While traffic violations do cover a number of items, you can apply non-traffic-specific laws as well. How about "reckless endangerment" or any variety of other laws that might still be within the limitations?
Cold case, and no evidence. All he admits to is the speeding; his own testimony doesn't say he did anything reckless. How do you prosecute him for that? "Your honor, we think he may have done something reckless about a year ago, though we have no specific ideas about what reckless acts he may have committed. We have no witnesses, just the defendant's testimony that he drove fast."
Asshole: "This policy is fucking stupid. We should encourage the fucking customers to read the fucking manuals before they fucking call our fucking overworked-as-fuck support line."
Bitch: "You said 'fucking' to me! That's sexual harrassment!"
Asshole: "Relax. I'm just fucking with you."
Bitch: *gasp*
Asshole: "Gasp again. You look and sound so fucking sexy when you do that."
Bitch: "Oh, you're actually coming on to me? I thought you were just using profanity to offend me, so I was going to sue. But now.. Kiss me, you fool!"
Sometimes I wonder why we even have "states" anymore. The Tenth Amendment has been worn down to nothing, the states are communicating more and more like they're all one government, and a vast majority of "services" are paid for through federal tax dollars anyway (unless the state "acts up" and doesn't do what it's told; then the dollars go away as punishment, but the residents of that state are still forced to pay federal income tax).
I don't live in the "United States." I live in the "United State."
if the summary is right then 31,000 officers along a path across the US would mean on the order of 1 every 1,000 FEET or 5 per mile...
To paraphrase Spock: "You're intelligent, but inexperienced. Your pattern indicates one-dimensional thinking."
Sure, you're passing cops about every 1000 feet, but one is 550 miles to your right, and the next is 48 miles to your left.;-)
here's a question I think everybody needs to ask themselves: what would I do if involved in a fatal accident in a 3rd world nation? This didn't happen in the US or England or any other developed 1st world nation where we can count on a properly functioning justice system..
Before anyone answers that question, maybe they should first ask, "WTF am I doing in a third-world country where I don't have any confidence in the justice system?" If you choose to go there, you choose risk. You have to be an irresponsible asshat to kill people and then try to run away from the consequences, especially when you knew the unpredictability of those consequnces even before you started killing people.
I actually think these kind of races are a "neat" thing, but this hit-and-run bullshit is totally inexcusable.
Perhaps the point is that firing people for something as ridiculously trivial as vulgarity, isn't healthy for your company. Managers: Let your people harmlessly blow off steam, or be at a competitive disadvantage.
This is about black markets, which may or may not be used by bad guys. When you talk about black markets, it's more of an us-vs-them situation, not a good-vs-evil situation.
This is merely warfare. There are no good guys or bad guys (well, they exist, but their moralities are are irrelevant for analysis, just as Nazi racism is irrelevant when talking about Blitzkrieg); there's just conflict of interest, and differing tactics meeting one another.
And good comes out of it, too. The "white" market is also under constant attack. If black markets are forced to deal with authentication issues, then eventually the technolo-- well, ok, not the technology, since it has been around for decades, but the social customs -- will spill over into the "white" market. Ultimately, explicit attacking of markets, out in the open where Joe Everyman can see it happening and understand it, will nudge all markets (including the ones that Good Guys just happen to operate within) to adapt. This can lead to a decrease in naivety.
When criminals have to go to extra trouble to check each other out before issuing trust, good guys will follow suit. Your next web browser might show better info about X509 cert issuers, for example, or support superior authentication schemes such as PGP. It might lead to the creation of distributed p2p networks where people vouch for one another's past histories, instead of relying on lame centralized servers like eBay.
Far too much of the fabric of social networks-- and that includes the internet-- is built on the assumption that people avoid doing things exactly like what's being proposed here.
And if scientists don't understand something, it logically follows that God exists, creationism is true, etc. Surely that's good news for everyone. (Except infidels, of course.) We should all be very happy about this.
I should be able to buy some equipment, plug it in and watch my movies. thats it.
Sure, you should. And you can. But in order to do so, you must exercise judgement. It is your responsibility to know to not buy DRMed media or players.
It's just like Windows, really. At first, the users were victims, because they (arguably) didn't have reason to believe they were getting screwed. But many years have gone by, and it's reasonable to expect consumers to know that if they buy shit, they will experience shit. It's the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" principle.
If you buy either Blueray or HD DVD, you know you are doing the wrong thing, and that you will be a victim. Don't choose to be a victim. Stick to VHS (or maybe DVD, where the CSS has been cracked). Higher resolution stuff simply isn't on the market yet.
Maybe some day the movie companies will choose to put something better on the market. Right now, they aren't doing it, and need to receive an economic signal for it: lack of revenue. Don't choose to be a victim, and don't give them money. If you do, then you waive your expectation of things "just working."
Why do I have a feeling that no one will ever be able to implement a medical records application, which is simultaneously able to interoperate with HealthVault, and also not run on MS Windows?
As a customer, you have to be fucking crazy (and downright hostile to your stockholders), to want more MS lock-in. Auditors, if any of your people don't look terrified by this, start looking for kickbacks. By trying to start a new monopoly, Microsoft is actually doing a wonderful thing: showing you exactly which employees are trying to rip off your company.
Perhaps you really are a scientist. But telling people about connection to mathematics/engineering (a.k.a. "Computer Science"), is going to confuse people with its non-sequitorsequeiosity. It's like saying, "I'm a gourmet chef, see?" while pointing at your baseball card collection.
As a Berkeley grad though, I generally wouldn't attribute very much of the value of my education there to lectures I sat (or slept) through. Especially in Computer Science, most of the lectures probably didn't differ a whole lot in content or form from those taught at other less prestigious institutions. Most of what I learned came from being surrounded by other driven students in a unique environment and completing challenging assignments. In particular, the first of those is all but impossible to capture in an online manner.
Blah blah blah, all code for: "You can't take LSD over the Internet."
This sounds a lot like Linus' attempt to kill the BSD project. By making Linux's GPLed source so easy to get, all sort of BSD developers may be getting tainted, and now they'll have to admit BSD is a derived work of Linux, and they'll only be able to release it under GPL.
Brilliant!
There even further evidence of-- oh wait, I just realized something: I'm stark-raving paranoid lunatic.
One of my favorite MUD characters was a Pratchett-style dwarven woman (I'm a man). I had such a blast enjoying peoples' double-takes, whenever they'd see me stroking my beard in thought.
At least let men play female dwarves. They're practically male anyway.
But Wozniak complained that he has bought some iPhones
There you go, Woz. You bought it. You thought the price was fair. Now you've changed your mind?
Sure, I happen to think it's (still) an overpriced product with all kinds of creepy lock-in, so I decided to Just Say No. But you thought otherwise, so unless the product has underperformed your expectations, just be happy, dude.
Here's what I think is really happening: you see that other people can now get it for less. Your sin is ENVY. Get over it, or you'll have a lot more unhappiness in life than dissatisfaction with Apple.
This isn't about cutting off Linux. This is about cutting off interoperability with everyone else.
There's just no way I'd buy a music player or phone from Apple. Wait until the iPhone-unlockers get screwed by some software update. You haven't even started to hear the screaming, yet.
I gotta give Apple some credit for guts, though. Even Microsoft doesn't have the balls to be so obviously hostile.
..the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers.
I read TFA and it doesn't really say much more than that. He doesn't say what platform he's talking about. Is this some day going to be another infamous "took initiative in creating the internet" vague out-of-context [mis]quote?
[smartass]If he were talking about Symantec, McAfee, and the other AV companies, I would understand the statement. It took a lot of vision in the 1990s to have the guts to deploy applications that effortlessly run untrusted code. No one would have gotten the idea of having IM programs, mail readers, and web browsers run external code by having the user click a link.[/smartass]
Or is he talking about the 1970s? No one debates that in the 1970s, Microsoft's BASIC interpreters made personal computers a lot more "approachable" and the explosion of the early 1980s might have gone much more slowly without them. It wasn't until the late 1980s that Microsoft's entrenched legacy started really inhibiting progress. But I think of Google as happening long after that, and the idea of sophisticated OSes running on client machines can more realistically be traced to companies like Commodore and Apple. If Microsoft wants to take credit for something that long ago and currently irrelevant (I haven't seen a personal computer with a BASIC interpreter in ROM, in a long long time), ok, but it's damn near meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Cold case, and no evidence. All he admits to is the speeding; his own testimony doesn't say he did anything reckless. How do you prosecute him for that? "Your honor, we think he may have done something reckless about a year ago, though we have no specific ideas about what reckless acts he may have committed. We have no witnesses, just the defendant's testimony that he drove fast."
Asshole: "This policy is fucking stupid. We should encourage the fucking customers to read the fucking manuals before they fucking call our fucking overworked-as-fuck support line."
Bitch: "You said 'fucking' to me! That's sexual harrassment!"
Asshole: "Relax. I'm just fucking with you."
Bitch: *gasp*
Asshole: "Gasp again. You look and sound so fucking sexy when you do that."
Bitch: "Oh, you're actually coming on to me? I thought you were just using profanity to offend me, so I was going to sue. But now.. Kiss me, you fool!"
See? It all works out. Nobody gets sued.
Sometimes I wonder why we even have "states" anymore. The Tenth Amendment has been worn down to nothing, the states are communicating more and more like they're all one government, and a vast majority of "services" are paid for through federal tax dollars anyway (unless the state "acts up" and doesn't do what it's told; then the dollars go away as punishment, but the residents of that state are still forced to pay federal income tax).
I don't live in the "United States." I live in the "United State."
Before anyone answers that question, maybe they should first ask, "WTF am I doing in a third-world country where I don't have any confidence in the justice system?" If you choose to go there, you choose risk. You have to be an irresponsible asshat to kill people and then try to run away from the consequences, especially when you knew the unpredictability of those consequnces even before you started killing people.
I actually think these kind of races are a "neat" thing, but this hit-and-run bullshit is totally inexcusable.
Perhaps the point is that firing people for something as ridiculously trivial as vulgarity, isn't healthy for your company. Managers: Let your people harmlessly blow off steam, or be at a competitive disadvantage.
Did he die from his tazer wounds? How many decades did he spend in jail?
It sucks, but what happened to him isn't comparable to Chinese policy.
This is about black markets, which may or may not be used by bad guys. When you talk about black markets, it's more of an us-vs-them situation, not a good-vs-evil situation.
This is merely warfare. There are no good guys or bad guys (well, they exist, but their moralities are are irrelevant for analysis, just as Nazi racism is irrelevant when talking about Blitzkrieg); there's just conflict of interest, and differing tactics meeting one another.
And good comes out of it, too. The "white" market is also under constant attack. If black markets are forced to deal with authentication issues, then eventually the technolo-- well, ok, not the technology, since it has been around for decades, but the social customs -- will spill over into the "white" market. Ultimately, explicit attacking of markets, out in the open where Joe Everyman can see it happening and understand it, will nudge all markets (including the ones that Good Guys just happen to operate within) to adapt. This can lead to a decrease in naivety.
When criminals have to go to extra trouble to check each other out before issuing trust, good guys will follow suit. Your next web browser might show better info about X509 cert issuers, for example, or support superior authentication schemes such as PGP. It might lead to the creation of distributed p2p networks where people vouch for one another's past histories, instead of relying on lame centralized servers like eBay.
Exactly, and that needs to change.And if scientists don't understand something, it logically follows that God exists, creationism is true, etc. Surely that's good news for everyone. (Except infidels, of course.) We should all be very happy about this.
Shit! If EMI is going digital, does that mean I have to replace all my EMI CDs, since my CDs are apparently analog? ;)
Sure, you should. And you can. But in order to do so, you must exercise judgement. It is your responsibility to know to not buy DRMed media or players.
It's just like Windows, really. At first, the users were victims, because they (arguably) didn't have reason to believe they were getting screwed. But many years have gone by, and it's reasonable to expect consumers to know that if they buy shit, they will experience shit. It's the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" principle.
If you buy either Blueray or HD DVD, you know you are doing the wrong thing, and that you will be a victim. Don't choose to be a victim. Stick to VHS (or maybe DVD, where the CSS has been cracked). Higher resolution stuff simply isn't on the market yet.
Maybe some day the movie companies will choose to put something better on the market. Right now, they aren't doing it, and need to receive an economic signal for it: lack of revenue. Don't choose to be a victim, and don't give them money. If you do, then you waive your expectation of things "just working."
Why do I have a feeling that no one will ever be able to implement a medical records application, which is simultaneously able to interoperate with HealthVault, and also not run on MS Windows?
As a customer, you have to be fucking crazy (and downright hostile to your stockholders), to want more MS lock-in. Auditors, if any of your people don't look terrified by this, start looking for kickbacks. By trying to start a new monopoly, Microsoft is actually doing a wonderful thing: showing you exactly which employees are trying to rip off your company.
Perhaps you really are a scientist. But telling people about connection to mathematics/engineering (a.k.a. "Computer Science"), is going to confuse people with its non-sequitorsequeiosity. It's like saying, "I'm a gourmet chef, see?" while pointing at your baseball card collection.
Blah blah blah, all code for: "You can't take LSD over the Internet."
This sounds a lot like Linus' attempt to kill the BSD project. By making Linux's GPLed source so easy to get, all sort of BSD developers may be getting tainted, and now they'll have to admit BSD is a derived work of Linux, and they'll only be able to release it under GPL.
Brilliant!
There even further evidence of-- oh wait, I just realized something: I'm stark-raving paranoid lunatic.
One of my favorite MUD characters was a Pratchett-style dwarven woman (I'm a man). I had such a blast enjoying peoples' double-takes, whenever they'd see me stroking my beard in thought.
At least let men play female dwarves. They're practically male anyway.
People, please think about that, the next time you put off trimming your trees. It's not just about the neighborhood kids' kites anymore.
Every time I read a Wikipedia article, Konqueror sends a packet to Wikipedia's servers. It's fucking creepy!
There you go, Woz. You bought it. You thought the price was fair. Now you've changed your mind?
Sure, I happen to think it's (still) an overpriced product with all kinds of creepy lock-in, so I decided to Just Say No. But you thought otherwise, so unless the product has underperformed your expectations, just be happy, dude.
Here's what I think is really happening: you see that other people can now get it for less. Your sin is ENVY. Get over it, or you'll have a lot more unhappiness in life than dissatisfaction with Apple.
"I want him in the games until he dies playing." -- MCP
Sometimes I think we're lucky this stuff works at all.
This isn't about cutting off Linux. This is about cutting off interoperability with everyone else.
There's just no way I'd buy a music player or phone from Apple. Wait until the iPhone-unlockers get screwed by some software update. You haven't even started to hear the screaming, yet.
I gotta give Apple some credit for guts, though. Even Microsoft doesn't have the balls to be so obviously hostile.
I read TFA and it doesn't really say much more than that. He doesn't say what platform he's talking about. Is this some day going to be another infamous "took initiative in creating the internet" vague out-of-context [mis]quote?
[smartass]If he were talking about Symantec, McAfee, and the other AV companies, I would understand the statement. It took a lot of vision in the 1990s to have the guts to deploy applications that effortlessly run untrusted code. No one would have gotten the idea of having IM programs, mail readers, and web browsers run external code by having the user click a link.[/smartass]
Or is he talking about the 1970s? No one debates that in the 1970s, Microsoft's BASIC interpreters made personal computers a lot more "approachable" and the explosion of the early 1980s might have gone much more slowly without them. It wasn't until the late 1980s that Microsoft's entrenched legacy started really inhibiting progress. But I think of Google as happening long after that, and the idea of sophisticated OSes running on client machines can more realistically be traced to companies like Commodore and Apple. If Microsoft wants to take credit for something that long ago and currently irrelevant (I haven't seen a personal computer with a BASIC interpreter in ROM, in a long long time), ok, but it's damn near meaningless.