>taxpapers foot the bill for 100% of his hospital costs.
You're assuming that all defaulted costs actually get paid, let alone paid by taxes. Long before the "taxpayers" get the bill, the cost will be settled relative to operating cost, not the profit-driven markup that was originally billed. That still sucks for the practitioner/institution, but it's not the the same as having it paid straight from the Treasury.
In the big picture it really doesn't matter what you do. Unless you're part of figuring out how to make the species independent of the Sun sometime in the next 5 billion years, nothing you do is important.
And when they die on the sidewalk outside the hospital, I suppose neither the hospital nor the city should be responsible for cleaning up and disposing of the carcass, right?
What is the evidence that he was literally "playing frogger" as opposed to just seriously foolish extreme jaywalking? The police chief says he yelled "Go."
On that, we get "frogger?" And how does this police chief know that anyway?
I see people doing this same crazy thing, that is crossing 4 or 6 lanes of traffic when the ambient speed is in the 50 mph range, and I call it "Frogger" whenever I see it. But I also can recognize that these people are crossing the road because the alternatives can add a half mile or more to their walk, not because they are playing a game.
I'd like to hear the guy's own thoughts about he was doing. Playing frogger or just trying to get across a dangerous road (which is "playing frogger" either way).
It's enumerated as a defense in section 107. Its purpose is to establish a rough guideline for courts to use when distinguishing between fair use and infringement. It never applies to any situation except when someone is already accused of, and is making a defense in court for, copyright infringement.
To me this story is less about copyright infringement, and becomes entirely about the creepy aspect of a bunch of German lawyers and media executives being interested in, and somehow becoming aware of what goes on in a *kindergarten classroom.*
How in the hell do they even KNOW about it? What else are they snooping on, with these kindergarteners?
USA law doesn't, contrary to popular belief. "Fair use" is a tradition of *defense* against charges of copyright infringement. That's wildly different from being a law.
To be fair, a lot of people (myself included) post on alternative vehicle threads from places like Southern Arizona or Winnipeg, or people who need to routinely take 8000 mile road trips with 8 passengers 2 dogs and backcountry gear for 6 weeks, or who need to haul their horses or their boats.
Yeah, just because an alternative vehicle is inappropriate for *us* doesn't mean they are a bad idea.
You and me aren't in this group, but some people have different values, for example their car is an extension of their office, which is part of a confidence game they play with clients, which means it needs to be *impressive*. (This person should *lease*, since they can afford the depreciation on far more luxury than they could buy).
Other people need a status symbol, for their own satisfaction or to accommodate their personal shortcomings. Other people need (actually need) a heavy duty truck.
Things I need in a vehicle besides getting me from point A to point B: . Space for 2 keyboard instruments, 2 PA speakers, an equipment rack, and a dolly. . Room for 2 large dogs to stay happy for the duration of a 12 hour trip. . Points A and B in places like Whistler BC and Rocky Mountain National Park.
My 1991 Volvo wagon fills this order extremely well, but I've got 250K miles on it and I don't know how much longer she will hold up:-(
I try to look at a bigger picture. In 1950, the typical home was a 1200 sq. ft. 2-bed 1-bath. The typical family had one car. Maybe you had a phone. For entertainment, if you splurged, you had a credenza stereo. You saw the inside of a restaurant maybe twice a year. Without trying to be too precise about it, or even "adjusting for inflation" it should be easy to see how you could maintain a 1950s-style upper-middle class living on a single modest income.
FWIW, the 1950 Bel-Air had a sticker price of about $1700. A Cadillac would run you about $2700.
I think it's important to note that a family earning the median income in 1950 would probably not buy a new car. It is probably a lot more inconvenient today to not own a private car than it was in 1950 - remember that the whole idea of suburbia was still an emerging novelty and public transportation wasn't a taboo.
Also, the elephant in the room for "median or average income". To see the demand curve for the *new car market* you need to look at average incomes for groups like white college graduates and WWII veterans.
Yikes, no. My daily driver is a '91 Volvo with more than 250,000 miles on it. It still accelerates nicely, very easily keeps up with the fastest pack on the interstate, and corners like the European sedan that it is. I don't really expect it to last much longer, but I know that to replace it with anything half as nice will cost far more than I can spend.
I'd love to know what the GP considers the inherent problems with bearings valves and lifters etc. For some motors, starting seems to be quite a catastrophic event, but motors that are designed from the beginning to have frequent start/stop cycles seem to do fine.
I think you are framing the idea of TFA in terms of your own car that isn't designed the same way. Driving the car in TFA will be no different from the way you drive now, even in SF. It won't be the sketchy, panicky stopping/restarting with the key while trying to negotiate the clutch, brake and gas pedal that you seem to be envisioning.
But if the starter bendix or brushes or whatever requires an engine pull, will the fuel savings add up to the repair bill for the incredible amount of extra wear-and-tear to the starter? Obviously TFA implies a more optimized starter than what is typically used, right?
>Where do you live? It gets down to -20F where I am during the winter - frequently.
Instead of spending your money on a new car which is of an inappropriate design for your climate, perhaps you should consider moving someplace fit for human habitation.
Slashdot Mirror
>taxpapers foot the bill for 100% of his hospital costs.
You're assuming that all defaulted costs actually get paid, let alone paid by taxes.
Long before the "taxpayers" get the bill, the cost will be settled relative to operating cost, not the profit-driven markup that was originally billed. That still sucks for the practitioner/institution, but it's not the the same as having it paid straight from the Treasury.
I love how anything to the left of utterly sociopathic whackjob is "socialist ideology".
It's all variations on the same theme:
1. Be born
2. Live for a finite period
3. Die
In the big picture it really doesn't matter what you do. Unless you're part of figuring out how to make the species independent of the Sun sometime in the next 5 billion years, nothing you do is important.
I wonder how certain he is that he is paying all of his insurance premium, and that it is in no way subsidized by public money.
And when they die on the sidewalk outside the hospital, I suppose neither the hospital nor the city should be responsible for cleaning up and disposing of the carcass, right?
What is the evidence that he was literally "playing frogger" as opposed to just seriously foolish extreme jaywalking? The police chief says he yelled "Go."
On that, we get "frogger?" And how does this police chief know that anyway?
I see people doing this same crazy thing, that is crossing 4 or 6 lanes of traffic when the ambient speed is in the 50 mph range, and I call it "Frogger" whenever I see it. But I also can recognize that these people are crossing the road because the alternatives can add a half mile or more to their walk, not because they are playing a game.
I'd like to hear the guy's own thoughts about he was doing. Playing frogger or just trying to get across a dangerous road (which is "playing frogger" either way).
>It's written into Copyright law. So, shut up.
It's enumerated as a defense in section 107. Its purpose is to establish a rough guideline for courts to use when distinguishing between fair use and infringement. It never applies to any situation except when someone is already accused of, and is making a defense in court for, copyright infringement.
And who the fuck are you to tell me to "shut up?"
To me this story is less about copyright infringement, and becomes entirely about the creepy aspect of a bunch of German lawyers and media executives being interested in, and somehow becoming aware of what goes on in a *kindergarten classroom.*
How in the hell do they even KNOW about it? What else are they snooping on, with these kindergarteners?
>You assume German law has a Fair use clause?
USA law doesn't, contrary to popular belief. "Fair use" is a tradition of *defense* against charges of copyright infringement. That's wildly different from being a law.
>18 of the 22 kids in the class copied the responses verbatim from the faked answer sheet
This makes me wonder if some of them (or even *most* of them) chose the option of cheating, out of peer pressure or herd behavior.
>They think this because the people pushing net neutrality are usually the same ones pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
A question aside, can you cite any specific points of view that were suppressed by the Fairness Doctrine?
To be fair, a lot of people (myself included) post on alternative vehicle threads from places like Southern Arizona or Winnipeg, or people who need to routinely take 8000 mile road trips with 8 passengers 2 dogs and backcountry gear for 6 weeks, or who need to haul their horses or their boats.
Yeah, just because an alternative vehicle is inappropriate for *us* doesn't mean they are a bad idea.
Oh my, if you turn every intersection into "stop sign rule" you're asking for eternal gridlock!
I've started a Model T Ford with a crank... And I've ran a Type-1 VW flat-four sawmill that you started with a rip cord.
Wasn't that hard.
You and me aren't in this group, but some people have different values, for example their car is an extension of their office, which is part of a confidence game they play with clients, which means it needs to be *impressive*. (This person should *lease*, since they can afford the depreciation on far more luxury than they could buy).
Other people need a status symbol, for their own satisfaction or to accommodate their personal shortcomings. Other people need (actually need) a heavy duty truck.
Things I need in a vehicle besides getting me from point A to point B:
. Space for 2 keyboard instruments, 2 PA speakers, an equipment rack, and a dolly.
. Room for 2 large dogs to stay happy for the duration of a 12 hour trip.
. Points A and B in places like Whistler BC and Rocky Mountain National Park.
My 1991 Volvo wagon fills this order extremely well, but I've got 250K miles on it and I don't know how much longer she will hold up :-(
I try to look at a bigger picture. In 1950, the typical home was a 1200 sq. ft. 2-bed 1-bath. The typical family had one car. Maybe you had a phone. For entertainment, if you splurged, you had a credenza stereo. You saw the inside of a restaurant maybe twice a year. Without trying to be too precise about it, or even "adjusting for inflation" it should be easy to see how you could maintain a 1950s-style upper-middle class living on a single modest income.
FWIW, the 1950 Bel-Air had a sticker price of about $1700. A Cadillac would run you about $2700.
I think it's important to note that a family earning the median income in 1950 would probably not buy a new car. It is probably a lot more inconvenient today to not own a private car than it was in 1950 - remember that the whole idea of suburbia was still an emerging novelty and public transportation wasn't a taboo.
Also, the elephant in the room for "median or average income". To see the demand curve for the *new car market* you need to look at average incomes for groups like white college graduates and WWII veterans.
Yikes, no. My daily driver is a '91 Volvo with more than 250,000 miles on it. It still accelerates nicely, very easily keeps up with the fastest pack on the interstate, and corners like the European sedan that it is. I don't really expect it to last much longer, but I know that to replace it with anything half as nice will cost far more than I can spend.
I'd love to know what the GP considers the inherent problems with bearings valves and lifters etc.
For some motors, starting seems to be quite a catastrophic event, but motors that are designed from the beginning to have frequent start/stop cycles seem to do fine.
I think you are framing the idea of TFA in terms of your own car that isn't designed the same way. Driving the car in TFA will be no different from the way you drive now, even in SF. It won't be the sketchy, panicky stopping/restarting with the key while trying to negotiate the clutch, brake and gas pedal that you seem to be envisioning.
But if the starter bendix or brushes or whatever requires an engine pull, will the fuel savings add up to the repair bill for the incredible amount of extra wear-and-tear to the starter? Obviously TFA implies a more optimized starter than what is typically used, right?
Make their machines reset their passwords on boot -- to a password they don't know.
Eventually they will stop shutting them down.
Inefficiency is measured by the amount of fuel remaining in the tank at the end of a quarter mile.
>Where do you live? It gets down to -20F where I am during the winter - frequently.
Instead of spending your money on a new car which is of an inappropriate design for your climate, perhaps you should consider moving someplace fit for human habitation.
Yeah, the kind of enthusiast who air conditions his drag race car isn't exactly the penny pincher :-)
In 1982 I saw it at least 30 times from the projection booth, one of the few perks of a $3.35/hr job.