I am against government-mandated things. However, I am for more consumer choices (but like I said, not government mandated).
Although nothing can replace the watchful eye of a parent, maybe ISPs, on their own accord, could set it up so someone's Internet account can be enabled and disabled for filtering by logging onto the ISP's website, filling in the account's password then filling in a special password which would either enable or disable it.
I really think it's unnecessary to do something like this in the first place. The issue of WHY someone is speeding needs to be dealt with rather than how to stop someone.
Also, I believe the more systems in place, the greater chance something could go wrong.
Actually, I was replying specifically to the parent post who was saying to use the speedometers. Using the speedometer won't work cause the tire diameter can throw them off.
What if someone had an emergency and needed to speed (even if it's wreckless to do so anyways)?
What if someone is pregnant or hurt seriously and needed to get to the hospital quick? What if it's the dead of night and no one is on the road? Do you follow the 55 mph speed limit (yes, I know it's Canada, not America) or do you proceed to go up to 70-80 mph?
Here are my hopefully humorous replies to the below.
1) Ummm, okay, they can have that I guess. 2) Current? Well, let us just say I'm transient with no fixed address, yeah, that's it. 3) I don't have my own phone number, seriously. Not everyone is privileged enough to pay $20+ per month to only use it scarcely. 4) Who says I have an e-mail address? Where is an e-mail address required to travel? 5) See number 1 above. 6) Ummm, I'm a loner, yeah, that's it. 7) See number 1 above. 8) See number 6 above.
1) First, last and middle names, in addition to suffixes. 2) Current home address, including street, apartment number, city, state/province and ZIP code. 3) Mobile, home or pager phone numbers. 4) E-mail address. 5) Passport or travel document, including the issuing country or organization. 6) Traveling companions or group. 7) Flight information, including date, airline, flight number and return flight details. 8) Name, address and phone number of an emergency contact.
I'm going to make my opinion as simple as possible.
1) Sanitary issues are more important than water saving issues. I'm sorry to say, but health is more important than saving water.
2) Urinals naturally save more water than toilets do. I think we need to consider putting urinals in our residential homes, as odd as that may sound.
3) Consider having one's gutter system, whether on a house or a place of employment, drain into a tank. Of course the water will be filtered to remove some of the particles. Use that water for the toilets and urinals. It will save on the fresh water that can be used for drinking, correct?
Correct me if any of the above have flaws in them.
Where does this end? Either in two places. One, the fall of the U.S. Empire. Two, a revolution. The government is beyond messed up right now.
Unless stealing results in the physical removal of someone's property, it needs to be a civil case in most situations.
Like stealing someone's software and putting it on your computer should be a civil case. Going to a store and shoplifting that software (like in a box with CD and manual) should be a criminal case.
Who will really own the rights to a given piece of land? Someone who just points up there and says a given parcel is theirs? Or someone who actually goes up there, builds on the property, surveys it and everything?
What about those who wear seatbelts, still get into an accident, and need medical aid? Seatbelt or not, if someone gets into a crash, there is a good chance an ambulance, police, etc. will be there.
And what happens when a police officer sees someone they think isn't wearing their seatbelt, pulls them over, only to find out it's one of those seatbelts without a shoulder strap?
One, even though there may be seatbelt laws, not everyone wears their still. Some people are still going to be stupid and simply not wear them.
Two, innocent people tend to get pulled over for looking like they're not wearing a seatbelt, when in fact they're wearing one that doesn't have the strap going over their shoulder. (Where I live, they changed it so they can now pull someone over for simply not wearing their seatbelt, even if they didn't do anything else.) Consider how much police power is wasted looking for people not wearing their seatbelts (I believe they have quotas to meet in some counties here) when they could be spending that time trying to catch the real criminals.
Isn't this the equivalent of police looking and pulling vehicles over for the driver not wearing a seatbelt? In other words, something that only endangers one self is trying to be prevented, right?
I guess you're right. I think the elected officials are more concerned with looking good and just doing stuff to justify their job.
In my opinion, the federal government should be loose/weak. They need to stick to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (although the DoI isn't considered a lawful/legal document by some people), and they could just leave the rest up to the states to decide.
In another part of this thread, the Internet Commerce Clause was brought up. The ICC would be perfect in dealing with double taxations, such as the recent telecommuting income tax issues that have arisen.
Does the federal government have the authority granted to it in the Constitution to make this type of law? I'm being serious. Anywhere in Article I, Section 8 does it give them this power?
Although a national privacy law would be good, does it overstep Congress's constitutional powers?
Any chance this could affect those with pacemakers?
Re:Can common/civil law override these licenses?
on
End User License Gems
·
· Score: 1
Some jurisdictions might allow you to enter an enforcable contract that make you work longer hours than normally legal in return for more frequent and longer holidays, for instance (though the same jurisdictions may have upper limits that are absolute, because the consequences of someone being pushed to exceed them are seen as too severe).
You mean jobs that might require longer hours without overtime pay, but in return they end up getting more days off during the whole year? I wonder how many hours per week IRS agents tend to work during the second half of April.
First of all, let me say that I am not in this field of work. However, let me say this.
Hypothetically, I would probably be okay as long as my salary were to be kept up with inflation, so I don't earn any less than before relative to the cost of living. Additionally, I would think healthcare, not only for me, but any family I have (spouse and children), would be very important.
If a company were to assign more responsibilities to me, then I would expect an overall pay raise. If they require me to work more hours in addition to a 40 hour workweek, I would definitely want overtime. Well, maybe instead of overtime, I would ask for (paid) vacation time to relieve any stress from 40+ hour weeks I may work.
The part you said about how the electronics needed to process/convert the signal being too power hungry, that is insightful. What do those little handheld t.v.s usually take? 2-4 triple A batteries? It would make it unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Hasn't anyone ever got a false positive before? Won't this really hurt the truly innocent?
It may be a word now, but will anyone still be using it 50 years from now?
I am against government-mandated things. However, I am for more consumer choices (but like I said, not government mandated).
Although nothing can replace the watchful eye of a parent, maybe ISPs, on their own accord, could set it up so someone's Internet account can be enabled and disabled for filtering by logging onto the ISP's website, filling in the account's password then filling in a special password which would either enable or disable it.
I really think it's unnecessary to do something like this in the first place. The issue of WHY someone is speeding needs to be dealt with rather than how to stop someone.
Also, I believe the more systems in place, the greater chance something could go wrong.
Actually, I was replying specifically to the parent post who was saying to use the speedometers. Using the speedometer won't work cause the tire diameter can throw them off.
Couldn't someone change the tires to go faster?
What if someone had an emergency and needed to speed (even if it's wreckless to do so anyways)?
What if someone is pregnant or hurt seriously and needed to get to the hospital quick? What if it's the dead of night and no one is on the road? Do you follow the 55 mph speed limit (yes, I know it's Canada, not America) or do you proceed to go up to 70-80 mph?
Here are my hopefully humorous replies to the below.
1) Ummm, okay, they can have that I guess.
2) Current? Well, let us just say I'm transient with no fixed address, yeah, that's it.
3) I don't have my own phone number, seriously. Not everyone is privileged enough to pay $20+ per month to only use it scarcely.
4) Who says I have an e-mail address? Where is an e-mail address required to travel?
5) See number 1 above.
6) Ummm, I'm a loner, yeah, that's it.
7) See number 1 above.
8) See number 6 above.
1) First, last and middle names, in addition to suffixes.
2) Current home address, including street, apartment number, city, state/province and ZIP code.
3) Mobile, home or pager phone numbers.
4) E-mail address.
5) Passport or travel document, including the issuing country or organization.
6) Traveling companions or group.
7) Flight information, including date, airline, flight number and return flight details.
8) Name, address and phone number of an emergency contact.
Isn't this a form of audio based assault? I'm serious by the way.
I'm going to make my opinion as simple as possible.
1) Sanitary issues are more important than water saving issues. I'm sorry to say, but health is more important than saving water.
2) Urinals naturally save more water than toilets do. I think we need to consider putting urinals in our residential homes, as odd as that may sound.
3) Consider having one's gutter system, whether on a house or a place of employment, drain into a tank. Of course the water will be filtered to remove some of the particles. Use that water for the toilets and urinals. It will save on the fresh water that can be used for drinking, correct?
Correct me if any of the above have flaws in them.
Where does this end? Either in two places. One, the fall of the U.S. Empire. Two, a revolution. The government is beyond messed up right now.
Unless stealing results in the physical removal of someone's property, it needs to be a civil case in most situations.
Like stealing someone's software and putting it on your computer should be a civil case. Going to a store and shoplifting that software (like in a box with CD and manual) should be a criminal case.
Who will really own the rights to a given piece of land? Someone who just points up there and says a given parcel is theirs? Or someone who actually goes up there, builds on the property, surveys it and everything?
What about those who wear seatbelts, still get into an accident, and need medical aid? Seatbelt or not, if someone gets into a crash, there is a good chance an ambulance, police, etc. will be there.
And what happens when a police officer sees someone they think isn't wearing their seatbelt, pulls them over, only to find out it's one of those seatbelts without a shoulder strap?
Maybe you didn't think that through.
One, even though there may be seatbelt laws, not everyone wears their still. Some people are still going to be stupid and simply not wear them.
Two, innocent people tend to get pulled over for looking like they're not wearing a seatbelt, when in fact they're wearing one that doesn't have the strap going over their shoulder. (Where I live, they changed it so they can now pull someone over for simply not wearing their seatbelt, even if they didn't do anything else.) Consider how much police power is wasted looking for people not wearing their seatbelts (I believe they have quotas to meet in some counties here) when they could be spending that time trying to catch the real criminals.
How small is small? Washington state's fine for not wearing a seat belt is $101.
Isn't this the equivalent of police looking and pulling vehicles over for the driver not wearing a seatbelt? In other words, something that only endangers one self is trying to be prevented, right?
I guess you're right. I think the elected officials are more concerned with looking good and just doing stuff to justify their job.
In my opinion, the federal government should be loose/weak. They need to stick to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (although the DoI isn't considered a lawful/legal document by some people), and they could just leave the rest up to the states to decide.
In another part of this thread, the Internet Commerce Clause was brought up. The ICC would be perfect in dealing with double taxations, such as the recent telecommuting income tax issues that have arisen.
I was wondering if that really applies though.
Does the federal government have the authority granted to it in the Constitution to make this type of law? I'm being serious. Anywhere in Article I, Section 8 does it give them this power?
Although a national privacy law would be good, does it overstep Congress's constitutional powers?
I don't know about Lara Croft, but aren't Buffy and Xena considered fantasy, not sci-fi?
Any chance this could affect those with pacemakers?
Some jurisdictions might allow you to enter an enforcable contract that make you work longer hours than normally legal in return for more frequent and longer holidays, for instance (though the same jurisdictions may have upper limits that are absolute, because the consequences of someone being pushed to exceed them are seen as too severe).
You mean jobs that might require longer hours without overtime pay, but in return they end up getting more days off during the whole year? I wonder how many hours per week IRS agents tend to work during the second half of April.
First of all, let me say that I am not in this field of work. However, let me say this.
Hypothetically, I would probably be okay as long as my salary were to be kept up with inflation, so I don't earn any less than before relative to the cost of living. Additionally, I would think healthcare, not only for me, but any family I have (spouse and children), would be very important.
If a company were to assign more responsibilities to me, then I would expect an overall pay raise. If they require me to work more hours in addition to a 40 hour workweek, I would definitely want overtime. Well, maybe instead of overtime, I would ask for (paid) vacation time to relieve any stress from 40+ hour weeks I may work.
The part you said about how the electronics needed to process/convert the signal being too power hungry, that is insightful. What do those little handheld t.v.s usually take? 2-4 triple A batteries? It would make it unreasonable.