When you pull out of your driveway, you're expecting me to drive as safely as I can.
No, actually I simply expect that you aren't trying to hit something, and are being something smarter than really stupid. This is because I know that some small fraction of those on the road are only just meeting this very low minimum. And drunks probably not even that. You can probably guess that I am not an optimist.
I recognize that driving is an inherently dangerous activity and I accept that risk. 'Cannot' make that decision?, 'Must not'? Sorry, it is 'Has to'. For a simple reason. There is nobody else. Laws against drunk driving, or cell phone use, and the punishments that follow, can be used to scare people into making the safer decision, but in the end it is always the individual making the decision.
When you or I are driving down the road surrounded by a bunch of others, our lives are no longer solely in our own hands. Whether we are aware of it or not, we made the decision to be in that position when we got in the car.
Laws to 'make driving safer' are simply brute force applied to bully individuals into behavior that our brilliant legislators decided would be safer. Whether or not these laws are justified, or whether how much safer the desired behavior actually is, is a different topic. The nature of driving means that every driver, as an individual, makes the decision to be, or not to be, a dangerous driver every second that they are on the road.
Your decision about sacrificing safety for a cell phone conversation is also about my safety too. That kind of decision cannot be made by an individual.
Nonsense. You made the decision to get into that car. You made this decision to place yourself into a position where my decisions affect your safety. You, by your decisions, gave me that right. If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the road.
You need to read a little more history - and do a little analysis.
The government that allows you to live at a standard above the rest of the world is not the one that we have now. It is the one that we had 100 or more years ago. The government we have now is setting the standard for 2108 or so....
Yes, Wikipedia is your friend, but you have to know how to use it. Most solar cells are not cadmium telluride.
From this wikipedia link,
First-generation photovoltaic cells (also known as silicon wafer-based solar cells) are the dominant technology in the commercial production of solar cells, accounting for more than 86% of the terrestrial solar cell market.
I did my taxes on linux this year... all online and all free. I had to ignore a 'your browser is unsupported' message, but it worked. (granted my taxes were simple)
Some time with google gave some hints. I bet a linguist could enlighten you better, But the long and short of it seems to be that Spanish spelling keeps changing to match the pronunciation, where the middle english (pre 1600AD!!!) spellings have been kept.
Do note that ~1600AD is when England rose to prominence while Spain declined. I bet this is the root cause of the difference.
And of course because spelling only ever has a very remote connection to pronunciation
Actually, almost every english word is spelled the way is was pronounced. Try on words like knight and through and food. (think two vowels go walking on that last one...)
Language changes, standardized spelling can't keep up.
There is no mention of Quakers in there. This is about disputes between the Penn. Assembly and the Royal Governor. It seems that the Governor was rejecting bills from the Assembly in an arbitrary manner, and the gist of it seems that the Governor was trying to get more control, and refusing any bill funding a defence against the indians on the frontier if he didn't get it. The 'essential liberties' are those the Governor wants to take away, and the 'safety' would have come from the extra war funding.
On the other hand, this looks like it was an established quote even then, either one he came up with earlier, or someone else's statement that he was using. One that other people would recognise.
Nobody in their right mind would ever use PV electricity, generated on-site, to heat water. Solar heats water directly just fine and much more cheaply. The same goes for heating the house. It is far cheaper to put in more insulation and use radiant heating than to ever think of using electric heat. That leaves your oven. Most solar homes would use propane/natural gas. (not sure I would, I don't like monthly bills...)
Well, let me clarify. sex, in and of itself is not harmful, at least after puberty. Marriage, age, etc. do not matter. In order for there to be harm, there must be more than just sex. There is a wide variety of other things that can cause harm with sex. Coercion is one of these. Statuary rape laws are a (IMHO a rather flawed) way of dealing with that.
Coerce."to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition:" Proactive use of force is not required. But it is not 'trickery' either, although that can be bad too.
But I am just not sure that I want to let the government speak other people's mind... even if those people are teenagers. But that's a different debate altogether.
But that is precisely what statuary rape laws do, as well as the distinction between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. I agree that this is a tricky area, and I do not like what we have now. What solution(s) do you propose?
The environmental bit was mostly just to be funny.
"He is not even arguing that teenage sex is harmful. Just that if it is harmful, then it is as harmful with an older person as it is with a younger."
It is not the sex that is harmful. It is the coercion that is assumed to have taken place, based on nothing more than there often is corecion. However the chance of coercion is greater with a 30+ year old guy than an 18 year old (assuming ~16 age for the girl at least, < 12 would be different). Therefore the harm is not the same.
His error was in assuming that the sex caused the harm. This is easily proven wrong from a legal standpoint. In most states, with parental consent, that 16 year old girl can legally marry that same 18 year old guy, and proceed to legally have sex as much as they please. If it was the sex that was harmful, then the harm here would be the same. But in this case, there is no harm. He is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If 'it' means your ideology, No, I don't get it.
I am more interested in reality.
(if you reply, please state which you are talking about, an ideology or simple unadorned reality - both have value)
T
No, actually I simply expect that you aren't trying to hit something, and are being something smarter than really stupid. This is because I know that some small fraction of those on the road are only just meeting this very low minimum. And drunks probably not even that. You can probably guess that I am not an optimist.
I recognize that driving is an inherently dangerous activity and I accept that risk. 'Cannot' make that decision?, 'Must not'? Sorry, it is 'Has to'. For a simple reason. There is nobody else. Laws against drunk driving, or cell phone use, and the punishments that follow, can be used to scare people into making the safer decision, but in the end it is always the individual making the decision.
When you or I are driving down the road surrounded by a bunch of others, our lives are no longer solely in our own hands. Whether we are aware of it or not, we made the decision to be in that position when we got in the car.
Laws to 'make driving safer' are simply brute force applied to bully individuals into behavior that our brilliant legislators decided would be safer. Whether or not these laws are justified, or whether how much safer the desired behavior actually is, is a different topic. The nature of driving means that every driver, as an individual, makes the decision to be, or not to be, a dangerous driver every second that they are on the road.
T
Nonsense. You made the decision to get into that car. You made this decision to place yourself into a position where my decisions affect your safety. You, by your decisions, gave me that right. If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the road.
/hmm, that was a bit too harsh, sorry....
T
T
You need to read a little more history - and do a little analysis.
The government that allows you to live at a standard above the rest of the world is not the one that we have now. It is the one that we had 100 or more years ago. The government we have now is setting the standard for 2108 or so....
T
Haha - That isn't quite what I had in mind when I mentioned "how to use it". I guess I did set myself up for that though.
smaddox, whoever (s)he is, edited the next paragraph.
T
Yes, Wikipedia is your friend, but you have to know how to use it. Most solar cells are not cadmium telluride.
From this wikipedia link,
T
They are not all quite sterile... you do get a seed for every few hundred pounds of bananas.
That said, you are essentially right. All cavendish bananas are clones, this makes them very vulnerable to disease.
T
T
~/linux-2.6.24.2$ grep -R goto * | wc -l
49801
T
How many novices know it? My guess is at least 3 more, just due to the GP post....
T
I did my taxes on linux this year... all online and all free. I had to ignore a 'your browser is unsupported' message, but it worked. (granted my taxes were simple)
T
I suggest that you start posting somewhere else on the internet then. This is /. after all.
Another literal reply to a facetious internet post brought to you by T ;-)
Not an economic term either. Nationalistic term.
T
He doesn't hate America, he hates euphoria.
T
Some time with google gave some hints. I bet a linguist could enlighten you better, But the long and short of it seems to be that Spanish spelling keeps changing to match the pronunciation, where the middle english (pre 1600AD!!!) spellings have been kept.
Do note that ~1600AD is when England rose to prominence while Spain declined. I bet this is the root cause of the difference.
T
Actually, almost every english word is spelled the way is was pronounced. Try on words like knight and through and food. (think two vowels go walking on that last one...)
Language changes, standardized spelling can't keep up.
T
This is a story about Schrodinger's cat. This is exactly the kind of result you should expect.
T
I have to differ on your interpretation of Franklin's message.
First, here is the whole thing link
There is no mention of Quakers in there. This is about disputes between the Penn. Assembly and the Royal Governor. It seems that the Governor was rejecting bills from the Assembly in an arbitrary manner, and the gist of it seems that the Governor was trying to get more control, and refusing any bill funding a defence against the indians on the frontier if he didn't get it. The 'essential liberties' are those the Governor wants to take away, and the 'safety' would have come from the extra war funding.
On the other hand, this looks like it was an established quote even then, either one he came up with earlier, or someone else's statement that he was using. One that other people would recognise.
T
It has ALWAYS been this boring.
Actually, it is usually much more boring than this.
Can you come up with a time when it has been less boring?
T
Nobody in their right mind would ever use PV electricity, generated on-site, to heat water. Solar heats water directly just fine and much more cheaply. The same goes for heating the house. It is far cheaper to put in more insulation and use radiant heating than to ever think of using electric heat. That leaves your oven. Most solar homes would use propane/natural gas. (not sure I would, I don't like monthly bills...)
T
Well, let me clarify. sex, in and of itself is not harmful, at least after puberty. Marriage, age, etc. do not matter. In order for there to be harm, there must be more than just sex. There is a wide variety of other things that can cause harm with sex. Coercion is one of these. Statuary rape laws are a (IMHO a rather flawed) way of dealing with that.
Coerce. "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition:" Proactive use of force is not required. But it is not 'trickery' either, although that can be bad too.
But that is precisely what statuary rape laws do, as well as the distinction between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. I agree that this is a tricky area, and I do not like what we have now. What solution(s) do you propose?
T
The environmental bit was mostly just to be funny.
"He is not even arguing that teenage sex is harmful. Just that if it is harmful, then it is as harmful with an older person as it is with a younger."
It is not the sex that is harmful. It is the coercion that is assumed to have taken place, based on nothing more than there often is corecion. However the chance of coercion is greater with a 30+ year old guy than an 18 year old (assuming ~16 age for the girl at least, < 12 would be different). Therefore the harm is not the same.
His error was in assuming that the sex caused the harm. This is easily proven wrong from a legal standpoint. In most states, with parental consent, that 16 year old girl can legally marry that same 18 year old guy, and proceed to legally have sex as much as they please. If it was the sex that was harmful, then the harm here would be the same. But in this case, there is no harm. He is wrong.
T
You seem to be arguing that consentual sex is harmful. This is nonsense, unless you happen to be an environmentalist.
Why charge the guy if he is 30? 'Cause he should know better. That doesn't apply quite as well at 18.
T