Why would it follow that because the government can prevent you from one mode of travel, it must necessarily mean it has the right to prevent you from using any of them? This presumes a false all-or-nothing dichotomy.
Because one can come up with an excuse for restricting any method of transportation if one is so inclined. Sure walking isn't very lethal, but you might be a child molester so it is in the public's interest to prevent you from having full ambulatory access - you might walk up to a child and molest it, we've already got laws like that on the books. No false dichotomy needed, just all to common scare-mongering.
Insurance is required by law to protect bystanders, not vehicle operators.
Don't go making an argument for the way things are justified by the way things are. Just because the law is one way today does not mean the law isn't fuckt up.
Here's the point again - you absolutely cannot guarantee that someone will carry insurance, it can't be done with 100% certainty. So, in this flawed model that we have today, people are going to get hurt and will never be able to recover from it through no fault of their own. However if full responsibility for insuring your own well-being rested on yourself alone, then you would have to make the conscious decision whether (and how much) you should insure your well-being and as a plus this huge drag on the economy and freedom that is insurance enforcement would be gone. That's tax money that we would all get to keep in our pockets to spend on whatever we thought most important, including possibly more insurance.
I don't want you driving around unless you assuage the risks by being insured. I promise not to do so, either- by paying my insurance and driving responsibly. There are others among us that don't do either. That's what's necessitated the laws that protect us from them.
Laws don't protect, they only punish after the fact. There will always been uninsured drivers.
You did not have the right to fly, either. That's why the TSA can bounce you for non-cooperation at an airport.
That's what the TSA claims. Give it a few more years for the terrorism hysteria to recede and judges to become impartial again and you'll probably see some serious constitutional challenges to a lot of the TSA's policies.
Responsibility is often argumentative. The he-said/she-said world has to be rectified.
So what if another person is partially at fault -- if you weren't there participating in whatever activity it was, then you would not have been injured.
Some types of insurance work as you described, but my point is that such mechanisms are fundamentally unsound. For example, if you hit someone with a car and put them in the hospitable for 6 months your liability is going to much, much greater if that person had an income of $1M per year than if they were making minimum wage. Why should that be your problem? It should be the responsibility of the person making $1M per year to self-insure because they are the ones with a lot more to lose.
Argumentative responsibility is just another part of the full-employment system for lawyers. Some states have been smart enough to recognize that you and only you can ultimately be responsible for what happens to you and have thus implemented no fault auto insurance. But the lawyers have got their claws into most such systems as to continue to guarantee their own employment and the end result has been that the costs of no fault insurance policies are often higher than they ought to be.
That a blind 10 year old cannot pilot a helicopter does nothing to hinder his ability to walk down the street;
Citing laws of physics as proof that laws of man are internally consistent is just bullshit.
Your logic is flawed: The ability to make some restrictions in no way confers the ability to restrict everything
Yes it does as long as the rationale works for one case without limit then it logically follows that it can work for any case. Stating up front that "driving is not a right" is stating that there is no limit.
just because I can walk to the grocery, it doesn't mean that I should be allowed to fire off a rocket and ride as its payload.
Yes, it pretty much does. If you can find yourself a rocket that you can successfully pilot then you have every right to ride it.
The King's role in Thailand is largely ceremonial - the country is a functioning democracy, recent coup not withstanding. But, they've still got a real stick up their ass about any perceived criticism of the king. So while blocking his biography on amazon is rather petty, it isn't really a case of keeping citizens in the dark about their government.
I haven't seen a porn advertisement that wasn't already on a porn site for years now. Just install adblock plus and set it to get regular updates of its filter list.
Your quotation is specious. You do have the right to walk, and travel freely. You don't have the right to drive a motorized vehicle.
That's funny, your LOGIC is specious. If the government is permitted to prevent you from one mode of travel then it logically follows that it has the right to prevent you from using any mode of travel and therefore there is no such thing as the right to travel freely.
Furthermore, if you engage in an activity that has the potential to cause you serious bodily harm, then it is up to you to prepare for that possibility. Driving should be no different in that regard - no amount of enforcement will ever prevent uninsured drivers from driving so you will ALWAYS be at risk of having an accident involving one. Thus the responsibility for caring for yourself rests on yourself alone. If you don't want to buy enough insurance to cover catastrophic accidents, then so be it. But don't pretend that instituting a big brother system is going fix the problem and relieve you of the duty of taking responsibility for your own well being.
That's a lot of jobs. When you realize that some cities would fork over hundreds of millions in annual tax abatements just to get that many jobs, pitching in on a bridge is not a bad deal.
It isn't like MS could pack up and leave Redmond for anything short of hundreds of millions of dollars either.
However, knowing that my taxes are used to support things such as basic infrastructure, the social security system and universal healthcare, makes me happy to be able to pay them. Because who knows, maybe someday I'll find myself unemployed, without an income, and relying on that safety net I've helped uphold.
Gee, why not become unemployed today? Why waste all that energy working when you've got such a cushy hammock made out of safety net to relax in?
Using an entirely different word "share", yes. Share didn't generally mean "Give someone else their own copy of something",
You can pick your own definition to suit your argument. My definition of sharing has always been to give to others something that I have, especially if I have plenty. Contrived etymology on your part doesn't really change the definition I learned in pre-school.
What's really wrong is when you try to use terms that an idiot would deem as "smart" (ie: lowest common denominator) and think you're a cut above the rest for doing so
I never said I was wise. Please learn to parse, oh excuse me, read, sentences correctly.
They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.
This might have an opposite effect. Suppose they/did/ blur out all these sensitive structures. Isn't that kind of like waving a flag, pointing and saying "OMG, please blow up anywhere but here - oh no, please not RIGHT HERE."
Instead of blurring out the images, they should just 'photoshop' them out. I believe this has already been done with some military airbases in europe - a while back someone posted before shots and links to current shots in google earth and you could see that these bases had been "erased" leaving generic terrain in their places (all except for one, which now had a "road to nowhere" still visible).
If you consider "national defense" and "foreign policy" to be of the same class - i.e. secrets we don't want other nations to find out - then this FOIA rejection seems to be a misuse of that exemption because the FOIA request was precisely for the secrets that are already being shared with other nations, just not with the voting public.
Re:The original content has to come from somewhere
on
So Amazing, So Illegal
·
· Score: 1
I would disagree, you're implying the only value in a mashup is a sum of the creative value of the original pieces. When dealing with a mashup of well-known tracks, this is certainly true
I completely disagree. That's like saying that all of a song's creative value is equal to the sum of its notes and words. Different mashup artists can come up with extremely different results of highly different quality given the same raw material to start with.
They did produce music, but they also had crap jobs. Johannes Bach was little more than a choir director for his local church - and he hated it with a passion. At least today, with protection of songwriters' creations, they can live better lifestyles.
False. Now, if you said "At least today, with protection of songwriter's creations, a few lucky lottery winners can live better lifestyles" then you would be spot on because even today 99.999% of songwriters, performers, etc, see no significant increase in their financial situation due to their artistic work.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would it follow that because the government can prevent you from one mode of travel, it must necessarily mean it has the right to prevent you from using any of them? This presumes a false all-or-nothing dichotomy.
Because one can come up with an excuse for restricting any method of transportation if one is so inclined. Sure walking isn't very lethal, but you might be a child molester so it is in the public's interest to prevent you from having full ambulatory access - you might walk up to a child and molest it, we've already got laws like that on the books. No false dichotomy needed, just all to common scare-mongering.
Insurance is required by law to protect bystanders, not vehicle operators.
Don't go making an argument for the way things are justified by the way things are. Just because the law is one way today does not mean the law isn't fuckt up.
Here's the point again - you absolutely cannot guarantee that someone will carry insurance, it can't be done with 100% certainty. So, in this flawed model that we have today, people are going to get hurt and will never be able to recover from it through no fault of their own. However if full responsibility for insuring your own well-being rested on yourself alone, then you would have to make the conscious decision whether (and how much) you should insure your well-being and as a plus this huge drag on the economy and freedom that is insurance enforcement would be gone. That's tax money that we would all get to keep in our pockets to spend on whatever we thought most important, including possibly more insurance.
If you drive into my front window, damn straight you better be insured or have enough cash to pay for the damages.
Your ENTIRE argument is based on unsupported assertions like that. Your argument is piss-poor.
You're leaving out a very important qualifier -- "on public land".
Completely and totally irrelevant. If you only had the right to travel freely on your own land then that would not be any right at all..
I don't want you driving around unless you assuage the risks by being insured. I promise not to do so, either- by paying my insurance and driving responsibly. There are others among us that don't do either. That's what's necessitated the laws that protect us from them.
Laws don't protect, they only punish after the fact. There will always been uninsured drivers.
You did not have the right to fly, either. That's why the TSA can bounce you for non-cooperation at an airport.
That's what the TSA claims. Give it a few more years for the terrorism hysteria to recede and judges to become impartial again and you'll probably see some serious constitutional challenges to a lot of the TSA's policies.
Responsibility is often argumentative. The he-said/she-said world has to be rectified.
So what if another person is partially at fault -- if you weren't there participating in whatever activity it was, then you would not have been injured.
Some types of insurance work as you described, but my point is that such mechanisms are fundamentally unsound. For example, if you hit someone with a car and put them in the hospitable for 6 months your liability is going to much, much greater if that person had an income of $1M per year than if they were making minimum wage. Why should that be your problem? It should be the responsibility of the person making $1M per year to self-insure because they are the ones with a lot more to lose.
Argumentative responsibility is just another part of the full-employment system for lawyers. Some states have been smart enough to recognize that you and only you can ultimately be responsible for what happens to you and have thus implemented no fault auto insurance. But the lawyers have got their claws into most such systems as to continue to guarantee their own employment and the end result has been that the costs of no fault insurance policies are often higher than they ought to be.
That a blind 10 year old cannot pilot a helicopter does nothing to hinder his ability to walk down the street;
Citing laws of physics as proof that laws of man are internally consistent is just bullshit.
Your logic is flawed: The ability to make some restrictions in no way confers the ability to restrict everything
Yes it does as long as the rationale works for one case without limit then it logically follows that it can work for any case. Stating up front that "driving is not a right" is stating that there is no limit.
just because I can walk to the grocery, it doesn't mean that I should be allowed to fire off a rocket and ride as its payload.
Yes, it pretty much does. If you can find yourself a rocket that you can successfully pilot then you have every right to ride it.
The King's role in Thailand is largely ceremonial - the country is a functioning democracy, recent coup not withstanding. But, they've still got a real stick up their ass about any perceived criticism of the king. So while blocking his biography on amazon is rather petty, it isn't really a case of keeping citizens in the dark about their government.
I haven't seen a porn advertisement that wasn't already on a porn site for years now.
Just install adblock plus and set it to get regular updates of its filter list.
Your quotation is specious. You do have the right to walk, and travel freely. You don't have the right to drive a motorized vehicle.
That's funny, your LOGIC is specious. If the government is permitted to prevent you from one mode of travel then it logically follows that it has the right to prevent you from using any mode of travel and therefore there is no such thing as the right to travel freely.
Furthermore, if you engage in an activity that has the potential to cause you serious bodily harm, then it is up to you to prepare for that possibility. Driving should be no different in that regard - no amount of enforcement will ever prevent uninsured drivers from driving so you will ALWAYS be at risk of having an accident involving one. Thus the responsibility for caring for yourself rests on yourself alone. If you don't want to buy enough insurance to cover catastrophic accidents, then so be it. But don't pretend that instituting a big brother system is going fix the problem and relieve you of the duty of taking responsibility for your own well being.
That's a lot of jobs. When you realize that some cities would fork over hundreds of millions in annual tax abatements just to get that many jobs, pitching in on a bridge is not a bad deal.
It isn't like MS could pack up and leave Redmond for anything short of hundreds of millions of dollars either.
Real FOSS nerds would just build a catapult, a flying car, or teleporter to get across.
Real FOSS nerds would have built all three and let you choose which one you wanted to use, then given you the plans so you could build your own.
However, knowing that my taxes are used to support things such as basic infrastructure, the social security system and universal healthcare, makes me happy to be able to pay them. Because who knows, maybe someday I'll find myself unemployed, without an income, and relying on that safety net I've helped uphold.
Gee, why not become unemployed today? Why waste all that energy working when you've got such a cushy hammock made out of safety net to relax in?
Morality is a tool for the herd to feel more important than their leaders.
Who would have guessed that Dick Cheney was posting on slashdot?
You're equivocating and you're stretching the lessons of sharing.
Sure bub, whatever you say.
Think border control and the DHS's "tourists are terrorists" programs (not the official name, of course).
Damn, that is perfect. Did you think of that up on your own?
Using an entirely different word "share", yes. Share didn't generally mean "Give someone else their own copy of something",
You can pick your own definition to suit your argument. My definition of sharing has always been to give to others something that I have, especially if I have plenty. Contrived etymology on your part doesn't really change the definition I learned in pre-school.
What's really wrong is when you try to use terms that an idiot would deem as "smart" (ie: lowest common denominator) and think you're a cut above the rest for doing so
I never said I was wise. Please learn to parse, oh excuse me, read, sentences correctly.
And it wasn't for "stealing", it was for "providing."
Indeed. Kinda funny that they want him to go to prison for doing what we are all taught to do in pre-school - i.e. share with others.
In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.
Seems his name was given in jest given his current predicament, eh?
The meaning of her name in hindi, on other hand, is at least plausible.
They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.
This might have an opposite effect. Suppose they /did/ blur out all these sensitive structures. Isn't that kind of like waving a flag, pointing and saying "OMG, please blow up anywhere but here - oh no, please not RIGHT HERE."
Instead of blurring out the images, they should just 'photoshop' them out. I believe this has already been done with some military airbases in europe - a while back someone posted before shots and links to current shots in google earth and you could see that these bases had been "erased" leaving generic terrain in their places (all except for one, which now had a "road to nowhere" still visible).
If you consider "national defense" and "foreign policy" to be of the same class - i.e. secrets we don't want other nations to find out - then this FOIA rejection seems to be a misuse of that exemption because the FOIA request was precisely for the secrets that are already being shared with other nations, just not with the voting public.
I would disagree, you're implying the only value in a mashup is a sum of the creative value of the original pieces. When dealing with a mashup of well-known tracks, this is certainly true
I completely disagree. That's like saying that all of a song's creative value is equal to the sum of its notes and words. Different mashup artists can come up with extremely different results of highly different quality given the same raw material to start with.
They did produce music, but they also had crap jobs. Johannes Bach was little more than a choir director for his local church - and he hated it with a passion. At least today, with protection of songwriters' creations, they can live better lifestyles.
False. Now, if you said "At least today, with protection of songwriter's creations, a few lucky lottery winners can live better lifestyles" then you would be spot on because even today 99.999% of songwriters, performers, etc, see no significant increase in their financial situation due to their artistic work.
"I take the 5th amendment" or "I choose to remain silent"
Just don't slip up and say, "I choose to remain silent but deadly."
On the plus side, "He who smelt it dealt it" is now a valid legal defense when accused of terrorism based on smell alone.