Saying everyone has to use the same technology doesn't say which technology they have to use
Saying everyone has to use the same technology without specifying what is useless.
Company A uses one tech. Company B uses another. Company C uses something different.
You say "Hey! All you guys need to use the same stuff." To which all three companies respond "Great! They can switch to ours!"
If you want any realistic results you need to specify exactly which technology they're all using.
quite frankly the state of mobile phones is much better in areas that enforce standards. I'm not trying to argue that the way it's done in the US is better, I'm suggesting why there aren't more Americans pushing for regulation.
Europe, Japan... Use standards. America thinks it is better without. Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case). Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks, America lets cell providers each use their own scheme. You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market. For the US and Canada (I am Canadian), push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services (copy Europe's standard).
Regulating technology only works if you can keep current, and people are honest. Otherwise you end up with one of two scenarios:
1) No one can innovate because they're stuck with an out of date standard that used to be great but doesn't cover some of the newer things that can be done. 2) The regulating committee is controlled by the industry and ends up setting up regulations that screw the consumer.
I'm not saying these things are inevitable, just that many Americans are fine with the current situation when the alternative includes those risks.
There is clearly a line beyond which a certain method of information gathering is no longer "unreasonable search," and I honestly don't think anyone knows exactly where that line is drawn.
To me, the line should be set at a point where being a cop doesn't cripple your actions in comparison to regular citizens. That doesn't mean to me that a cop should be able to use any tech that is available to the general public without a warrant, but anything that becomes prevalent enough that a random person could expect to run into somebody who has it any given day should be considered fair game. If the day comes where (to steal someone else's example) most cell phones have a thermal imager built into them, it would be absurd IMHO to say that a cop couldn't use it to establish cause.
Ultimately though I think prevalence rather than cost should be the deciding factor. If everyone can see thermal images in your house, it's hard to argue that they're private.
I think what I wear on any day looks normal enough, it's only if you notice what I'm wearing for several days that you'd see a theme.
Monday's shirt has a P on the shoulder. Tuesday had a baseball cap with a big letter E on it. Wednesday you wore some pants with an N on them. Thursday a shirt with an I on the breast pocket. Friday some sneakers with the letter S on them.
Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).
When a trademark is well known enough (and I think Disney counts), that protection extends even into markets where they don't compete. I'd expect someone who opens a 'Disney Wine and Liquors' or 'Disney Adult Video' to lose a trademark suit.
I had a somewhat similar system. We were on-call for weekends in a rotation. When it was your turn, you got 4 hours comp (vacation basically) time minimum. If actual time worked was more than 4 hours, then you were comped whatever that actual amount worked was. It was roughly even odds on getting called, but it rarely took more than 1/2 hour of real work.
While there was an assigned schedule, we were also completely free to trade weekends and cover for the time however we wanted. Management didn't care so long as SOMEBODY in the eligible group (almost 10 people) was on call, and we modified the public calendar to accurately reflect whose turn it was.
Some guys hated it, but I didn't mind and managed to accrue almost 2 weeks of extra vacation one year by doing a combined total of maybe 10 hours of work on weekends.
If your intent was to hit a proper archery bullseye but your aim was wildly off, there never would have been intent to shoot an arrow at other people. So if it's not a crime to be an amateur archer in France, then no crime would have been committed?
I don't know what the French/German equivalents would be, but in the US that might qualify as negligent homicide.
When you've got the numbers working for you, you should stop playing stupid games. Is there a reason that you use Obama's middle name and not McCain's (it's Sidney) other than Obama's middle name being Hussein? It dilutes your point. I'd be curious to see the votes by race for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (x2) in the last few presidential elections. That would probably make a better baseline.
If you claim that normal support would be closer to 65%, then it's only 30% who voted based solely on race. Still a non-trivial number though.
I've been advised that it's worth my while to fight every moving violation that is issued to me. The lawyer's fees are often dwarfed by the difference in insurance rates, and even if you aren't cleared of the offense you can often negotiate to a lesser charge with a smaller fine and smaller impact on your insurance rates. A quick bit of research suggests that a traffic attorney can be hired for approx $100 or less for most violations.
My primary point in all that is that it *is* a proportionate response. Fighting a traffic ticket isn't an expensive endeavor.
The parents didn't understand the math involved, you can fault them for that. But if I were in a situation where one of my kids was accused of something and I genuinely believed that they didn't do it (and had what I believed was proof too), then HELL YES they should fight it.
They might be ignorant, but they weren't wrong in a moral sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying everyone has to use the same technology doesn't say which technology they have to use
Saying everyone has to use the same technology without specifying what is useless.
Company A uses one tech.
Company B uses another.
Company C uses something different.
You say "Hey! All you guys need to use the same stuff." To which all three companies respond "Great! They can switch to ours!"
If you want any realistic results you need to specify exactly which technology they're all using.
quite frankly the state of mobile phones is much better in areas that enforce standards.
I'm not trying to argue that the way it's done in the US is better, I'm suggesting why there aren't more Americans pushing for regulation.
Europe, Japan... Use standards. America thinks it is better without. Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case). Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks, America lets cell providers each use their own scheme. You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market. For the US and Canada (I am Canadian), push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services (copy Europe's standard).
Regulating technology only works if you can keep current, and people are honest. Otherwise you end up with one of two scenarios:
1) No one can innovate because they're stuck with an out of date standard that used to be great but doesn't cover some of the newer things that can be done.
2) The regulating committee is controlled by the industry and ends up setting up regulations that screw the consumer.
I'm not saying these things are inevitable, just that many Americans are fine with the current situation when the alternative includes those risks.
There is clearly a line beyond which a certain method of information gathering is no longer "unreasonable search," and I honestly don't think anyone knows exactly where that line is drawn.
To me, the line should be set at a point where being a cop doesn't cripple your actions in comparison to regular citizens. That doesn't mean to me that a cop should be able to use any tech that is available to the general public without a warrant, but anything that becomes prevalent enough that a random person could expect to run into somebody who has it any given day should be considered fair game. If the day comes where (to steal someone else's example) most cell phones have a thermal imager built into them, it would be absurd IMHO to say that a cop couldn't use it to establish cause.
Ultimately though I think prevalence rather than cost should be the deciding factor. If everyone can see thermal images in your house, it's hard to argue that they're private.
I think what I wear on any day looks normal enough, it's only if you notice what I'm wearing for several days that you'd see a theme.
Monday's shirt has a P on the shoulder.
Tuesday had a baseball cap with a big letter E on it.
Wednesday you wore some pants with an N on them.
Thursday a shirt with an I on the breast pocket.
Friday some sneakers with the letter S on them.
It seems to me on most core issues [stuff], death penalty, [other stuff]
The black community lines up with the Republican party on the death penalty the same way the Pope lines up with N.O.W. on birth control.
Neutralino really sounds like the perfect name for a Hispanic Ferengi.
If we can detect it, does that mean we have to stop calling it dark matter?
Simply registering disney.com is not an action regulated by trademark law.
No, but the point I was going for was more that just about any commercial use of disney.com would likely be seen as trademark infringement.
That's what happens when Ted Alvin Klaudt discovers the 7 1/2 floor.
By the time I got to the end of that, all I could think was "Denny Crane".
Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).
When a trademark is well known enough (and I think Disney counts), that protection extends even into markets where they don't compete. I'd expect someone who opens a 'Disney Wine and Liquors' or 'Disney Adult Video' to lose a trademark suit.
After taking the limit as account numbers approach infinity, I do.
But then, you do too.
Putting the value of having all your comments rated highly at approx $0.50
I had a somewhat similar system. We were on-call for weekends in a rotation. When it was your turn, you got 4 hours comp (vacation basically) time minimum. If actual time worked was more than 4 hours, then you were comped whatever that actual amount worked was. It was roughly even odds on getting called, but it rarely took more than 1/2 hour of real work.
While there was an assigned schedule, we were also completely free to trade weekends and cover for the time however we wanted. Management didn't care so long as SOMEBODY in the eligible group (almost 10 people) was on call, and we modified the public calendar to accurately reflect whose turn it was.
Some guys hated it, but I didn't mind and managed to accrue almost 2 weeks of extra vacation one year by doing a combined total of maybe 10 hours of work on weekends.
If your intent was to hit a proper archery bullseye but your aim was wildly off, there never would have been intent to shoot an arrow at other people. So if it's not a crime to be an amateur archer in France, then no crime would have been committed?
I don't know what the French/German equivalents would be, but in the US that might qualify as negligent homicide.
I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot
If it's any comfort, my first thought when I read intercontinental was across the Channel from England to France. Bad day for geography I guess.
About the area of Wales or NY State (I think. one of the smaller states definitely).
NY State is a small state in the same way that Mexico is a small country.
231sq km is pretty tiny actually. Smaller than any US state. About 1/90th the size of Wales.
For starters, you're off-topic.
When you've got the numbers working for you, you should stop playing stupid games. Is there a reason that you use Obama's middle name and not McCain's (it's Sidney) other than Obama's middle name being Hussein? It dilutes your point. I'd be curious to see the votes by race for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (x2) in the last few presidential elections. That would probably make a better baseline.
If you claim that normal support would be closer to 65%, then it's only 30% who voted based solely on race. Still a non-trivial number though.
Now, do you realize that CNN and MSNBC, and yes, even NPR, are no better?
I would disagree with that, though 'better' does not mean good. They're better in the sense that breaking your arm is better than breaking your spine.
Because it's *only* 99% nothing.
I've been advised that it's worth my while to fight every moving violation that is issued to me. The lawyer's fees are often dwarfed by the difference in insurance rates, and even if you aren't cleared of the offense you can often negotiate to a lesser charge with a smaller fine and smaller impact on your insurance rates. A quick bit of research suggests that a traffic attorney can be hired for approx $100 or less for most violations.
My primary point in all that is that it *is* a proportionate response. Fighting a traffic ticket isn't an expensive endeavor.
That would be explaining the joke.
And according to the same site, they also have it in common with:
Albania, Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia, Cambodia, Canada, China, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Vietnam, Yugoslavia.
I thought there was no more Yugoslavia.
That makes for a fairly random looking list of nations.
The parents didn't understand the math involved, you can fault them for that. But if I were in a situation where one of my kids was accused of something and I genuinely believed that they didn't do it (and had what I believed was proof too), then HELL YES they should fight it.
They might be ignorant, but they weren't wrong in a moral sense.
I tried "How do I", and my favorite one added a single word... "look"