it is happening as most cable boxes and TV buffer a small amount and the packet transmission would not need to be very long. Internet provided over the cable would likely just retransmit whatever got lost as it actually had error correction built in.
It's not a false dichotomy. Just because I present only one or two options does not in any way preclude other options. I just gave an alternative that actually makes some sense as apposed to the give government money and magically it will all get better plan being offered here. You may have other ideas that make fucking sense too. The government already has money that could be spent on these types of things yet they are not doing it. All it will end up being spent on is more spying on citizens and a military style police force for ever department under the government like it currently is.
reread what you just wrote. "if" if a powerful word there. If the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit. If the rabbit didn't stop to shit, the dog never would have caught him. Of course in both those scenarios, if is just a guess because there is no reason to believe anything would be true in the inverse (the dog catching the rabbit or the rabbit escaping capture) outside of knowing where a given failure currently is.
Well, food prices may or may not go up. You simply do not know and it will not be over night if it did unless it was purposely manipulated to do so. In the US, we have what is called a strategic reserve in which our food production was considered to be part of our national security. You may know it better as subsidies in which the government manipulates the markets in order to encourage excess food production so a natural disaster like drought in the south and flooding in the Midwest doesn't cause half the country to start. The excess is put into reserves and eventually either sold to struggling foreign nations at discounts or given as aid if not needed to go back into the US food supply. You can have over 1/4 of the food crops completely wiped out in the US and you will still see more of a fluctuation in prices on the consumer end due to the availability in oil or energy needed to produce, process, and market them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
If food prices rise will not be an issue until well into the future and only if someone manipulates the existing programs or future programs that have stabilized food prices for well over 50 years. And yes, we have had price spikes in food that would have been completely worse if this had not been in place. Today you see specific commodity spikes due to specific weather events mostly and gradual overall increases in food prices due to regulations and oil mostly.
So let me get this straight, you are saying that if we do nothing about climate change, costs are going to increase some unknown amount naturally so we need to artificially increase costs with a known amount to combat it? Do I have that correct?
How about instead of playing five knuckle shuffle while attempting to funnel more money into the government coffers we instead look at ways to sequester the carbon emissions and perhaps replace them with naturally economically viable solutions?
The entire idea behind cap and trade is to restrict usage and it hits the poor the worse. I mean seriously, all the regulations and mandated emissions crap (which is mostly a good idea BTW) on cars has increased the cost of purchasing a new one by about 1/3 from between 1967 and 2001. Who can afford new cars more easily? The rich and well off people. Who buys used cars that they are tired of driving? The poor. The same will be had with cheap imports that the poor rely on. This is a real problem because the amount of poor people seem to be increasing. But it is nothing new, take the tobacco taxes. They determined tobacco was addictive and bad for you so they tax it to fund things because you won't quit and they know there will be a source of revenue. Except you should pay because smoking is bad M'Kay. And most of the smokers are poor.
So lets stop trying to Rube Goldberg money to the government and actually find ways to make clean energy naturally competitive and sequester emissions instead of saying fuck the poor, we are doing this for your own good because the government wants more money.
Yes, the US government should have simply seeded over the Columbian arable areas with industrial hemp and cross pollinated the entire crop making it pointless to grow pot there. They should have done this instead of dropping poisons.
But I'm not sure that it matters much unless you actually mean Colombian in which case I'm not sure it matters still.
Then suffer the penalties of the law or obey it. There is no false, you either change the law, follow it, or accept it's punishment.
It does and you know it. The law is not subject to interpretation that are not interpreted the same for everyone.
Ahh, the naivety in this. So if a company worth billions exists by dumping toxic wastes into rivers, laws against that do not matter? If a company exists by putting poisons in foods, laws against that sort of thing do not matter? Your foolishness is getting the better of you. Just because you don't like the law does not mean it is ok to ignore it altogether. Plenty of other people do not like plenty of other laws that you might find a good idea. If the law is bad, then get it changed. It really is that simple. You can change it by petitioning your government or by challenging the law in court and having it struck down. Ignoring it only subjects you to the penalties for violations of the law.
If it is that obvious and plainly seen, then you will have absolutely no problem getting the law changed. But coming here and crying that the law is forbidding something you think is a good idea and complaining about the punishment while demanding nothing be done to change the law is a tad but stupid of you ask me. I'm sure others would think the same too. If the law is as screwed as you think it is, it shouldn't be hard at all to get it changed. Who know, you might learn something in the process. You may even help someone else learn something.
The problem is "not interfering with actual police work" is both subject to interpretation or opinion and speculative. There have been examples of court hallways being cleared because of the noise interfering with the cases in the courts or threats that have been made to witnesses and such. I remember one where some victim's advocate was waiting for a witness to finish and was ordered by the police to clear the hallway and was arrested when refusing to do so. It turns out she was within her rights to remain there. But others who were simply waiting for another case to begin and stuck around to watch the advocate argue with the cop were not. So there you had a situation where a couple people got arrested for failing to follow a lawful direction of a police officer, one was wrongly so and the others were reasonable and legit.
Now, there can also be instances where people need to leave an area for their own safety and the safety of others. A chemical or hazardous material spill can be one of them. You standing within the initial evacuation zone most likely will never interfere with actual police work. But it can cause health issues for you and possibly create a fire risk depending on the material that you could unknowingly start. Static discharge in a highly flammable area could cause a massive explosion or a small explosion or fire- you get the picture.
So a police ordering someone to leave or stop operating a camera may not be protected if there is a valid reason behind it. A police not wanting you to witness your friend getting beaten with rubber hoses is not. The ruling properly leaves that question to the specific circumstances of the specific incidents when it happens if it ever happens. The op in the story was never told not to record or to leave the area so obviously, there was no reason to rule over that.
If it isn't right, then get the law changed. However, you simply cannot say the law doesn't matter as obviously it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
and yes, they limit the number of taxis to limit competition. They do this in order to ensure the taxis are profitable enough to maintain their vehicles and stay in business. Whether you think this is morally wrong or not is a matter of opinion. Obviously, your overlords do not believe the same as you as they made it law. So get the law changed if you don't like it. Ignoring it will only put you in violation to it and subject you to the penalties of it.
lol.. The devil is in the details I guess but yes, that is what I am saying. If they can sell services where the fast lane does not degrade it, then I do not have a problem with it. If I decide to save money and buy a slower service and Netflix decides to up the speed for my connection when I'm connected to Netflix, that is alright by me.
The bottom line is that if they reserve capacity for the fast lanes, it better be capacity above what they sold to you and me. Otherwise, I believe it to be consumer fraud to purposely slow our connections to below what they sold us in order to maintain that fast lane. No matter how you slice it, up to 8 megs or whatever the speeds of your connection is supposed to be can never be up to that limit if they purposely and intentionally slow your connection down.
Most cars I know of needs the car to be put into park in order to turn the key switch to off and lock. Standard transmissions need a lever pushed near the key. Sometimes you press the key against the column.
The point is, I'm not sure you can just turn the key back and lock the steering without actually trying to lock the steering. I'm also not sure the car will actually turn off with everything being computer controlled. I mean if the wide open throttle is a computer issue, it may not kill the engine either. Newer cars don't even need the ignition key to turn, just have it near the switch and press the start. I drove a ford explorer a couple blocks to load it on a roll off tow truck or maybe it was an excursion, that I couldn't even find the key to turn it off and had to ask someone. The key was sitting in the cup holder. I saw many cars like that when I was in New Jersey after hurricane sandy helping my brother in law pull flooded cars for the insurance companies.
Work to get the laws and regulations changed if you truly believe that. I agree somewhat with you too.
Bad? Because good and bad are on sliding scales and subject to interpretation. What isn't subject to interpretation is laws and regulations. What's that, fish are being over harvested and the wild populations are down to dangerous levels, well the rules are bad so I won't follow them- after all, this is how I make a living. What's that, people cannot dump petrochemicals into the river, well, in the 20 years I have been doing it, nothing bad has happened unlike all those other people who actually caught the river on fire. What's that, the sign says slow children at play speed limit 20mph, well, I'm a good driver, that's a bad law because I can go faster..... oh shit, the rug rat ran right in front of me.
Or are you saying that a law is only bad if you agree it is bad? Well, if that is the case, how are we supposed to know which laws are for real and which ones can be discarded at will because you deemed them bad? I will tell you how, you get them changed.
I would say their levels of insurance is a key way. Cabs need to have a commercial insurance with a rider that meets a certain minimum that residential auto insurance doesn't. This limit is generally 100 to 300 thousand as that seems to be the minimum for most of the google results I found. But in almost every state, if the person is acting unlawfully in the course of creating the claim, the insurance company can get out of paying a claim. So failing to get a taxi license and operating as a taxi service can possibly create an opening for the insurance company to refuse payment for your hospital bills. This happens all the time when people deliver pizza without the commercial insurance, they get in an accident, the insurance company finds out they were driving for work and refuses to pay because it was considered a commercial trip and you didn't have commercial insurance.
Most cab cars I have been in use decommissioned police cars. They buy them up at auction at reasonable prices because the maintenance and service has been well kept up over the life of the cars as police vehicles (I've actually talked with a few drivers). They use them for a year or two and get new ones.
The interior of a couple cabs I have been in have been rough. But having the fake chrome trim on the cup holders doesn't mean the tires are going to keep traction in the corners or the brakes will stop the car or that the steering will not screw your dog and piss on a tree when you need to avoid something in the road. I suspect the maintained he is talking about is the aesthetics like a dash with no cracks and no rips in the seat cushions and stuff. I've driven some really nice cars that were dangerous. I remember a park avenue I picked up for a friend who let a relative use it until they got another car and had to stop and put brakes on it in the parts store parking lot on the way home because they were almost not there. and by not there, I mean pads and shoes down to the metal and the wheel cylinders leaking. All I can say is thank god Advanced auto parts has a tool loaner program as I had nothing but a jack and lug wrench with me.
How about your driver's car being in poor mechanical condition and their insurance company refusing to pay your medical bills when it loses power on a freeway ramp or doesn't stop at the red light and gets creamed by another motorist.
I'm thinking you most certainly would want your driver to have good insurance- even if you get killed. Your family will likely appreciate it too.
lol.. I guess they cannot use QOS then. I mean it is simple really. I said as long as they do not hamper my communications. So their fast lanes have to be speeds in excess of everyone else' and in addition to everyone else. QOS may be part of the final solution, but if it matches what I said, then it will only be to manage packets at speeds above the connection I purchased.
Here is more to what I don't have a problem with. They sell internet as normal, Netflix and Google pay for the fast lane, they install additional capacity and allow Netflix and Google to flow faster than the speeds they sold me into my connection. Everyone else is limited to what I purchased and they do nothing to slow my connection down in the process. In the end, my internet doesn't slow down ever when everyone gets on at once because they have the additional capacity necessary for Google and Netflix.
Fraud is not illegal unless it directly taks advantage of someone in an illegal way.
I have no problem with ISPs selling fast lanes if they do nothing to hamper speeds below thst in which their customers purchase. To me, as long as my connection's up to limit or any traffic from or destined to my network is delivered in good faith, i could care less if netflix or google or whatever pays for something to reach me faster than the speeds i purchased. The problem happens when the ISP ssells me 8 meg speeds and limits it to 2meg based on a third party payment or not. This is the fraud because as long as they block or limit, they are never delivering what they sold me. And no, the words "up to" are not magic and absolve them of that. When they intentionally limit the speeds, the connection can only be "up to" those limits. 2meg is up to 8meg but when they limit it, it can never be more than up to 2meg.