Not to be an ass, but what proof do you have that driving above the speed limit, to match the flow of traffic, is legal?
I've been reviewing the Texas code, and the closest I came is this:
545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. (emphasis added)
And the code has this to say about maximum speeds: 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
(a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.
(a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.
(b) [lists speed limits of various types of roadways]
Now IANAL, but I would find it hard to make a case that someone driving 65 in an 80+ traffic flow is breaking the law. Creating a dangerous situation? Yes, given the circumstances - but its dangerous because everyone else is driving at an unlawful excess speed.
(My argument is largely academic, because I drive with the flow of traffic or sometimes faster, as the situation & my mood suits; but I've yet to see a statute anywhere that clearly spells out driving above the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is legal, despite many people claiming this is so).
The substance of my response was in the factual text of the law, which I was kind enough to cite for you down to the subsection. While I see some numbers in your response, alongside an inexplicable exhortation to familiarize myself with my own law, I have to inform you that nothing you posted is found anywhere in the Texas transportation code. You, however, might want to have a look at Section 545.062 of that publication.
While you are correct, the GP did not (presumably) find those numbers in Texas law, Section 545.062 clearly states that 'tailgating' is illegal:
545.062. FOLLOWING DISTANCE. (a) An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway. (emphasis added)
So you are both correct -- 'driving' (as opposed to 'passing') in the left lane is illegal, and 'tailgating' is illegal. People who do one, or the other, are both creating a hazardous situation on the road, and both bear full responsibility for their own actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and claiming that "but they were going too slow in the left line!" is no excuse or justification for tailgating.
Yes, there's a very simple one: obey the law and yield the way to faster traffic. Works every time.
Oh really? Can you explain that to the assholes who tailgate me, while I'm in the *right* lane, driving the speed limit (or +5-10), with *2 open lanes* of roadway to my left?
Some people are just assholes (or idiots not paying attention, which is just as bad).
I generally agree with you, but I think you are giving a little too much credit to some idiots on the road...
On a two-lane highway, I'll stay on the right unless I'm passing, and I'll try to pass quickly (but I'm not going to floor it as soon as I switch lanes; if someone's coming up fast behind me I'll wait until they pass before I change lanes).
But (as many others have posted), there are plenty of idiots who will tailgate you in the *right* lane, for no other reason than they are not paying attention (or are just an ass). I've had that happen to me -- plenty of room to pass, but they'd rather tailgate me. I don't appreciate that.
However, on a one-lane road, if I'm going about the speed limit, then no, I'm not getting out of your way. If I'm not going fast enough for you (but I'm going about the legal limit), then you can slow down & wait for an opportunity to pass me. If there isn't one, tough luck -- you can follow me at a safe distance.
If I feel someone is tailing too close (with an opportunity to go around), I just let off the accelerator. I don't usually have to slow down too far (10-20mph) before they get pissed enough to speed up & pass.
Our system in the US is way more expensive. It also works, it works quickly, and people don't go without. We don't let people bleed out in an ER because they don't have insurance. That's ILLEGAL, in addition to any moral/ethical issues.
Don't go to many urban EDs, do you?
The reality is, people who don't have insurance, don't have a doctor or any kind of regular, preventative care. So the ER becomes their "primary care" department. Why? Because the ER can't turn people away, regardless of insurance. So what happens when you have a bunch of people going to the ER for non-emergency situations? ER backs up. Your ER waits turn into hours - 12+ hours, perhaps. And yes, people die in the ER because they don't get taken care of right away.
Velma Edwards and David Luckett, who both waited to be seen in the ER Tuesday, are contributing reasons to the ER problem because neither have an emergency nor health insurance. "Well, I was feeling woozy today in my head," Edwards said. Luckett said waiting in the ER is his only way to get relief. "Just to come in here to get a pain pill or a refill I have to go through the whole process, which is a four or a six hour wait sometimes just to be seen," he said. "But I have to have it."
So no, I don't think the US system "works", and it doesn't "work quickly", at least not for everyone. I don't think more government control is the answer either, but the situation is not exactly rosy right now.
Interesting -- I hadn't realized that. Although, based on that article I do think there is a lot of solid code in those computers, but with the age of the hardware I'm guessing there's greater risk for hardware failure? I hadn't been watching the last shuttle mission, so I don't know anything about the computers crashing. If it is software-related, then I'm really curious how that jives with the article I posted...
I thought five 9's was the standard for uptime/availability. And you don't achieve that by having 1 server that has five 9's, you achieve that by having a group of servers, so when one goes down, your service is still up.
Here we're talking *six* 9s of *bug-free code* (1 error in 420,000 lines of code in the previous version). Not uptime -- bugs. Mistakes. For the simple reason that if you make a mistake on the Shuttle, people die.
You won't get a Java implementation that bug-free without a crack team of developers working for decades, by which point Java will be just as outdated then as the Shuttle code is now.
It's not ALL voting computers, just one type, which makes up about 10% of their machines (according to TFA). And that's just for the next election, which comes in 3 weeks. You can't redesign a machine & get it certified & redeployed in that kind of time frame, so banning it makes sense.
Thank you for completely ignoring my case where I actually eat more than I did before which jump started my metabolism so my body burns more calories.
GP didn't completely ignore your case, although it did present an oversimplified version, perhaps. Conservation of mass says that if you input more than you output, you have to gain weight. Of course, its not fair to focus only on the input side of the equation. What you output (in terms of waste & energy from metabolism), has a lot of dependencies, including what / when your inputs are.
You may be consuming twice as many calories now and losing weight -- but what else has changed? Are you eating the same types of foods (calories from a twinkie do not have the same metabolic impact as calories from a whole-grain granola bar, etc) Are you exercising more? From your previous post it sounds like you are eating more often -- maybe 4-5 smaller meals instead of 2-3 bigger meals? Has your lifestyle changed? Has your stress level changed? Has your age changed? All of these can have an important impact on your metabolism, so it's not fair to say simply eating more made you lose weight. That may be the end result, but that's just as short-sighted as saying eating less makes you lose weight -- both are over-simplifications.
My experience is that there are a lot of ideas about diet, but no one really thinks of the full picture, probably because everyone with a diet idea usually has an agenda (either supporting a particular industry - eggs, beef, dairy, etc -- or they've got a million hot new diet books or pills or shakes to sell). Simple methods that work over time don't seem to get much press (ie eat a balanced diet, with a little of everything and not too much of any one thing, and exercise regularly).
You make some very good points -- keeping your existing customers is an important goal in and of itself. And that's actually what my job is where I work: I work directly with our customers to provide technical guidance and programming support when they encounter a situation that doesn't work with our standard features / options. Basically, my job is all about keeping our existing customers happy, both to keep them and to provide good referrals & recommendations for our products to other potential customers.
Thankfully I'm not directly involved in sales / marketing -- just not my gig:-)
Her point was right on target - if we had the code, we could've easily contracted out fixing the program; it probably would've taken a competent programmer a couple hours to put the fix in and test it. But instead, we're stuck with a software package that's useless for many of the situations we wanted it for, unless the developer decides we're important enough to fix the software.
Just out of curiosity -- HAVE you contacted the developer asking for a fix? Just because its a closed-source solution you can't fix yourself, doesn't mean the vendor won't fix it if someone asks. Especially if its really as simple as a couple of hours (although there is always extra overhead, such as back-testing, etc.)
Disclaimer: I work for a closed-source software vendor, but we try very hard to meet the needs of all of our customers, so if they identify a critical issue we generally try to either find an acceptable work-around, or patch the code when possible. And (ideally) that would be done in such a way that you won't lose that fix when you upgrade. If you custom-fix your OSS solution, you either have to never upgrade, or patch every version that comes out; that seems to be a lot of long-term hassle.
Customer satisfaction is a big part of being a software vendor -- sure, you may be a small customer, but if my company is responsive to your needs then that builds good relations with you, and you may be an excellent referral source for us later (or become a larger customer yourself). That's a strong motivation for businesses that really care about their customers. And for professional-type products, buyers are more likely to pay extra for that good service.
3. you are running at/above/below peak training speed (based on prior training or estimated speeds)
Ooo -- and when you start walking (which is likely to happen for non-serious runners like me), it could yell (in the infamous Quake voice) "HUMILATION!"
That's exactly the point -- driver's licenses are insecure, inconsistent, and forgeable. That's why they don't work the best as a national ID card, because they are not a positive, secure ID. So I don't have as much to worry about these as a step on the national ID slippery slope, because they aren't very good for this purpose.
However, now the federal government wants them to be -- the REAL ID act requires state drivers' licenses or state IDs to meet certain criteria and contain certain information, or else the Dept of Homeland Security wouldn't consider them "valid" IDs for federal purposes. And that means no boarding airplanes (TSA is a federal agency), no entering federal courthouses, etc.
So yes -- even with driver's licenses we're sliding down the slippery slope.
No freedom of speech so no advertising, no talking about the product and they can't say anything at all.
Uh, no. "Freedom of speech" means "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...". Guess what -- businesses already have their speech "abridged". Little restrictions against things like false advertising, the phrase "FDA has not approved these statements", etc. And guess what - it's not because Congress passed a law saying companies couldn't say these things, it's because if you lie and cause harm to enough people, someone's going to notice & sue.
No 3rd amendment, soldiers can be quartered in said place of business without recompence.
I'll agree that the 3rd amendment wouldn't apply directly to corporate businesses in this case, but I hardly see this as a huge concern.
The DA (or any law enforcement officer) can search and seize anything in said business indefinetly without due process.
And this is different from current state, how? Oh right -- right now the DA just trumps up charges ("drugs!" or "terrorism!" or "file-sharer!") against individuals to search & seize indefinitely (or long enough to be effectively indefinite). Or those handy sneak-'n'peeks. Why should businesses be protected more than citizens?
No 5th amendment, so double jeaprody is allowed for repeatedly suing any business into the ground.
Absolutely doesn't apply. 5th Amendment says nothing about suing, just that you can't be charged with the same crime twice. Suing is civil, not criminal, punishment. I can sue Microsoft as many times as I "want" (aka can afford to), 5th amendment or no. Besides, when was the last time a *company* was thrown in jail on criminal charges? I rest my case, your honor.
No 6th, so you can skip Jury Trials and just find a judge that you can bribe to rule your way. Also, no right to counsel either and they can be tried in CA for something they supposedly did in CT.
Again, when was the last time a corporation was charged with a crime and went to a trial-by-jury, in any state? What state did Enron go to prison in? Oh, right - it didn't. (Some of the *physical people* are going to prison, but Enron-the-corporation never will).
No 7th, so no protection against "cruel and unusual" so fining a business $1 Trillion would be allowed for anything.
Again, you have to find the corporation guilty of something first.
But here's what you fail to realize: the customer is in the driver's seat here, not the media moguls
Except, we're not. Or at least, not actively driving. Sure, consumers *could* stop buying DRM, but we won't. The media industry will continue to slow turn up the heat, until we're long past boiling and we don't even realize it. Look at it the history of it --
1. We started with Macrovision, so you couldn't connect two VCRs & copy commercial tapes. 2. Laserdiscs - no consumer-level recorders, so no problem there 3. DVDs - region control & CSS, not supposed to be able to rip & copy 4. HD/Bluray - DRMs starting to get a little more intrusive
It's not going to happen over night, but once the HD/Bluray standards finally settle and people start buying & upgrading equipment over the next decade, HD & Bluray's DRM will seem like CSS does now - annoying, but not without its workarounds. And then they'll come up with the next big DRM control, and technical people will gripe about it and Average Joe will remain about as clueless.
The only way consumers will "revolt" is if they crank up the heat too fast. This industry doesn't move *that* fast, and they're smart enough to not alienate their entire customer base all at once.
In fact, the industry's biggest danger is consumers moving to other forms of media & content before the industry can react -- stuff like iTunes, podcasts, videoblogs, whatever's next. I definitely agree with previous posts in this thread that media moguls are in the DRM movement for control; if they can control the content & the distribution, they get to control where the profits go.
Because the congressmen want new cars, and maybe a beach house. And they get back any voter favor lost by trying to steal money from the oil companies because they are making large profits (somehow, this is a bad thing).
Just for the record, I don't have a problem with oil companies making large profits, so long as they are doing so "fairly" - ie by the market. What I don't like is when my both tax dollars and my taxed dollars are put into oil company coffers - the former so some congressman gets a new beach house, and the latter so I can fill up my car. I'd much rather pay the oil company directly; at least that way I can control my spending and find alternative transportation if I so desire. I have no control over the spending in Congress (and spare me the song & dance about "democracy" - we don't have a democracy, we have a republic, and there's only 3 people out of 535 who represent me. Not to mention I don't have the luxury of lobbying my elected representives with gifts, kickbacks, and lucrative business deals.)
I just think the government needs to stop supporting the oil industry with tax breaks & giveaways and let them stand on their own feet - they have the profits to indicate they can do it. And if they can't, the market will find someone who can. No need for the government to "steal" from the oil industry, its just time for the oil industry to stop stealing from us, the tax payers.
After all, the market has clearly decided that the big oil companies, with their record-breaking profits, are the appropriate market solution to our energy problems. So why is the government interfering with the market and giving away $7 billion to the oil companies?
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad.
You are wrong - that is not the fundamental issue being discussed. The issue is whether or not the president has the authority to spy on US citizens *without approval & oversight*. Bush thinks he does; many others disagree. This is a core issue of civil rights.
Twisting the argument into "but we need to do it to catch bad guys!" is a nice straw man. It's not about what "bad guys" want to do, it's about what rights law-abiding citizens have. There's plenty of people both in the US and the rest of the world, that want to kill people in a terroristic fashion (recallsomeexamples), so at what point should we - the United States of America - draw the line between liberty & security?
The difference is the CC company doesn't care, in the end, who really ended up with the credit card. They have the cost of fraud built-in to their service, so if x% of their pre-approved spam comes back with a fraudulant application, those charges are written off as a cost of doing business. If fraud increases, they slap a holographic sticker on their card and tell customers "We'll protect you!", while jacking up fees & rates.
A national ID, however, has true identity of an individual as its ultimate goal. Very different than a credit card. The real question is - what's the result when ID card fraud happens? If you are the victim - is your purchase denied, or do you go to jail?
And finally - why should I need to prove to my government who I am on their whim, anyway? I pull out my CC when I need to purchase something - a business transaction. I despise having to "prove" who I am when I board a plane or a bus because my identity is completely irrelevant to the transaction, insofar as my ticket has already been paid for. It has nothing to do with terrorism - that's a red herring. If you are someone on a "watchlist", then either the goverment has enough data on you to arrest you legally (so they should), or they don't, in which case they should leave you the f*ck alone until they do (at least in the states, if the Constitution still had any power).
Here's what I don't get... if they are sending these things via the US Postal Service, and they claim the USPS is "delayed", isn't that mail fraud? IANAL, and I don't have Netflix, but has anyone who has experienced this "throttling" threatened to go to the Post Office and tell the postmaster that Netflix is lying about receiving a shipment?
Mail fraud is a big time no-no. Shipping your next DVD from across the country is under-handed, but not illegal. Lying about receiving a parcel that you shipped sounds like it might cross that line.
Was McDonalds morally or legally liable for the poor lady's injury?... In point of fact, the lady did a stupid thing. Since water boils at 212F, I would expect coffee could be served anywhere up to that temperature and therefore I would never place a flimsy foam cup near my balls in a car. Likewise, I would never place a loaded gun in the waistband of my pants. Any reasonable person would act likewise.
I disagree - I think McDonalds was legally liable. The industry standard was 160F, as has been noted. Therefore, a consumer purchasing coffee at a variety of different businesses would have an expectation of the temperature of the coffee served.
McDonalds chose to deviate from this standard -- no problem so far.
They chose to go significantly higher than the standard - again, still no problem.
They did NOT inform consumers that they were significantly higher than the standard, so much so that THEIR product could cause severe burns where competitors products (ie the industry standard) would not. *HERE* is the problem.
Yes, the woman was foolish to put the cup between her legs, but everyone does foolish things. Her foolish action would not have caused nearly so much damage had it not been for McDonalds' decision to serve coffee dangerously hot *and* not inform consumers how dangerous it was.
The jury wanted to punish McDonald's, plain and simply. They weren't "nice" to the woman. She could have easily prevented the injury by acting responsibly. Because of the publicity of this particular lawsuit and others like it, everybody believes they are just one small injury or slight away from winning the lawsuit lottery. Tort is out of control.
From the analysis I've read (sorry, don't remember where), yes, the jury did want to punish McDonald's. I see nothing wrong with that, since McDonald's was in the wrong (in my opinion). And the fact that the award was later substantially reduced is always left out. However, your last comment is really more of an urban legend - tort is not out of control. There are a few hyped-up cases (like this one - from 1994!) that everyone talks about. The reality is that most lawsuits are between businesses, and it is these B2B lawsuits that are much more likely to be frivolous (one source, but I've read others as well).
I'm glad your personal liability lawsuit came out favorably for you - I have a friend who was in a similar situation and luckily it came out favorably for her as well. It is pretty sleazy that there are all of these ambulance-chasing lawyers who set $$ in people's eyes, but I think we need to differentiate between personal lawsuits between individuals and lawsuits between people & companies. For you I'm sure this was a stressful, frustrating time. For McDonalds, that was just a cost of doing business.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be an ass, but what proof do you have that driving above the speed limit, to match the flow of traffic, is legal?
I've been reviewing the Texas code, and the closest I came is this:
545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. (emphasis added)
And the code has this to say about maximum speeds:
545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
(a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is
on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.
(a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another
provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.
(b) [lists speed limits of various types of roadways]
Now IANAL, but I would find it hard to make a case that someone driving 65 in an 80+ traffic flow is breaking the law. Creating a dangerous situation? Yes, given the circumstances - but its dangerous because everyone else is driving at an unlawful excess speed.
(My argument is largely academic, because I drive with the flow of traffic or sometimes faster, as the situation & my mood suits; but I've yet to see a statute anywhere that clearly spells out driving above the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is legal, despite many people claiming this is so).
*applause*
The substance of my response was in the factual text of the law, which I was kind enough to cite for you down to the subsection. While I see some numbers in your response, alongside an inexplicable exhortation to familiarize myself with my own law, I have to inform you that nothing you posted is found anywhere in the Texas transportation code. You, however, might want to have a look at Section 545.062 of that publication.
While you are correct, the GP did not (presumably) find those numbers in Texas law, Section 545.062 clearly states that 'tailgating' is illegal:
545.062. FOLLOWING DISTANCE. (a) An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance
between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway. (emphasis added)
So you are both correct -- 'driving' (as opposed to 'passing') in the left lane is illegal, and 'tailgating' is illegal. People who do one, or the other, are both creating a hazardous situation on the road, and both bear full responsibility for their own actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and claiming that "but they were going too slow in the left line!" is no excuse or justification for tailgating.
Yes, there's a very simple one: obey the law and yield the way to faster traffic. Works every time.
Oh really? Can you explain that to the assholes who tailgate me, while I'm in the *right* lane, driving the speed limit (or +5-10), with *2 open lanes* of roadway to my left?
Some people are just assholes (or idiots not paying attention, which is just as bad).
I generally agree with you, but I think you are giving a little too much credit to some idiots on the road...
On a two-lane highway, I'll stay on the right unless I'm passing, and I'll try to pass quickly (but I'm not going to floor it as soon as I switch lanes; if someone's coming up fast behind me I'll wait until they pass before I change lanes).
But (as many others have posted), there are plenty of idiots who will tailgate you in the *right* lane, for no other reason than they are not paying attention (or are just an ass). I've had that happen to me -- plenty of room to pass, but they'd rather tailgate me. I don't appreciate that.
However, on a one-lane road, if I'm going about the speed limit, then no, I'm not getting out of your way. If I'm not going fast enough for you (but I'm going about the legal limit), then you can slow down & wait for an opportunity to pass me. If there isn't one, tough luck -- you can follow me at a safe distance.
If I feel someone is tailing too close (with an opportunity to go around), I just let off the accelerator. I don't usually have to slow down too far (10-20mph) before they get pissed enough to speed up & pass.
Our system in the US is way more expensive. It also works, it works quickly, and people don't go without. We don't let people bleed out in an ER because they don't have insurance. That's ILLEGAL, in addition to any moral/ethical issues.
Don't go to many urban EDs, do you?
The reality is, people who don't have insurance, don't have a doctor or any kind of regular, preventative care. So the ER becomes their "primary care" department. Why? Because the ER can't turn people away, regardless of insurance. So what happens when you have a bunch of people going to the ER for non-emergency situations? ER backs up. Your ER waits turn into hours - 12+ hours, perhaps. And yes, people die in the ER because they don't get taken care of right away.
Classic example:
Velma Edwards and David Luckett, who both waited to be seen in the ER Tuesday, are contributing reasons to the ER problem because neither have an emergency nor health insurance. "Well, I was feeling woozy today in my head," Edwards said. Luckett said waiting in the ER is his only way to get relief. "Just to come in here to get a pain pill or a refill I have to go through the whole process, which is a four or a six hour wait sometimes just to be seen," he said. "But I have to have it."
So no, I don't think the US system "works", and it doesn't "work quickly", at least not for everyone. I don't think more government control is the answer either, but the situation is not exactly rosy right now.
Interesting -- I hadn't realized that. Although, based on that article I do think there is a lot of solid code in those computers, but with the age of the hardware I'm guessing there's greater risk for hardware failure? I hadn't been watching the last shuttle mission, so I don't know anything about the computers crashing. If it is software-related, then I'm really curious how that jives with the article I posted...
I thought five 9's was the standard for uptime/availability. And you don't achieve that by having 1 server that has five 9's, you achieve that by having a group of servers, so when one goes down, your service is still up.
t ml
Space shuttle's a little different:
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.h
Here we're talking *six* 9s of *bug-free code* (1 error in 420,000 lines of code in the previous version). Not uptime -- bugs. Mistakes. For the simple reason that if you make a mistake on the Shuttle, people die.
You won't get a Java implementation that bug-free without a crack team of developers working for decades, by which point Java will be just as outdated then as the Shuttle code is now.
Remember -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Settle down.
It's not ALL voting computers, just one type, which makes up about 10% of their machines (according to TFA). And that's just for the next election, which comes in 3 weeks. You can't redesign a machine & get it certified & redeployed in that kind of time frame, so banning it makes sense.
Thank you for completely ignoring my case where I actually eat more than I did before which jump started my metabolism so my body burns more calories.
GP didn't completely ignore your case, although it did present an oversimplified version, perhaps. Conservation of mass says that if you input more than you output, you have to gain weight. Of course, its not fair to focus only on the input side of the equation. What you output (in terms of waste & energy from metabolism), has a lot of dependencies, including what / when your inputs are.
You may be consuming twice as many calories now and losing weight -- but what else has changed? Are you eating the same types of foods (calories from a twinkie do not have the same metabolic impact as calories from a whole-grain granola bar, etc) Are you exercising more? From your previous post it sounds like you are eating more often -- maybe 4-5 smaller meals instead of 2-3 bigger meals? Has your lifestyle changed? Has your stress level changed? Has your age changed? All of these can have an important impact on your metabolism, so it's not fair to say simply eating more made you lose weight. That may be the end result, but that's just as short-sighted as saying eating less makes you lose weight -- both are over-simplifications.
My experience is that there are a lot of ideas about diet, but no one really thinks of the full picture, probably because everyone with a diet idea usually has an agenda (either supporting a particular industry - eggs, beef, dairy, etc -- or they've got a million hot new diet books or pills or shakes to sell). Simple methods that work over time don't seem to get much press (ie eat a balanced diet, with a little of everything and not too much of any one thing, and exercise regularly).
You make some very good points -- keeping your existing customers is an important goal in and of itself. And that's actually what my job is where I work: I work directly with our customers to provide technical guidance and programming support when they encounter a situation that doesn't work with our standard features / options. Basically, my job is all about keeping our existing customers happy, both to keep them and to provide good referrals & recommendations for our products to other potential customers.
:-)
Thankfully I'm not directly involved in sales / marketing -- just not my gig
Her point was right on target - if we had the code, we could've easily contracted out fixing the program; it probably would've taken a competent programmer a couple hours to put the fix in and test it. But instead, we're stuck with a software package that's useless for many of the situations we wanted it for, unless the developer decides we're important enough to fix the software.
Just out of curiosity -- HAVE you contacted the developer asking for a fix? Just because its a closed-source solution you can't fix yourself, doesn't mean the vendor won't fix it if someone asks. Especially if its really as simple as a couple of hours (although there is always extra overhead, such as back-testing, etc.)
Disclaimer: I work for a closed-source software vendor, but we try very hard to meet the needs of all of our customers, so if they identify a critical issue we generally try to either find an acceptable work-around, or patch the code when possible. And (ideally) that would be done in such a way that you won't lose that fix when you upgrade. If you custom-fix your OSS solution, you either have to never upgrade, or patch every version that comes out; that seems to be a lot of long-term hassle.
Customer satisfaction is a big part of being a software vendor -- sure, you may be a small customer, but if my company is responsive to your needs then that builds good relations with you, and you may be an excellent referral source for us later (or become a larger customer yourself). That's a strong motivation for businesses that really care about their customers. And for professional-type products, buyers are more likely to pay extra for that good service.
eror
:-)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that was intentional.
But only because I don't have mod points
3. you are running at/above/below peak training speed (based on prior training or estimated speeds)
Ooo -- and when you start walking (which is likely to happen for non-serious runners like me), it could yell (in the infamous Quake voice) "HUMILATION!"
=)
That's exactly the point -- driver's licenses are insecure, inconsistent, and forgeable. That's why they don't work the best as a national ID card, because they are not a positive, secure ID. So I don't have as much to worry about these as a step on the national ID slippery slope, because they aren't very good for this purpose.
However, now the federal government wants them to be -- the REAL ID act requires state drivers' licenses or state IDs to meet certain criteria and contain certain information, or else the Dept of Homeland Security wouldn't consider them "valid" IDs for federal purposes. And that means no boarding airplanes (TSA is a federal agency), no entering federal courthouses, etc.
So yes -- even with driver's licenses we're sliding down the slippery slope.
Most of your arguments don't make any sense.
No freedom of speech so no advertising, no talking about the product and they can't say anything at all.
Uh, no. "Freedom of speech" means "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...". Guess what -- businesses already have their speech "abridged". Little restrictions against things like false advertising, the phrase "FDA has not approved these statements", etc. And guess what - it's not because Congress passed a law saying companies couldn't say these things, it's because if you lie and cause harm to enough people, someone's going to notice & sue.
No 3rd amendment, soldiers can be quartered in said place of business without recompence.
I'll agree that the 3rd amendment wouldn't apply directly to corporate businesses in this case, but I hardly see this as a huge concern.
The DA (or any law enforcement officer) can search and seize anything in said business indefinetly without due process.
And this is different from current state, how? Oh right -- right now the DA just trumps up charges ("drugs!" or "terrorism!" or "file-sharer!") against individuals to search & seize indefinitely (or long enough to be effectively indefinite). Or those handy sneak-'n'peeks. Why should businesses be protected more than citizens?
No 5th amendment, so double jeaprody is allowed for repeatedly suing any business into the ground.
Absolutely doesn't apply. 5th Amendment says nothing about suing, just that you can't be charged with the same crime twice. Suing is civil, not criminal, punishment. I can sue Microsoft as many times as I "want" (aka can afford to), 5th amendment or no. Besides, when was the last time a *company* was thrown in jail on criminal charges? I rest my case, your honor.
No 6th, so you can skip Jury Trials and just find a judge that you can bribe to rule your way. Also, no right to counsel either and they can be tried in CA for something they supposedly did in CT.
Again, when was the last time a corporation was charged with a crime and went to a trial-by-jury, in any state? What state did Enron go to prison in? Oh, right - it didn't. (Some of the *physical people* are going to prison, but Enron-the-corporation never will).
No 7th, so no protection against "cruel and unusual" so fining a business $1 Trillion would be allowed for anything.
Again, you have to find the corporation guilty of something first.
But here's what you fail to realize: the customer is in the driver's seat here, not the media moguls
Except, we're not. Or at least, not actively driving. Sure, consumers *could* stop buying DRM, but we won't. The media industry will continue to slow turn up the heat, until we're long past boiling and we don't even realize it. Look at it the history of it --
1. We started with Macrovision, so you couldn't connect two VCRs & copy commercial tapes.
2. Laserdiscs - no consumer-level recorders, so no problem there
3. DVDs - region control & CSS, not supposed to be able to rip & copy
4. HD/Bluray - DRMs starting to get a little more intrusive
It's not going to happen over night, but once the HD/Bluray standards finally settle and people start buying & upgrading equipment over the next decade, HD & Bluray's DRM will seem like CSS does now - annoying, but not without its workarounds. And then they'll come up with the next big DRM control, and technical people will gripe about it and Average Joe will remain about as clueless.
The only way consumers will "revolt" is if they crank up the heat too fast. This industry doesn't move *that* fast, and they're smart enough to not alienate their entire customer base all at once.
In fact, the industry's biggest danger is consumers moving to other forms of media & content before the industry can react -- stuff like iTunes, podcasts, videoblogs, whatever's next. I definitely agree with previous posts in this thread that media moguls are in the DRM movement for control; if they can control the content & the distribution, they get to control where the profits go.
Because the congressmen want new cars, and maybe a beach house. And they get back any voter favor lost by trying to steal money from the oil companies because they are making large profits (somehow, this is a bad thing).
Just for the record, I don't have a problem with oil companies making large profits, so long as they are doing so "fairly" - ie by the market. What I don't like is when my both tax dollars and my taxed dollars are put into oil company coffers - the former so some congressman gets a new beach house, and the latter so I can fill up my car. I'd much rather pay the oil company directly; at least that way I can control my spending and find alternative transportation if I so desire. I have no control over the spending in Congress (and spare me the song & dance about "democracy" - we don't have a democracy, we have a republic, and there's only 3 people out of 535 who represent me. Not to mention I don't have the luxury of lobbying my elected representives with gifts, kickbacks, and lucrative business deals.)
I just think the government needs to stop supporting the oil industry with tax breaks & giveaways and let them stand on their own feet - they have the profits to indicate they can do it. And if they can't, the market will find someone who can. No need for the government to "steal" from the oil industry, its just time for the oil industry to stop stealing from us, the tax payers.
Great idea! I think the government should let the markets decide, and stop subsidizing oil companies.
After all, the market has clearly decided that the big oil companies, with their record-breaking profits, are the appropriate market solution to our energy problems. So why is the government interfering with the market and giving away $7 billion to the oil companies?
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad.
You are wrong - that is not the fundamental issue being discussed. The issue is whether or not the president has the authority to spy on US citizens *without approval & oversight*. Bush thinks he does; many others disagree. This is a core issue of civil rights.
Twisting the argument into "but we need to do it to catch bad guys!" is a nice straw man. It's not about what "bad guys" want to do, it's about what rights law-abiding citizens have. There's plenty of people both in the US and the rest of the world, that want to kill people in a terroristic fashion (recall some examples), so at what point should we - the United States of America - draw the line between liberty & security?
As a point of reference, China doesn't seem to have had many problems with terrorism.
Elderly lawyers.
Not with Cheney to lead us!
The difference is the CC company doesn't care, in the end, who really ended up with the credit card. They have the cost of fraud built-in to their service, so if x% of their pre-approved spam comes back with a fraudulant application, those charges are written off as a cost of doing business. If fraud increases, they slap a holographic sticker on their card and tell customers "We'll protect you!", while jacking up fees & rates.
A national ID, however, has true identity of an individual as its ultimate goal. Very different than a credit card. The real question is - what's the result when ID card fraud happens? If you are the victim - is your purchase denied, or do you go to jail?
And finally - why should I need to prove to my government who I am on their whim, anyway? I pull out my CC when I need to purchase something - a business transaction. I despise having to "prove" who I am when I board a plane or a bus because my identity is completely irrelevant to the transaction, insofar as my ticket has already been paid for. It has nothing to do with terrorism - that's a red herring. If you are someone on a "watchlist", then either the goverment has enough data on you to arrest you legally (so they should), or they don't, in which case they should leave you the f*ck alone until they do (at least in the states, if the Constitution still had any power).
Here's what I don't get... if they are sending these things via the US Postal Service, and they claim the USPS is "delayed", isn't that mail fraud? IANAL, and I don't have Netflix, but has anyone who has experienced this "throttling" threatened to go to the Post Office and tell the postmaster that Netflix is lying about receiving a shipment?
Mail fraud is a big time no-no. Shipping your next DVD from across the country is under-handed, but not illegal. Lying about receiving a parcel that you shipped sounds like it might cross that line.
Well, this *is* slashdot, after all...
Was McDonalds morally or legally liable for the poor lady's injury? ... In point of fact, the lady did a stupid thing. Since water boils at 212F, I would expect coffee could be served anywhere up to that temperature and therefore I would never place a flimsy foam cup near my balls in a car. Likewise, I would never place a loaded gun in the waistband of my pants. Any reasonable person would act likewise.
I disagree - I think McDonalds was legally liable. The industry standard was 160F, as has been noted. Therefore, a consumer purchasing coffee at a variety of different businesses would have an expectation of the temperature of the coffee served.
McDonalds chose to deviate from this standard -- no problem so far.
They chose to go significantly higher than the standard - again, still no problem.
They did NOT inform consumers that they were significantly higher than the standard, so much so that THEIR product could cause severe burns where competitors products (ie the industry standard) would not. *HERE* is the problem.
Yes, the woman was foolish to put the cup between her legs, but everyone does foolish things. Her foolish action would not have caused nearly so much damage had it not been for McDonalds' decision to serve coffee dangerously hot *and* not inform consumers how dangerous it was.
The jury wanted to punish McDonald's, plain and simply. They weren't "nice" to the woman. She could have easily prevented the injury by acting responsibly. Because of the publicity of this particular lawsuit and others like it, everybody believes they are just one small injury or slight away from winning the lawsuit lottery. Tort is out of control.
From the analysis I've read (sorry, don't remember where), yes, the jury did want to punish McDonald's. I see nothing wrong with that, since McDonald's was in the wrong (in my opinion). And the fact that the award was later substantially reduced is always left out. However, your last comment is really more of an urban legend - tort is not out of control. There are a few hyped-up cases (like this one - from 1994!) that everyone talks about. The reality is that most lawsuits are between businesses, and it is these B2B lawsuits that are much more likely to be frivolous (one source, but I've read others as well).
I'm glad your personal liability lawsuit came out favorably for you - I have a friend who was in a similar situation and luckily it came out favorably for her as well. It is pretty sleazy that there are all of these ambulance-chasing lawyers who set $$ in people's eyes, but I think we need to differentiate between personal lawsuits between individuals and lawsuits between people & companies. For you I'm sure this was a stressful, frustrating time. For McDonalds, that was just a cost of doing business.