Can you give anything to back your claim that it "starts with the constitution"?
Seriously? How about basic civics class? What do YOU think authorizes the government to exist? And tells it how it should constitute (<--hint!) itself? Oh, and there's this insignificant little bit:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
You're just rolling me now, aren't you? In that case, lol, IHBT. If not... dude, go find a high school and sit in on a civics class, seriously.
I'm guessing you live in the NE part of the US? I find that people in that part of the country are more uptight about drinking and driving, than in other parts of the US.
No, I live in NE Montana. My town, pop. ~5000, has about 20 churches, about 20 licensed drinking establishments, and one amazingly rocking liquor store. I am all for drinking and/or drugging, if one chooses to. I am all for driving, too -- I consider it a wonderful pastime as well as a functional one. But combining the two undertakings -- absolutely not. Nor drinking and carrying weapons for any purpose, also common here.
But seriously, if you think for even a moment, that most people that are leaving a bar (I'm talking about a REAL bar that only serves alcoholic beverages, not a restaurant with a bar in it)....are even close to sober when they get into their cars, by legal limit or no....you are kidding yourself.
I am under no such illusion. However, this fits in perfectly with my lifetime (~55 years) impression that most people are idiots. And I still don't think the correct answer is to over-control the responsible people under the assumption that they are a member of the general class of idiots and will do the wrong thing. Just stomp the idiots flat when they act out and go on with things. The problem -- and there really is one -- is that people are constantly allowed to get away with being dangerously irresponsible. I'd like to see that solved. With a bullet.
The only way you won't have drinking and driving..is to not allow public places to serve alcohol
Absolutely not true. I don't drink and drive; yet I do drink, and I also drive. Ask yourself, how did that situation manage to come into being? (and no, I've never engaged in drinking and driving -- I'm not a reformed so-and-so.) Furthermore, there are other ways to encourage compliance. Like sentencing the idiots to a quick and inexpensive death when they drink and drive. I suspect that might have a somewhat remedial effect.
Heck, we even have drive through daiquiri shops here where I live, and trust me, those things are high octane beverages. Then again, we also have "to go cups" here too...so that you can take your drink with you out the door when you leave the bar.
None of this says that the daiquiri or the to-go container from the bar is now reasonably to be consumed by a driver, though. The obvious take is that the passenger can drink a fair bit without much (or any) risk to anyone; the driver cannot.
Look, it's just like kitchen knives: That they are present in the kitchen is a not-so-tacit social constant that derives from the activity of cooking. It isn't a blanket authorization to stab one's dinner guests.
Nope. It's a constitutionally authorized republic with democratically elected representatives. Which is not at all what you said. It starts with the constitution, which defines a republic form of government (federally explicit, step-by-step, and state-wise by power-backed guarantee), and then further provides for democratic selection of the representatives themselves by the citizens -- but not of the laws.
nor does it imply constitution, separation of powers, federalism etc
Well, no, again. The constitution is the top of the implication chain. It then specifies the republic. And the separation of powers. And what small portions of the process are democratic, and the large ones that are not. It isn't democracy that implies anything -- democracy is a low level consequence, where and when it is constitutionally defined within the bounds of the republic.
Why some Americans insist on calling that "republic and not a democracy", when the world "republic" is largely orthogonal to "democracy", [clip], is beyond me.
I see that. Luckily, it isn't beyond "some Americans" who actually understand how the system was designed and specified, and it wasn't beyond the founders, either... Article IV, section 4:
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
For that matter, no country in the world today is a non-representative democracy; vast majority of democracies have a constitution (sometimes implicit); and quite a few are federations.
No, but I do take advantage of the fact we have establishments that have large parking lots for you to drive to, stop in and drink at.
I think it is rather obvious that the implication for a responsible, sane citizen is not that an individual driver can get out, become impaired, and then drive; it is that a passenger can become impaired, the driver can abstain, and thus everyone is considerably more likely to get home, and without the driver committing vehicular assault, or murder. It is also possible that the parking lot can serve the employees, people wishing to dance, to socialize, to have a meeting over a cold soda, etc. The fact that an establishment serves alcohol in no way says that one might only be interested in going there if one actually wants to drink alcohol.
It is a bit of hypocrisy to have places you are encouraged to drive to...and drink at...and not think people are going to drink then drive?
Hmm. Someone has been encouraging you to drink and drive? Who?
If you don't want people drinking and driving...why not ban having establishments that serve people outside the home?
Well obviously, because the one doesn't actually imply the other. The idea -- generally speaking -- is that society expects, and rightly so, that we will behave honorably and reasonably, and so we don't need to be restrained prior to us doing anything wrong. If one does something wrong, like drink, then drive, we have laws contingent upon such misbehavior. There is no particular need to penalize the people who sensibly patronize establishments that sell alcohol.
If it were up to me (it's not), I'd prefer to have the issue balanced quite sharply upon personal responsibility. Someone drinks and drives, we kill them. Preferably right there on the side of the road when they blow an over-limit BAC. OTOH, you get shitfaced, and ride as a passenger, that's fine as long as you don't interfere with the driver (and in which case, the driver should obviously stop and throw you out, and then call the cops.) Active drinking and drugging in a vehicle... I don't think that can be described as safe unless one isolates the driver from the party using an armored partition, in which case, ok, fine, have at it.
Personally speaking, if they day ever comes when a drunk driver injures any member of my family, or even a close friend, I'm afraid I may be in severe legal trouble before all accounts are settled. But the drunk will no longer be a problem for society, so there's that.
Is not it a good thing, when there is no need for night vision?
You have not demonstrated "no need" for night vision. Only a perfectly illuminated region with zero shadow area or no darkness-related risk factors (both non-existent) can satisfy the "no need" criterion. I have driven on roadways in many city areas that are positively swamped with lights, and they don't even come near the level of illumination I'd require to be willing to turn off my headlights. Even so, there are many costs for that lighting: Monetary; pollution wise due to energy consumption; social and educational injuries due to light pollution; materials waste for assembly of the poles, lights, power systems; loss of productivity and/or safety and/or security because of treasure spent when it is needed elsewhere at multiple levels. Finally, headlights, running lights, and flashlights seem to do an excellent job when those are what are employed, leaving a very strong question lying on the table as to why one needs streetlights at all... a question I've not yet encountered a satisfactory answer to. And then there is personal vehicle mounted FLIR, which adds a level of perception previously unavailable, and which enormously increases safety without taking other people's money, blinding them, requiring road level infrastructure, etc.
First off, "legitimately" and "legally" are not synonyms.
Frist off, I didn't say they were, lol. However, in the case of copyright and patent law, as applied to the issues I was talking about, they do in fact coincide -- because the laws in place are entirely allowable and within the limits and conditions set upon the legislature by the constitution. Therefore, legitimacy on the part of any entity under US law in this regard requires compliance with the relevant laws. No matter what you think of them.
Copyright law has been extended unjustly
In our system of government, the limits -- if any -- are set first by the constitution, and second by the legislature(s.) This is the precise path that has been followed; I have never heard an argument that revealed any failure to comply with these limits. As long as those limits are complied with, then the legislation is, by definition, legitimate -- because that's how the system works and was designed to work. "Just" action here is a matter of the legislatures doing what it is they are allowed to do by the system. Which they are doing. You can choose to work to change the system, and if you succeed, you can redefine what all that means -- but in the meantime, things are as they are, and it's legal, legitimate, constitutional, and entirely proper. It simply may not be optimum (and I'd immediately agree that it isn't, if that were simply the argument you were making.)
I agree with you that these periods could be shorter and still comply with the constitutional requirements, but the legislature, the constitution, and the judiciary are not required to make minimum compliance the law. So the only legitimate paths here, and I use the word "legitimate" very carefully, is to either get the constitution changed (ideal, but very difficult), or get the legislation changed (still difficult.) Either one will be a pitched battle against established interests and during which any violation of the law will directly create an adversary out of the enforcement arms of the government, which I would advise against, for as we know, they have all the power in such cases.
Personally, my opinion is that we should roll back copyright terms to the original constitutional limits
There are no "original constitutional limits." You're under a false impression here. Perhaps you mean "earlier legislative limits."
patents for software should be non-existent
I'm inclined to wish this were the case, but (a) creating original software is definitely invention, and (b) that makes it fair game if the legislature so decides.
Second, you're using the misleading term, "IP rights", which conflates three completely separate legal domains; trademark law, patent law, and copyright law. Since each domain is treated very differently in virtually all jurisdictions, they should each be treated separately in any discussion.
No. The use is entirely appropriate in this context. IP rights precisely incorporate the root issues at hand when copying IP is the subject matter. Doesn't matter if IP rights also apply to other things, which of course they do.
To sum up, your conclusion is wrong because it's based on a faulty understanding of the law.
You've not demonstrated anything of the sort, or even hinted at it. I invite you to do so, if in fact you can identify anything about IP law -- or other parts of my position -- that I misunderstand. I should warn you, though, that as an author, an owner of a literary agency and consequently an almost daily auditor of author's and publisher's contracts for many years, and as a rather dedicated fan and student of the constitution... you're not too likely to find any chinks in my position. But feel free to try. I welcome any improvement in my understanding that might result.
All too many people zip around there with the attitude of, "Lights? I don't need no stinking lights!" especially if it's dark and/or raining.
This is not an inherent or unavoidable problem. Appropriate enforcement (that'll be $1000 fine, thank you, or jail) will take care of that in very short order.
But it's helpful around junctions and more built-up areas, and there can be cyclists, pedestrians and even horses on A roads.
These situations are adequately addressed by headlights. However, if you were *really* concerned, you'd invest in a FLIR system -- immeasurably better for your safety, and that of others, than any imaginable streetlight system -- even better than daylight.
In Montana, when during a short and unusual period of rationality we had somewhat unlimited daytime driving speeds, nighttime driving was still constrained to relatively low speeds because there is no safe driving regime that includes over-driving one's headlights. And while during the day it was kind of difficult to get a ticket when driving reasonably, at night, they could nearly hang you at the side of the road if you stepped out of line. IMHO, that was driving heaven. Accidents declined below Montana's previous levels, and other than gas milage, the side effects were pretty much uniformly positive.
Personally, we (my family) bought a relatively high-powered sports car capable of long-term high speed runs, and intentionally focused on traveling during the day, as one got to the destination faster, the driving was a lot more fun, concentration was better as more things happen faster, and said concentration, easier or not, didn't have to be maintained for as long a period.
As an aside: Daytime driving is safer here because the animals generally keep their heads down or they get shot off by our not very lovable rednecks. Often heard here: "Wanna go bust some 'dawgs?" This is a euphemism for going out and "popping" prairie dogs, and anything else that might show its eyes or ears, with a high powered rifle. This is about as popular as drinking. and often the behaviors are combined. Anyway, it leads directly to a very cautious daytime wild animal population.
Alas, the feds applied significant pressure by threatening to withdraw highway funds, our state legislators invented nonsensical justifications to accommodate the idiot feds without exactly looking like they were accommodating them, we lost our driving paradise, accident rates went right back up, and there you have it.
There is NO reason for so much street lighting apart from ONE the dang coppers are not doing their jobs so the only way of slowing the crims down is to make them more visable
Those same streetlights create pools of shadow, and they are far more advantageous to criminals intent on doing personal harm than a directable flashlight, or a consistent level of illumination, even when that illumination is very low. This has always been true, but with the advent of FLIR capabilities, there is now no way to hide in the shadows. Many cops already have FLIR in the car even in my rural ara; you can too, it's about $5k right now, I think. I have it in mine. Seeing deer and people and other objects self-illuminating much further down the road than any rational headlight can reach is a huge safety advantage, and is in no way comparable to the general lighting provided by streetlights, where said deer and people are illuminated at the same levels as everything else. FLIR is passive, too, so it helps to return our natural night skies to ourselves and our kids.
Streelights provide ambient light, that give you a general view of the road.
Why is it that so many communities get along just fine without this "general view of the road"? It's because you don't actually need any such thing. And because that general illumination also contracts your pupils, which in turn reduces your night vision, which in turn raises your risk.
Drive at a reasonable speed, don't overdrive your headlights, and pay attention. Simple.
Because headlights only light up what is in front of a car, not what it to the side of it.
Unless you have an extremely unusual vehicle, your vehicle cannot follow a path perpendicular to your headlight beams. If there is a vehicle keeping pace with you in the lane you plan to enter into to your right or left, you will know it is there by its own headlights. If there is not such a vehicle, then traveling for a moment ensures that the lane is clear.
You also have to account for unsafe driving, which is more likely and more dangerous where the road is packed.
As long as "unsafe" doesn't include "driving without headlights", no, you don't. The physics and logistics of the situation take care of themselves. You need to ask yourself: How is it that so many communities do entirely without these concepts of yours, and yet remain accident free? Are those people inherently better drivers due to some local magical effect, or are they simply driving better because the situation doesn't allow them to depend on exterior lighting (and for that matter, doesn't screw up their night vision with it, either)?
Some lighting to denote the central reservation (LED, doesn't have to be bright) would be enough for those drivers with knackered headlights that don't illuminate fully.
No, the problem is just as bad here on the plains. Our roads have bumps too, braking causes vehicles to dip and rebound, acceleration causes them to rise and fall back, you can't tell the difference between a focused beam sweep and a highbeam flash, and the whole thing is significantly distracting when you really need to be paying attention to other issues, such as the facts that your iris is now contracted more than you're used to, your vision into darker areas more impacted, and your risk factors are now higher.
Street lights are an old idea, now essentially or at least potentially obsolete. Cars: uniformly mount headlights and backup lights. People: can carry flashlights, which are much better than streetlights, as they put the light anywhere you want it, instead of in a fixed position that provides guaranteed hiding places and uncertain passage within fixed shadows. Streetlights are hugely overrated, and there are many communities, as I'm sure you know from your dark sky research, that get along just fine without them, likewise nighttime area lighting, etc.
Not in general, no, but in the specific case where the creator of intellectual property, or their legal agents, puts rights to that IP on the market at a specific price, and copies are made and used against the will of the IP owner and without legitimate ownership of the related rights of that IP, copying is wholly illegal, legitimately punishable, definitely counter to the authorized and intended structure of our society, and often, if not always, injures the IP holder financially either directly or indirectly, as the violation of those rights extends via any portion of a network of violators. It is this last concern -- which is also the basis for society assigning these rights -- that leads to the concept of theft: the financial injury.
If IP, or specific rights to it, is put on the market, and one is unwilling to meet the asking price, the only action available which is assured not to injure the IP holder financially by violating rights they legitimately hold and which otherwise may very well have brought them significant financial advantage is to refuse to utilize the IP in any manner that impinges upon those rights.
We live in a country where rights to IP are given value by a constitutional provision that specifically allows for patent and copyright, with the stated intention of fostering innovation by virtue of seeing to it that IP rights and recompense for same are formally supported by the system.
The relevant portion:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Congress duly followed up with a battery of IP law that does exactly that.
Consequently, the idea that "copying is not stealing" is invalid -- when copying in violation of rights of the IP holder's, you are taking rights you do not own, against the laws that say you are forbidden to do so and specifically assign them to someone else, and which specify the penalties for such takings, in accordance with the highest law of the land: the US Constitution.
If you want that to change, you can say that "copying should not be considered stealing and then work to have legislation changed accordingly. But you've got a heck of an uphill battle -- especially today, when IP represents more of the US economy's value than it ever has previously. Pretending that the situation you want already exists is counter productive to your goals -- it just marks you as a crazy person or someone so immature and unfamiliar with how the system actually works that you can be safely ignored.
I would also remind you that these same laws are what protect open source software, empower the GPL, etc. Don't know if you are a fan of those things or a true IP rights anarchist, but it's worth mentioning in any case.
We have a democracy. We have voting and majority rule.
We have a republic. We have voting for representatives and representative, judicial and executive rule. We have a constitution that specifies these things, and instructs the government that each state government must also conform to this structure.
...unless you live somewhere other than the US, of course, where you may indeed have a democracy.
No. It really doesn't -- I've heard them many times, and the telephone audio sounds pretty much like every other phone, like over-compressed trash. The very minimum for "decent voice audio" requires *everything* between about 300 Hz and 3 KHz to reproduced accurately. That's the old POTS analog phone standard, by the way. And it would be lovely if it were more like 100 Hz to about 6 KHz - tons more nuance available with that kind of range.
It's worth it, though -- horrible audio is why I don't own an iPhone, just an iPad and an old dumbphone. Cellphone audio quality is simply horrible; whoever decided that the utter crap they call audio was "good enough" deserves to be taken out and shot. And considering how good audio compression is these days, there's very little excuse for it. Yeah, there are several points that have to support it, but we've seen lots of things added to the phone network, decent audio quality could easily have been one of them at just about any time.
We're already using iPads for this, and more. Our AV system is based around a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro, which has an extensive web interface hosted on its own web server that allows control over pretty much everything it does, including selecting av sources, room eq, etc. Very nice interface, actually. Because it's a web interface, there's no "app" required other than a web browser.
I also have the room lighting remote controlled with a web interface using a Synaccess network AC power controller, basically we can do almost anything we want from anywhere -- as our home is basically a large open loft design, that means controlling the AV system from the bedroom, too. The AV7005 brings up my MA700 power amplifier array as part of the power-on sequence, also puts them in standby when shut down.
We use a smallish secondary LCD monitor rather than burn hours off the projector for things like streaming audio, also controlled by IR. You can select between them using the AV7005 web interface, and they power up and down based upon having valid input or not, so it all works together very nicely.
This stuff isn't ultra high-end, it's more mid- to mid-high, but these capabilities are trickling down to the broad consumer price ranges just as everything does. Pioneer has some nice remote iPad AV control stuff too, implemented as an actual app.
The iPad itself makes for an awesome control surface.
Your assumptions are wrong. I'm in my 50's and I'm going by personal experience with (by today's standards) quite a few relationships. I view most relationship studies as absolutely worthless, except where they manage to spread their crazy ideas around. Women are unique individuals one and all, and every relationship is as different as a snowflake... but they're still all carrying huge underlying similarities just as snowflakes do, and over the long haul, the vast majority lean towards security first and foremost and etc., as per the above short list.
It's not about how you pursue any one relationship; it's about how they generally turn out because of these low-level but powerful and ultimately dominating sets of priorities. If you can't (or won't) provide security, you're going to be rejoining the ranks of the single. If you have money but don't provide security, same thing. Etc., on down the list. Sex may be one of the openers for a relationship, but it sure as heck isn't going to close or hold the deal, and porn is just a sideshow for general sexuality for the vast majority of people in relationships. If it isn't, watch out, because something is seriously awry. There's nothing wrong with porn, but there is something very unusual about any relationship where porn is important.
It's not about political correctness
Yes, actually. a great deal of it is. Things are as they are, and no amount of psychobabble will turn that around. Time, however, will -- there is so much broken about today's male and female gender roles today it'd take a book to really lay it all out. Bottom line, we'll be back to ladies and gentlemen trying to look good for each other soon enough. In the meantime, the current generation is in one very sad place, and I'm very sorry for them.
This probably explains why Cosmopolitan thinks
You're doing it wrong. Cosmopolitan doesn't think anything. It's engaged in selling ads by attracting the low-functioning and feeding them utter pap -- no more, no less. It's a complete and utter waste of paper. And that's being too kind.
I'm curious... being a basement dwelling creature without any hope of female companionsship, what do women get off on, porn wise?
The same things they always have, and in this order: Security, money, power, looks, personality, sexuality. Exceptions certainly exist and you should be watching for them, but that's the way to bet. This applies to porn, to real life, to movies, you name it. Male-female hard-wiring is radically different, and no amount of political correctness will ever suffice to change this.
Actually there is a documented correlation between prayer and recovery times in hospitals, which is why every hospital has a chapel.
Please cite this correlation if you wish to be taken seriously. The scientific studies I am aware of show no correlation.
As for chapels, that's simple: Every hospital has a chapel because 80% of the nation's citizens are superstitious.
And I wasn't aware that science has definitively proven there is no afterlife. Perhaps you can link me to that study.
There's no way to prove a negative. Science is no more responsible to prove "there is no afterlife" than it is to prove "there is no easter bunny." You think there is an afterlife? Fine, You prove it: you're the one looking for the Easter Bunny here. And the interesting thing is you haven't found it, even though you claim it is real.
I believe your confusing blind belief in the inverse of religion with science.
No, I'm simply showing you a complete lack of belief because you, religion in general, and reality have been working together unanimously and harmoniously to show me absolutely nothing that backs up your claims of superstition. You want to prove your case, demo your all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent, loving god? No problem: Show me a miracle. I'll accept world peace, which I will expect by Monday. If that's too difficult for Jebus and company, I would also accept winning a large lottery by Monday, as I've not entered any such thing, and winning would therefore definitely be miraculous. I promise to use the proceeds only for good.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? How about basic civics class? What do YOU think authorizes the government to exist? And tells it how it should constitute (<--hint!) itself? Oh, and there's this insignificant little bit:
You're just rolling me now, aren't you? In that case, lol, IHBT. If not... dude, go find a high school and sit in on a civics class, seriously.
No, I live in NE Montana. My town, pop. ~5000, has about 20 churches, about 20 licensed drinking establishments, and one amazingly rocking liquor store. I am all for drinking and/or drugging, if one chooses to. I am all for driving, too -- I consider it a wonderful pastime as well as a functional one. But combining the two undertakings -- absolutely not. Nor drinking and carrying weapons for any purpose, also common here.
I am under no such illusion. However, this fits in perfectly with my lifetime (~55 years) impression that most people are idiots. And I still don't think the correct answer is to over-control the responsible people under the assumption that they are a member of the general class of idiots and will do the wrong thing. Just stomp the idiots flat when they act out and go on with things. The problem -- and there really is one -- is that people are constantly allowed to get away with being dangerously irresponsible. I'd like to see that solved. With a bullet.
Absolutely not true. I don't drink and drive; yet I do drink, and I also drive. Ask yourself, how did that situation manage to come into being? (and no, I've never engaged in drinking and driving -- I'm not a reformed so-and-so.) Furthermore, there are other ways to encourage compliance. Like sentencing the idiots to a quick and inexpensive death when they drink and drive. I suspect that might have a somewhat remedial effect.
None of this says that the daiquiri or the to-go container from the bar is now reasonably to be consumed by a driver, though. The obvious take is that the passenger can drink a fair bit without much (or any) risk to anyone; the driver cannot.
Look, it's just like kitchen knives: That they are present in the kitchen is a not-so-tacit social constant that derives from the activity of cooking. It isn't a blanket authorization to stab one's dinner guests.
Nope. It's a constitutionally authorized republic with democratically elected representatives. Which is not at all what you said. It starts with the constitution, which defines a republic form of government (federally explicit, step-by-step, and state-wise by power-backed guarantee), and then further provides for democratic selection of the representatives themselves by the citizens -- but not of the laws.
Well, no, again. The constitution is the top of the implication chain. It then specifies the republic. And the separation of powers. And what small portions of the process are democratic, and the large ones that are not. It isn't democracy that implies anything -- democracy is a low level consequence, where and when it is constitutionally defined within the bounds of the republic.
I see that. Luckily, it isn't beyond "some Americans" who actually understand how the system was designed and specified, and it wasn't beyond the founders, either... Article IV, section 4:
Irrelevant to our situation or my comments.
I think it is rather obvious that the implication for a responsible, sane citizen is not that an individual driver can get out, become impaired, and then drive; it is that a passenger can become impaired, the driver can abstain, and thus everyone is considerably more likely to get home, and without the driver committing vehicular assault, or murder. It is also possible that the parking lot can serve the employees, people wishing to dance, to socialize, to have a meeting over a cold soda, etc. The fact that an establishment serves alcohol in no way says that one might only be interested in going there if one actually wants to drink alcohol.
Hmm. Someone has been encouraging you to drink and drive? Who?
Well obviously, because the one doesn't actually imply the other. The idea -- generally speaking -- is that society expects, and rightly so, that we will behave honorably and reasonably, and so we don't need to be restrained prior to us doing anything wrong. If one does something wrong, like drink, then drive, we have laws contingent upon such misbehavior. There is no particular need to penalize the people who sensibly patronize establishments that sell alcohol.
If it were up to me (it's not), I'd prefer to have the issue balanced quite sharply upon personal responsibility. Someone drinks and drives, we kill them. Preferably right there on the side of the road when they blow an over-limit BAC. OTOH, you get shitfaced, and ride as a passenger, that's fine as long as you don't interfere with the driver (and in which case, the driver should obviously stop and throw you out, and then call the cops.) Active drinking and drugging in a vehicle... I don't think that can be described as safe unless one isolates the driver from the party using an armored partition, in which case, ok, fine, have at it.
Personally speaking, if they day ever comes when a drunk driver injures any member of my family, or even a close friend, I'm afraid I may be in severe legal trouble before all accounts are settled. But the drunk will no longer be a problem for society, so there's that.
You have not demonstrated "no need" for night vision. Only a perfectly illuminated region with zero shadow area or no darkness-related risk factors (both non-existent) can satisfy the "no need" criterion. I have driven on roadways in many city areas that are positively swamped with lights, and they don't even come near the level of illumination I'd require to be willing to turn off my headlights. Even so, there are many costs for that lighting: Monetary; pollution wise due to energy consumption; social and educational injuries due to light pollution; materials waste for assembly of the poles, lights, power systems; loss of productivity and/or safety and/or security because of treasure spent when it is needed elsewhere at multiple levels. Finally, headlights, running lights, and flashlights seem to do an excellent job when those are what are employed, leaving a very strong question lying on the table as to why one needs streetlights at all... a question I've not yet encountered a satisfactory answer to. And then there is personal vehicle mounted FLIR, which adds a level of perception previously unavailable, and which enormously increases safety without taking other people's money, blinding them, requiring road level infrastructure, etc.
Frist off, I didn't say they were, lol. However, in the case of copyright and patent law, as applied to the issues I was talking about, they do in fact coincide -- because the laws in place are entirely allowable and within the limits and conditions set upon the legislature by the constitution. Therefore, legitimacy on the part of any entity under US law in this regard requires compliance with the relevant laws. No matter what you think of them.
In our system of government, the limits -- if any -- are set first by the constitution, and second by the legislature(s.) This is the precise path that has been followed; I have never heard an argument that revealed any failure to comply with these limits. As long as those limits are complied with, then the legislation is, by definition, legitimate -- because that's how the system works and was designed to work. "Just" action here is a matter of the legislatures doing what it is they are allowed to do by the system. Which they are doing. You can choose to work to change the system, and if you succeed, you can redefine what all that means -- but in the meantime, things are as they are, and it's legal, legitimate, constitutional, and entirely proper. It simply may not be optimum (and I'd immediately agree that it isn't, if that were simply the argument you were making.)
I agree with you that these periods could be shorter and still comply with the constitutional requirements, but the legislature, the constitution, and the judiciary are not required to make minimum compliance the law. So the only legitimate paths here, and I use the word "legitimate" very carefully, is to either get the constitution changed (ideal, but very difficult), or get the legislation changed (still difficult.) Either one will be a pitched battle against established interests and during which any violation of the law will directly create an adversary out of the enforcement arms of the government, which I would advise against, for as we know, they have all the power in such cases.
There are no "original constitutional limits." You're under a false impression here. Perhaps you mean "earlier legislative limits."
I'm inclined to wish this were the case, but (a) creating original software is definitely invention, and (b) that makes it fair game if the legislature so decides.
No. The use is entirely appropriate in this context. IP rights precisely incorporate the root issues at hand when copying IP is the subject matter. Doesn't matter if IP rights also apply to other things, which of course they do.
You've not demonstrated anything of the sort, or even hinted at it. I invite you to do so, if in fact you can identify anything about IP law -- or other parts of my position -- that I misunderstand. I should warn you, though, that as an author, an owner of a literary agency and consequently an almost daily auditor of author's and publisher's contracts for many years, and as a rather dedicated fan and student of the constitution... you're not too likely to find any chinks in my position. But feel free to try. I welcome any improvement in my understanding that might result.
I presume that was humor, but just in case: You do not have to drink outside your home.
This is not an inherent or unavoidable problem. Appropriate enforcement (that'll be $1000 fine, thank you, or jail) will take care of that in very short order.
These situations are adequately addressed by headlights. However, if you were *really* concerned, you'd invest in a FLIR system -- immeasurably better for your safety, and that of others, than any imaginable streetlight system -- even better than daylight.
In Montana, when during a short and unusual period of rationality we had somewhat unlimited daytime driving speeds, nighttime driving was still constrained to relatively low speeds because there is no safe driving regime that includes over-driving one's headlights. And while during the day it was kind of difficult to get a ticket when driving reasonably, at night, they could nearly hang you at the side of the road if you stepped out of line. IMHO, that was driving heaven. Accidents declined below Montana's previous levels, and other than gas milage, the side effects were pretty much uniformly positive.
Personally, we (my family) bought a relatively high-powered sports car capable of long-term high speed runs, and intentionally focused on traveling during the day, as one got to the destination faster, the driving was a lot more fun, concentration was better as more things happen faster, and said concentration, easier or not, didn't have to be maintained for as long a period.
As an aside: Daytime driving is safer here because the animals generally keep their heads down or they get shot off by our not very lovable rednecks. Often heard here: "Wanna go bust some 'dawgs?" This is a euphemism for going out and "popping" prairie dogs, and anything else that might show its eyes or ears, with a high powered rifle. This is about as popular as drinking. and often the behaviors are combined. Anyway, it leads directly to a very cautious daytime wild animal population.
Alas, the feds applied significant pressure by threatening to withdraw highway funds, our state legislators invented nonsensical justifications to accommodate the idiot feds without exactly looking like they were accommodating them, we lost our driving paradise, accident rates went right back up, and there you have it.
Those same streetlights create pools of shadow, and they are far more advantageous to criminals intent on doing personal harm than a directable flashlight, or a consistent level of illumination, even when that illumination is very low. This has always been true, but with the advent of FLIR capabilities, there is now no way to hide in the shadows. Many cops already have FLIR in the car even in my rural ara; you can too, it's about $5k right now, I think. I have it in mine. Seeing deer and people and other objects self-illuminating much further down the road than any rational headlight can reach is a huge safety advantage, and is in no way comparable to the general lighting provided by streetlights, where said deer and people are illuminated at the same levels as everything else. FLIR is passive, too, so it helps to return our natural night skies to ourselves and our kids.
Some places don't have "annual inspections."
Why is it that so many communities get along just fine without this "general view of the road"? It's because you don't actually need any such thing. And because that general illumination also contracts your pupils, which in turn reduces your night vision, which in turn raises your risk.
Drive at a reasonable speed, don't overdrive your headlights, and pay attention. Simple.
Unless you have an extremely unusual vehicle, your vehicle cannot follow a path perpendicular to your headlight beams. If there is a vehicle keeping pace with you in the lane you plan to enter into to your right or left, you will know it is there by its own headlights. If there is not such a vehicle, then traveling for a moment ensures that the lane is clear.
As long as "unsafe" doesn't include "driving without headlights", no, you don't. The physics and logistics of the situation take care of themselves. You need to ask yourself: How is it that so many communities do entirely without these concepts of yours, and yet remain accident free? Are those people inherently better drivers due to some local magical effect, or are they simply driving better because the situation doesn't allow them to depend on exterior lighting (and for that matter, doesn't screw up their night vision with it, either)?
Reflectors. Zero energy use. That's all you need.
No, the problem is just as bad here on the plains. Our roads have bumps too, braking causes vehicles to dip and rebound, acceleration causes them to rise and fall back, you can't tell the difference between a focused beam sweep and a highbeam flash, and the whole thing is significantly distracting when you really need to be paying attention to other issues, such as the facts that your iris is now contracted more than you're used to, your vision into darker areas more impacted, and your risk factors are now higher.
Street lights are an old idea, now essentially or at least potentially obsolete. Cars: uniformly mount headlights and backup lights. People: can carry flashlights, which are much better than streetlights, as they put the light anywhere you want it, instead of in a fixed position that provides guaranteed hiding places and uncertain passage within fixed shadows. Streetlights are hugely overrated, and there are many communities, as I'm sure you know from your dark sky research, that get along just fine without them, likewise nighttime area lighting, etc.
Not to mention that areas that cling to this outmoded technology loses sight of all this.
Not in general, no, but in the specific case where the creator of intellectual property, or their legal agents, puts rights to that IP on the market at a specific price, and copies are made and used against the will of the IP owner and without legitimate ownership of the related rights of that IP, copying is wholly illegal, legitimately punishable, definitely counter to the authorized and intended structure of our society, and often, if not always, injures the IP holder financially either directly or indirectly, as the violation of those rights extends via any portion of a network of violators. It is this last concern -- which is also the basis for society assigning these rights -- that leads to the concept of theft: the financial injury.
If IP, or specific rights to it, is put on the market, and one is unwilling to meet the asking price, the only action available which is assured not to injure the IP holder financially by violating rights they legitimately hold and which otherwise may very well have brought them significant financial advantage is to refuse to utilize the IP in any manner that impinges upon those rights.
We live in a country where rights to IP are given value by a constitutional provision that specifically allows for patent and copyright, with the stated intention of fostering innovation by virtue of seeing to it that IP rights and recompense for same are formally supported by the system.
The relevant portion:
Congress duly followed up with a battery of IP law that does exactly that.
Consequently, the idea that "copying is not stealing" is invalid -- when copying in violation of rights of the IP holder's, you are taking rights you do not own, against the laws that say you are forbidden to do so and specifically assign them to someone else, and which specify the penalties for such takings, in accordance with the highest law of the land: the US Constitution.
If you want that to change, you can say that "copying should not be considered stealing and then work to have legislation changed accordingly. But you've got a heck of an uphill battle -- especially today, when IP represents more of the US economy's value than it ever has previously. Pretending that the situation you want already exists is counter productive to your goals -- it just marks you as a crazy person or someone so immature and unfamiliar with how the system actually works that you can be safely ignored.
I would also remind you that these same laws are what protect open source software, empower the GPL, etc. Don't know if you are a fan of those things or a true IP rights anarchist, but it's worth mentioning in any case.
We have a republic. We have voting for representatives and representative, judicial and executive rule. We have a constitution that specifies these things, and instructs the government that each state government must also conform to this structure.
No. It really doesn't -- I've heard them many times, and the telephone audio sounds pretty much like every other phone, like over-compressed trash. The very minimum for "decent voice audio" requires *everything* between about 300 Hz and 3 KHz to reproduced accurately. That's the old POTS analog phone standard, by the way. And it would be lovely if it were more like 100 Hz to about 6 KHz - tons more nuance available with that kind of range.
It's worth it, though -- horrible audio is why I don't own an iPhone, just an iPad and an old dumbphone. Cellphone audio quality is simply horrible; whoever decided that the utter crap they call audio was "good enough" deserves to be taken out and shot. And considering how good audio compression is these days, there's very little excuse for it. Yeah, there are several points that have to support it, but we've seen lots of things added to the phone network, decent audio quality could easily have been one of them at just about any time.
We're already using iPads for this, and more. Our AV system is based around a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro, which has an extensive web interface hosted on its own web server that allows control over pretty much everything it does, including selecting av sources, room eq, etc. Very nice interface, actually. Because it's a web interface, there's no "app" required other than a web browser.
I also have the room lighting remote controlled with a web interface using a Synaccess network AC power controller, basically we can do almost anything we want from anywhere -- as our home is basically a large open loft design, that means controlling the AV system from the bedroom, too. The AV7005 brings up my MA700 power amplifier array as part of the power-on sequence, also puts them in standby when shut down.
We use a smallish secondary LCD monitor rather than burn hours off the projector for things like streaming audio, also controlled by IR. You can select between them using the AV7005 web interface, and they power up and down based upon having valid input or not, so it all works together very nicely.
This stuff isn't ultra high-end, it's more mid- to mid-high, but these capabilities are trickling down to the broad consumer price ranges just as everything does. Pioneer has some nice remote iPad AV control stuff too, implemented as an actual app.
The iPad itself makes for an awesome control surface.
Your assumptions are wrong. I'm in my 50's and I'm going by personal experience with (by today's standards) quite a few relationships. I view most relationship studies as absolutely worthless, except where they manage to spread their crazy ideas around. Women are unique individuals one and all, and every relationship is as different as a snowflake... but they're still all carrying huge underlying similarities just as snowflakes do, and over the long haul, the vast majority lean towards security first and foremost and etc., as per the above short list.
It's not about how you pursue any one relationship; it's about how they generally turn out because of these low-level but powerful and ultimately dominating sets of priorities. If you can't (or won't) provide security, you're going to be rejoining the ranks of the single. If you have money but don't provide security, same thing. Etc., on down the list. Sex may be one of the openers for a relationship, but it sure as heck isn't going to close or hold the deal, and porn is just a sideshow for general sexuality for the vast majority of people in relationships. If it isn't, watch out, because something is seriously awry. There's nothing wrong with porn, but there is something very unusual about any relationship where porn is important.
Yes, actually. a great deal of it is. Things are as they are, and no amount of psychobabble will turn that around. Time, however, will -- there is so much broken about today's male and female gender roles today it'd take a book to really lay it all out. Bottom line, we'll be back to ladies and gentlemen trying to look good for each other soon enough. In the meantime, the current generation is in one very sad place, and I'm very sorry for them.
You're doing it wrong. Cosmopolitan doesn't think anything. It's engaged in selling ads by attracting the low-functioning and feeding them utter pap -- no more, no less. It's a complete and utter waste of paper. And that's being too kind.
Yes, ok, fine, but... where's my flying car?
The same things they always have, and in this order: Security, money, power, looks, personality, sexuality. Exceptions certainly exist and you should be watching for them, but that's the way to bet. This applies to porn, to real life, to movies, you name it. Male-female hard-wiring is radically different, and no amount of political correctness will ever suffice to change this.
Please cite this correlation if you wish to be taken seriously. The scientific studies I am aware of show no correlation.
As for chapels, that's simple: Every hospital has a chapel because 80% of the nation's citizens are superstitious.
There's no way to prove a negative. Science is no more responsible to prove "there is no afterlife" than it is to prove "there is no easter bunny." You think there is an afterlife? Fine, You prove it: you're the one looking for the Easter Bunny here. And the interesting thing is you haven't found it, even though you claim it is real.
No, I'm simply showing you a complete lack of belief because you, religion in general, and reality have been working together unanimously and harmoniously to show me absolutely nothing that backs up your claims of superstition. You want to prove your case, demo your all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent, loving god? No problem: Show me a miracle. I'll accept world peace, which I will expect by Monday. If that's too difficult for Jebus and company, I would also accept winning a large lottery by Monday, as I've not entered any such thing, and winning would therefore definitely be miraculous. I promise to use the proceeds only for good.
Otherwise, religion is bunk.