Don't give me this bullshit about innovation and then try to sell me a $3000 TV because it's "clearer". Pffft.
I couldn't agree with you more. The picture is fine on my tv with digital cable. DVDs are very crisp and colorful. HDTV isn't worth it to me.
Maybe their goal is to see how many old style TVs can fit into a landfill?
Why not just let HDTV take over naturally?
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
Because a corporation is subject to the legal responsibilities of a person-- a corporation can be brought before a criminal court, or compelled (in the person of its representatives) to testify before a court or Congress; a corporation has to pay taxes; a corporation can be sued in civil court and assessed punitive damage-- it would be unreasonable not to grant it the legal protections enjoyed by a person.
You miss the point of incorporating. Its to sheild the owner of the buisness from financial harm. That means that the corporation takes financial responsibitity for its actions; ie, getting sued for destroying the enviroment and causing cancer in people that live in that enviroment.
The CEO may be brought for criminal charges, because incorporating does not protect him from that (at least, it shouldn't).
In other words, a corporation is a person, and a corporation does have rights.
The coropration has a real, beating heart? Its an animal (or plant) of some kind? Note that a cat doesn't have rights either. Only human beings do.
A virus can multiple and consume resources to keep it going, but it is not alive.
Your arguement is obsurd. So what if a corporation can do all those things? It doesn't mean its a person (ie, human being) and doesn't have rights. To give it rights, you simply give top execs more power then everyone else.
If people significantly (I.E. around 1% or so) start 'avoiding' the road taxes by moving to non-petrol fuels (electric, hydrogen, nat. gas), consider an alternate taxation method for those people.
Exactly. It escapes me why they wouldn't tax these fuels also. They don't tax gas because its bad for the enviroment, they tax it to help maintain roads. It stands to reason that they would tax other fuels for the same reason.
Requiring a gps system in cars would just be another expensive system. And what would they charge when it 'breaks'? Charge you a standard fee? I'd see high-mileage people 'breaking' the gps system fairly frequently. Charging an extreme fee might be seen as illegal, a punitive measure for what's simply an overcomplicated and required meter that broke without fault to the owner.
I completely agree here, if not for different reasons. Besides being expensive, there are huge privacy concerns here. I'm sure others have gone into that more, so i won't here.
Note that the word "thereafter" appears after the mention of red, refering at that point to you being unable to enter the intersection, not while the yellow is showing.
Right...the whole thing implies to me that you may legally go through a yellow light.
Like most laws, it's very badly worded. It would be explained in two short sentances that a child could understand, but no! The lawmakers can't do that. It would be far to sensible!;-)
True, that would be nice. Maybe the problem with simple wording is that its not exact enough or leaves loopholes open. I don't write the law, so i'm not sure what motiviates them to use that language.
That's easy! It's slashdot; no one follows external links! If you had cut & pasted it in, you would have gotten a response.:-)
Doh! Sorry, i forgot where i was when i posted that. Silly me. On the flip side though, if i had posted the actual text, wouldn't i be accused of making it up?:-)
I've never heard of cops being unreasonable about it.
Well, i have. At the end of month, a light turned yellow just as i was about to cross the crosswalk lines (speed limit 45, which i was doing), and the cop pulled me over, and ticketed me for going through a RED light. Since there was 2 of them, and one of me, i was found guilty, for doing what the law says i should be allowed to do.
However, if you speed up when it turns yellow, and go through the intersection at 70 mph, then they SHOULD pull you over.
Do you also get mad when people run to return a video just before the store closes, or so that they don't miss the beginning of a movie? Speeding up to 70mph to make the light? Please, take a reality pill. No one need speed up to 70 to make a light; if you do, you won't be making it.
I notice that you completely ignore the portion of my comment where i direct you to the letter of the law. Any particular reason you do that, or are you now forced to simply say 'well it should be the way i say'?
If you are not already in the intersection, and the light turns yellow, you are to stop.
Um typically you can't see the light once you're in the intersection. And what if the light turns yellow when i'm 5 feet from entering the intersection, and i'm on a road where the speed limit is 50mph? Stopping would likely put me in the intersection.
It doesn't mean "here comes a red," it means "stop if you're not already in the intersection."
You're wrong, sorry. In PA, a yellow light does infact mean that its going to turn red, at which point traffic may not enter in intersection.
Could be different for your state, but in PA its quite clear.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
A corporation is a group of people that do have individual rights. They can choose to exercise those rights as a group.
Doesn't really matter. You act like all 1000 employees are acting as a group, which is not the case. For a corporation, its a small group of the employees making decisions, which usually affect thier pocketbook as they are the higher ups.
In effect, the higher ups have 2 votes in your system. Thats not how our system is supposed to work.
I think the gas tax should be raised, regularly (e.g., 5c/year), to discourage heavy consumption. And btw lightweight fuel-efficient vehicles wear out roads less than huge testosterone trucks.
Most of my gas is consumed by going back and forth to work, not because i drive some huge truck.
I found that suprising too. Especially considering i've seen exactly 0 hybrid cars on the road, and this is living near a city with over a million people.
Its not like other taxes aren't paying for the roads either; just raise those.
Oh ya, they want the bear patrol, but don't want to pay for it.
Personally, i wouldn't mind them raising taxes if i actually saw the fucking potholes disappear.
Nothing unusual about that, it's what cops do around here. Makes sense; if you can logically stop, you should do so. If you're not in the intersection, and are going slow enough to stop, but you speed up to make the light then you should get a ticket.
Why not just have green and red then?
No one said the proposed law said anything about 'speeding up to make the light.' Typically such a law wouldn't; so you'd get a ticket even if you couldn't 'logically stop.'
That said, its legal to go through a yellow light. When it becomes illegal, might as well just remove the yellow part of the light.
For a while, there was a law in Portland that said you could be fined $400 for jaywalking. This was especially foolish because there are many times when the streets of Portland are empty.
Their method was off, yes, but the purpose of the law is probaby a good one. Namely, if you jaywalk from between 2 parked cars, drivers in that road may not have enough time to see you, and then the jaywalker is toast.
Now, my solution would be to simply pin the fault on the jaywalker, and let their insurance pay the bills.
And where do you think the government gets its money from?
Economies run far more efficiently when users of services pay in proportion to that use.
They do; they pay more because they use more gas.
And presumably, it would lead to LOWER taxes for people not clogging up the roads and creating air pollution.
People need to travel. They have to go to work everyday, and they already pay for the roads through gas taxes and other taxes. What does creating air polution have to do with maintaining roads?
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
The law just assumes that that right exists for all persons, individual and corporate alike.
A coroperation is not a person. They do not have rights.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
In a free society, you are allowed to do pretty much whatever you like, and the rest of us take responsibility for picking up the pieces afterwards.
I don't think so. In a free society, you must take responsibility for your own actions. Also, being in a free society does not mean i can do pretty much whatever i like; it means i can do what i like as long as i don't infringe upon another's rights.
I believe the supreme court ruled that once its on the curb, its 'public' property. The reasoning is that if you really didn't want something taken from your trash, you'd dispose of it more throughly.
So you don't like a 'dangerous situation' so you do something highly dangerous and hit your brakes? Does that seem logical? "oooh I'm going to show you how wrong you are by causing an accident, then you'll learn!"
I'm not trying to cause an accident. I'm trying to get the guy behind me to back off. You don't have to move the brake pedel much for the lights to turn on.
If you are that aware of the 'dangers' of tailgating, shouldn't you be more afraid of provoking the situation into an accident?
Well there wouldn't be a response by me at all if i wasn't being tailgated in the first place, would there? For me, hitting the brakes is the last resort message to the guy in back of me thats tailgating. Slowing down is the first response.
That said, i rarely hit the brakes to discourage tailgaters, usually its a response to traffic in front of me. I declarate quickly to keep distance (should there be an accident ahead), and the guy in back of me had better be keeping a safe distance as well.
Tailgating is just as wrong as blocking the flow of traffic because you're passing to slow.
Its supposed to. Very few CD-R companies follow the law in this respect. (At least in Canada)
I don't see how they could. If its not good enough to hold audio data, it probably isn't good enough to hold other kinds of data.
I seem to remember that there are also taxes on VCRs or VHS tapes, but I can't remember.
Yes, but they have a specific purpose. The arguement that held up here in the US is that blank cdrs have OTHER purposes besides holding music data, so are exempt from the tax. The RIAA lost that when they tried to tack on thier tax to hard drives. the courts rules that a hard drive is a general data storage instrument, and thus they couldn't add on this tax, which is really just another revenue stream; assuming all media made for audio storage WILL be used for piracy.
Since we're already paying for piracy on blank audio media, then we should be allowed to pirate.
Actually, it'd make it easier to prove that they did that - download the other car's telemetry and you've got an ironclad case that it wasn't your fault.
Depends on how you interperate the data. I doubt the black box's time would be syncronized with the other persons.
Fault is only one possible advantage. There are more disadvantages. So its determined i was not at fault, but i was still going over the speed limit. My insurance company may still be allowed to deny me coverage because i was going 2 mph over the speed limit. In the end, i'm more screwed then without the box.
No if some asshole on the highway in the fast lane is going slow, I let them know by getting closer. The good drivers GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY the arrogant pricks who think they are somehow better than everybody else slow down, and even 'brake check'.
I agree that people shouldn't be blocking the left lane. But don't tailgate me if i'm in the left lane and not passing quickly because the person in front of me is preventing me from doing so. That earns someone tailgating me a 'brake check.'
What exactly do you mean by nastier then? I thought that you meant more people would be victim to this sort of attack. Do you mean that the diseases used will somehow be worse?
And lastly, if I am already travelling at 10mph over the speed limit then you have no business tailgating me you complete asshole. If there is a car up in front of me that I can't get past the gap I leave in front is no business of yours.
Depends. Is the average speed 15mph over the speed limit? Where i live on the interstate i take to work, it is.
The bottom line is that you're in the left lane to pass. So do so, quickly. If it takes more then 3 seconds to pass someone, just slow down a few mph and stay in the right lane.
Nothing is worse then the guy thats passing someone who's going 70mph by going 71mph.
You can argue all you want that 'you're already going 10 over, so don't tailgate,' but thats not the reason you're being tailgated.
The reason you're being tailgated is because you're not passing quickly enough, making people feel trapped. Human beings (as animals) don't like being trapped and try to escape. Its not a logical response because its probably a subconscience feeling left over from before we had logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't give me this bullshit about innovation and then try to sell me a $3000 TV because it's "clearer". Pffft.
I couldn't agree with you more. The picture is fine on my tv with digital cable. DVDs are very crisp and colorful. HDTV isn't worth it to me.
Maybe their goal is to see how many old style TVs can fit into a landfill?
Why not just let HDTV take over naturally?
Because a corporation is subject to the legal responsibilities of a person-- a corporation can be brought before a criminal court, or compelled (in the person of its representatives) to testify before a court or Congress; a corporation has to pay taxes; a corporation can be sued in civil court and assessed punitive damage-- it would be unreasonable not to grant it the legal protections enjoyed by a person.
You miss the point of incorporating. Its to sheild the owner of the buisness from financial harm. That means that the corporation takes financial responsibitity for its actions; ie, getting sued for destroying the enviroment and causing cancer in people that live in that enviroment.
The CEO may be brought for criminal charges, because incorporating does not protect him from that (at least, it shouldn't).
In other words, a corporation is a person, and a corporation does have rights.
The coropration has a real, beating heart? Its an animal (or plant) of some kind? Note that a cat doesn't have rights either. Only human beings do.
A virus can multiple and consume resources to keep it going, but it is not alive.
Your arguement is obsurd. So what if a corporation can do all those things? It doesn't mean its a person (ie, human being) and doesn't have rights. To give it rights, you simply give top execs more power then everyone else.
No, health insurance. The same thing that covers me when i'm sick, or need a yearly physical.
If people significantly (I.E. around 1% or so) start 'avoiding' the road taxes by moving to non-petrol fuels (electric, hydrogen, nat. gas), consider an alternate taxation method for those people.
Exactly. It escapes me why they wouldn't tax these fuels also. They don't tax gas because its bad for the enviroment, they tax it to help maintain roads. It stands to reason that they would tax other fuels for the same reason.
Requiring a gps system in cars would just be another expensive system. And what would they charge when it 'breaks'? Charge you a standard fee? I'd see high-mileage people 'breaking' the gps system fairly frequently. Charging an extreme fee might be seen as illegal, a punitive measure for what's simply an overcomplicated and required meter that broke without fault to the owner.
I completely agree here, if not for different reasons. Besides being expensive, there are huge privacy concerns here. I'm sure others have gone into that more, so i won't here.
Note that the word "thereafter" appears after the mention of red, refering at that point to you being unable to enter the intersection, not while the yellow is showing.
;-)
:-)
:-)
Right...the whole thing implies to me that you may legally go through a yellow light.
Like most laws, it's very badly worded. It would be explained in two short sentances that a child could understand, but no! The lawmakers can't do that. It would be far to sensible!
True, that would be nice. Maybe the problem with simple wording is that its not exact enough or leaves loopholes open. I don't write the law, so i'm not sure what motiviates them to use that language.
That's easy! It's slashdot; no one follows external links! If you had cut & pasted it in, you would have gotten a response.
Doh! Sorry, i forgot where i was when i posted that. Silly me. On the flip side though, if i had posted the actual text, wouldn't i be accused of making it up?
I've never heard of cops being unreasonable about it.
Well, i have. At the end of month, a light turned yellow just as i was about to cross the crosswalk lines (speed limit 45, which i was doing), and the cop pulled me over, and ticketed me for going through a RED light. Since there was 2 of them, and one of me, i was found guilty, for doing what the law says i should be allowed to do.
However, if you speed up when it turns yellow, and go through the intersection at 70 mph, then they SHOULD pull you over.
Do you also get mad when people run to return a video just before the store closes, or so that they don't miss the beginning of a movie? Speeding up to 70mph to make the light? Please, take a reality pill. No one need speed up to 70 to make a light; if you do, you won't be making it.
I notice that you completely ignore the portion of my comment where i direct you to the letter of the law. Any particular reason you do that, or are you now forced to simply say 'well it should be the way i say'?
If you are not already in the intersection, and the light turns yellow, you are to stop.
Um typically you can't see the light once you're in the intersection. And what if the light turns yellow when i'm 5 feet from entering the intersection, and i'm on a road where the speed limit is 50mph? Stopping would likely put me in the intersection.
It doesn't mean "here comes a red," it means "stop if you're not already in the intersection."
You're wrong, sorry. In PA, a yellow light does infact mean that its going to turn red, at which point traffic may not enter in intersection.
Could be different for your state, but in PA its quite clear.
A corporation is a group of people that do have individual rights. They can choose to exercise those rights as a group.
Doesn't really matter. You act like all 1000 employees are acting as a group, which is not the case. For a corporation, its a small group of the employees making decisions, which usually affect thier pocketbook as they are the higher ups.
In effect, the higher ups have 2 votes in your system. Thats not how our system is supposed to work.
This also has the side benefit of encouraging people to use public transportation. I suspect they want to do the same in Oregon.
I can't speak for Oregon, but where i live i CANNOT get to work (or many other places) without a car. There isn't a great public transit system.
I think the gas tax should be raised, regularly (e.g., 5c/year), to discourage heavy consumption. And btw lightweight fuel-efficient vehicles wear out roads less than huge testosterone trucks.
Most of my gas is consumed by going back and forth to work, not because i drive some huge truck.
For all you know gas taxes might be lower for most people, with certain people paying more based on where they drive.
In that case, i want lower taxes because i don't have any children in school. Fuck other people's children, i want my tax break!
I found that suprising too. Especially considering i've seen exactly 0 hybrid cars on the road, and this is living near a city with over a million people.
Its not like other taxes aren't paying for the roads either; just raise those.
Oh ya, they want the bear patrol, but don't want to pay for it.
Personally, i wouldn't mind them raising taxes if i actually saw the fucking potholes disappear.
Nothing unusual about that, it's what cops do around here. Makes sense; if you can logically stop, you should do so. If you're not in the intersection, and are going slow enough to stop, but you speed up to make the light then you should get a ticket.
Why not just have green and red then?
No one said the proposed law said anything about 'speeding up to make the light.' Typically such a law wouldn't; so you'd get a ticket even if you couldn't 'logically stop.'
That said, its legal to go through a yellow light. When it becomes illegal, might as well just remove the yellow part of the light.
For a while, there was a law in Portland that said you could be fined $400 for jaywalking. This was especially foolish because there are many times when the streets of Portland are empty.
Their method was off, yes, but the purpose of the law is probaby a good one. Namely, if you jaywalk from between 2 parked cars, drivers in that road may not have enough time to see you, and then the jaywalker is toast.
Now, my solution would be to simply pin the fault on the jaywalker, and let their insurance pay the bills.
It pays for close to 100% of roads.
And where do you think the government gets its money from?
Economies run far more efficiently when users of services pay in proportion to that use.
They do; they pay more because they use more gas.
And presumably, it would lead to LOWER taxes for people not clogging up the roads and creating air pollution.
People need to travel. They have to go to work everyday, and they already pay for the roads through gas taxes and other taxes. What does creating air polution have to do with maintaining roads?
The law just assumes that that right exists for all persons, individual and corporate alike.
A coroperation is not a person. They do not have rights.
In a free society, you are allowed to do pretty much whatever you like, and the rest of us take responsibility for picking up the pieces afterwards.
I don't think so. In a free society, you must take responsibility for your own actions. Also, being in a free society does not mean i can do pretty much whatever i like; it means i can do what i like as long as i don't infringe upon another's rights.
I believe the supreme court ruled that once its on the curb, its 'public' property. The reasoning is that if you really didn't want something taken from your trash, you'd dispose of it more throughly.
So you don't like a 'dangerous situation' so you do something highly dangerous and hit your brakes? Does that seem logical? "oooh I'm going to show you how wrong you are by causing an accident, then you'll learn!"
I'm not trying to cause an accident. I'm trying to get the guy behind me to back off. You don't have to move the brake pedel much for the lights to turn on.
If you are that aware of the 'dangers' of tailgating, shouldn't you be more afraid of provoking the situation into an accident?
Well there wouldn't be a response by me at all if i wasn't being tailgated in the first place, would there? For me, hitting the brakes is the last resort message to the guy in back of me thats tailgating. Slowing down is the first response.
That said, i rarely hit the brakes to discourage tailgaters, usually its a response to traffic in front of me. I declarate quickly to keep distance (should there be an accident ahead), and the guy in back of me had better be keeping a safe distance as well.
Tailgating is just as wrong as blocking the flow of traffic because you're passing to slow.
Its supposed to. Very few CD-R companies follow the law in this respect. (At least in Canada)
I don't see how they could. If its not good enough to hold audio data, it probably isn't good enough to hold other kinds of data.
I seem to remember that there are also taxes on VCRs or VHS tapes, but I can't remember.
Yes, but they have a specific purpose. The arguement that held up here in the US is that blank cdrs have OTHER purposes besides holding music data, so are exempt from the tax. The RIAA lost that when they tried to tack on thier tax to hard drives. the courts rules that a hard drive is a general data storage instrument, and thus they couldn't add on this tax, which is really just another revenue stream; assuming all media made for audio storage WILL be used for piracy.
Since we're already paying for piracy on blank audio media, then we should be allowed to pirate.
Actually, it'd make it easier to prove that they did that - download the other car's telemetry and you've got an ironclad case that it wasn't your fault.
Depends on how you interperate the data. I doubt the black box's time would be syncronized with the other persons.
Fault is only one possible advantage. There are more disadvantages. So its determined i was not at fault, but i was still going over the speed limit. My insurance company may still be allowed to deny me coverage because i was going 2 mph over the speed limit. In the end, i'm more screwed then without the box.
No if some asshole on the highway in the fast lane is going slow, I let them know by getting closer. The good drivers GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY the arrogant pricks who think they are somehow better than everybody else slow down, and even 'brake check'.
I agree that people shouldn't be blocking the left lane. But don't tailgate me if i'm in the left lane and not passing quickly because the person in front of me is preventing me from doing so. That earns someone tailgating me a 'brake check.'
Recently, as in pre-Sept 11. Unfortunatly since then, it seems all bets are off.
What exactly do you mean by nastier then? I thought that you meant more people would be victim to this sort of attack. Do you mean that the diseases used will somehow be worse?
And lastly, if I am already travelling at 10mph over the speed limit then you have no business tailgating me you complete asshole. If there is a car up in front of me that I can't get past the gap I leave in front is no business of yours.
Depends. Is the average speed 15mph over the speed limit? Where i live on the interstate i take to work, it is.
The bottom line is that you're in the left lane to pass. So do so, quickly. If it takes more then 3 seconds to pass someone, just slow down a few mph and stay in the right lane.
Nothing is worse then the guy thats passing someone who's going 70mph by going 71mph.
You can argue all you want that 'you're already going 10 over, so don't tailgate,' but thats not the reason you're being tailgated.
The reason you're being tailgated is because you're not passing quickly enough, making people feel trapped. Human beings (as animals) don't like being trapped and try to escape. Its not a logical response because its probably a subconscience feeling left over from before we had logic.