That's what I was taught as well. Then after getting into discussions about schooling with lots of teachers (both current and studying-to-be), watching my dad debate policies at school board meetings, etc., I realized that school and education are not necessarily the same thing, and many times are polar opposites. That was years ago.
About a month ago someone here on/. mentioned this book and I highly recommend it.
But these days even a high school education doesn't prevent people from being stuck in menial, mind-numbing and stressful jobs.
If you knew much about the history of compelled schooling, you would realize that a high school education was never meant to prevent you from menial, mind-numbing and stressful jobs. Quite the opposite. It was meant to prepare you for it.
People who just happen to have rare bloodtypes stand a lot bigger chances of getting convicted to death
You're not thinking this through. You kill someone for their organs. But for rare blood types (i.e., O negative), you just sentence them to life imprisonment and harvest them every 8 weeks. Any more than that and you risk killing off your money tree, any less and you aren't maximizing revenue.
"toy hauler" and "lowered SUVs, sorry mini-vans" is what I was referring to. They aren't lowered SUVs, which is partly why they have better handling and responsiveness. They are lower, which reduces their likelihood of rolling over, but they aren't lowered SUVs.
I don't know what year model of Tacoma you have, so I looked at this years 4 door models.
Odyssey EX-L and Touring - 17/25
Sienna - 17/23
Odyssey LX and EX - 16/23
Tacoma 4x2 - 17/21
Sienna AWD - 16/21
Tacoma 4x4 5 speed - 16/20
Tacoma 4x4 6 speed - 14/18
So only the Sienna AWD models get worse gas mileage than a Tacoma. I recognize it's not that big of a difference, so other factors will weigh more heavily in the purchasing decision, but mileage is not something that your truck is better in, unless you're willing to divulge your trucks exact model and year. Keep in mind that you can't compare what you get with estimates, you have to compare estimate with estimate. Also keep in mind that the EPA recently changed how they calculate mileage and so you have to compare recent numbers.
All the searches I've done so far on insurance (no, I haven't bothered with getting quotes) indicate that minivans are generally cheaper to insure than SUVs. Some SUVs are cheaper than the cheapest minivan, but the most expensive minivan is much cheaper than the most expensive SUV. My google-fu failed me in finding much in the way of insurance for trucks but this indicates that trucks have a wide range seeing as the GMC Sierra was the 3rd least expensive and a Dodge Ram was the most expensive. The only place I did see a Tacoma listed shows that insurance is several hundred dollars more, however, it is generally in your favor in that it shows that 5 years out you may be ahead with a Tacoma over either the Odyssey or the Sienna (depending on the model you choose). The bulk of the difference actually lies in the depreciation, so it also depends on how long you tend to own your vehicles and whether you buy used or not.
And speaking of the convenience factor, you also mentioned that you want to load up the family and go on vacations. You could do that with a four door Tacoma, I suppose. But it would be much more convenient to be in a minivan. Also, minivans are easier for kids and grandma to get into and out of than pickup trucks. They also drive more like a car, which is to say, they are nicer to drive, more responsive, handle better, etc.
So the math does work out in your favor of a Tacoma over an Odyssey or Sienna (depending on models chosen, way you drive, how often, there are other comparisons, etc). But you'd be a fool to not see that SUVs and trucks are generally more expensive than other vehicles. Especially when you start to get people who only want it for the image and not for its utility, which is what the vast majority do. Maybe not you, but the vast majority. So it's a stereotype. You'll just have to live with the fact that you do something that lumps you into that category.
Nearly everyone who has replied to you has said that some people really do have valid reasons for having trucks and SUVs. I know I've said similar in every post of mine in reply to you. But you keep coming back with exceptions for yourself. What all of us are saying is that some people have legitimate needs, the vast majority do not. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. With all that you've said, I'm not convinced, but that's rather irrelevant to whether you actually have valid reasons or not. I'm of the opinion that it's your money and you can spend it how you want, global warming be darned*. However, if I see someone spending their money in a way I think is idiotic, I reserve the right to think they are doing so.
If people had to make a choice between any SUV/truck painted with Hello Kitty or a smaller vehicle, the vast majority would take the smaller vehicle. This is because they don't really need the power, they just like the image associated with SUVs/trucks. Maybe you aren't one of those people, but the way you disparaged minivans in another post sure makes it seem that way.
*My sig is a joke, maybe not a particularly funny one, I'll admit, but a joke nonetheless.
So now you are changing the situation. You said earlier that you "can't afford to have multiple vehicles for every task." But now you're saying you do have multiple vehicles. Which one is it?
Also, the cars you have are/were not even good at mileage. The G35 gets minivan type mileage and either your wife drives almost entirely in-town or she's a lead foot. In that regard, the Scion tC is much better. Why didn't you trade in your wife's car instead?
I said it in another post, but I am a homeowner. When I moved in the U-Haul brought in everything I owned up to that point. Most things bought after that were delivered free of charge. There was no landscape so I had to do the whole thing with my car. I would stop at Home Depot on the way home from work every day and pick up landscaping brick until I thought the car couldn't hold anymore. After one week I had almost enough for an 80 foot long 3.5 foot high retaining wall. Had I been in a bigger hurry or thought it was too inconvenient I would have gone with a one time truck rental or had Home Depot deliver it for me. The rock, topsoil and mulch (several cubic yards of each) were delivered. It was much cheaper to do so than to rent a truck, and certainly cheaper than buying one for that purpose. I was able to rent a rototiller and bring it home in my Fit.
I'm not trying to say that everyone should or even could be like me. What I am saying is that most people don't buy for what they really need. They think they need it, but really they just want to look cool or think they might some day in the future possibly have a use for it but don't correctly judge all the costs involved.
I don't understand you. If you have real and valid reasons for driving an SUV, then by all means do so. I have an uncle that does. I don't consider him an idiot. But why do you feel the need to vindicate yourself so much? The way you put down minivans indicates that you have more of an image issue than a real need issue.
The vast majority of four wheelers weigh about 500 lbs or less. 3500 pound towing capacity is already 5 or 6 ATVs + the trailer. Are you really suggesting you need double that?
Concrete is about 150 lbs per cubic foot. Are you really hauling more than 22 cubic feet of concrete to your home once a week, or even once a month?
I am an American home owner, in addition to being an American home landlord. I own one car. It's a Honda Fit. It's been more than enough the vast majority of the time. Had I bought a truck or SUV it would have been more expensive to buy, operate, insure, maintain, etc in every conceivable way even when I include all the times I've rented another vehicle. Also, I could sell it for nearly as much as I paid for it. I don't have to climb up to get in. The fact is, for the average American home owner, a small car is more practical, efficient, convenient and less expensive. When you include non-homeowners, it becomes even more so.
Admittedly, I've never rented from Home Depot. However, I did rent from U-Haul. I had to pick up a piano and 3 cubic yards of soil. Two separate trips, obviously. I was able to pick it up exactly when I had scheduled it. I had to drop it off after hours which involved leaving the paper work on the seat and throwing the key through a slot. Of course I had to fill up the gas I used (that part should be obvious if you've ever rented any kind of vehicle).
I have one car that is big enough for my wife, two daughters and I. $70 to rent a truck every once in a while is more than worth it from the money I save.
Like I said, some people have valid reasons for getting an SUV. Most people who get an SUV are not those people.
Both the Honda Odyssey and the Toyota Sienna can tow more than 3500 lbs. Even the Hyundai Elantra has a towing capacity of 2000 lbs. If you have a trailer for your four wheelers, I assume you can put some plywood and concrete on that trailer from Home Depot. Also, you might have missed the part where I talked about Home Depot renting you a truck. $19.95 for the first 75 minutes. Let me know of any other problems you have so I can find more solutions for you.
I said you might very well have a valid excuse, but with you not knowing that a minivan has towing capacity of "more than a thousand pounds or so", maybe you really haven't thought your needs or your options through.
Where in your post did you refer to what the average American family needs? But let's pretend that you are average. Even so there are solutions. If you can only afford one type of vehicle, then get one that serves your most common needs best. For the vast majority of people, that would be the commuter vehicle. Depending on the number of kids or carpoolers, maybe a mini-van would be best. For the occasional Home Depot trip, you can rent trucks from either Home Depot, U-Haul or similar. For the occasional camping or cross country trip you can rent from Hertz, Alamo or similar. If you are seriously doing such things more often, then you have a valid excuse.
The problem you face is that so many people who have no valid excuse use SUVs that all SUV drivers are lumped together as morons.
By the way, except for the off-roading stuff, it sounds like a minivan would suit you just fine, but even that depends on how rough of roads you are referring to.
Until relatively recently on the human evolution timescale, being enough of a jerk would get you killed or kicked out of the tribe. Not too many, if any, tribes were just accepting members at random. You had to be kin. Still, let's say you got kicked out of one tribe, and you successfully moved into another. It wouldn't take long for a group to realize you're a jerk. Assuming none of the tribes around you are willing to kill you, there are still only a few tribes within walking distance before you've been kicked out of them all. Most likely though, you'd end up dead.
So its ok to supply the bomb making materials to the terrorists as long as you don't help them build or detonate the bomb?
Correct. I do not hold Ryder or any of the other companies that supplied Timothy McVeigh with the supplies that he used during the Oklahoma city bombing. Nor do I hold Boeing, American Airlines, nor United Airlines for providing planes to terrorists. Provided, of course, that they had no knowledge of what those supplies were intended for.
If this guy was telling people they could play copyrighted games with the mod, or people were asking him to mod it and told him that it was for playing pirated games, then he should be charged as either an accomplice or an accessory to the crime. But if neither of that happens, then he should, IMO, not be held liable for the actions of others. Similarly, if McVeigh told the Ryder truck rental person that the purpose was a make-shift bomb, and the rental still took place, then the renter should be held liable as an accessory. If Mohamed Atta had told the ticketing agents the purpose for his flight and the sale still happened, then the agent ought to be held liable as an accessory.
The article doesn't say whether he was encouraging the modding for pirated content, nor does it say whether he was aware of any of his clients' specific purposes. Certainly I'm sure he was aware that pirated content was possible. Perhaps he knew and didn't care, maybe he operated under a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, or maybe he was outed because he refused to help someone who told them they wanted to pirate games. The article doesn't indicate any of that. However, In this article he is quoted as saying "If you're talking about piracy, I'm not helping you out." It's now up to the courts to decide, but if what he says is true, then I certainly don't think he should have been arrested, and this only highlights how stupid the DMCA anti-circumvention clause really is.
My point was not about what the vast majority of people do. There are legitimate reasons to mod a console ranging from playing game backups to using the Xbox Media Center and more. What the vast majority of people do with it should be irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is what this guy did. I'll grant that he broke the law (provided the courts agree). However, that is because modding consoles is illegal (circumvention clause in the DMCA, which is a stupid law, IMO), not because modding allows someone else to do something else illegal (copyright infringement). You should never be held liable for the actions of others.
Does that matter? Smith and Wesson make money by providing hardware that, as one of its effects, allow people to seriously hurt, maim, injure and kill people. Boeing has made money by providing materials that, as one of its effects, allow people to kill hundreds to thousands of people.
Don't hit reply yet. I know that the majority of people who use Boeing's stuff have never killed anyone, and even the majority of Smith and Wesson's products have never been used to hurt a human (War notwithstanding). But the point is people should be responsible for what they do, not what others do. If every single one of his customers played nothing but pirated games, he still should not be held liable for that.
the sheer volume of data to verify against...would probably be far to computationally expense to attempt
You're telling me that any search engine/database can search for "Text with quotes around it" and find the phrase exactly from any place on the internet, but the AP can't search their comparatively small database for the same? What kind of crappy database is that? If it can do that then the human component becomes trivial. If the phrase appears in a small number of articles, then it's trivial for a human to go through those articles and determine if the searched-for phrase is actually owned by the AP. If it appears in a large number of articles, then it's a good bet that the phrase is too generic to copyright. If even one of those articles is older than copyright (the AP started in 1846) allows, then they can't claim copyright. I'm not much of a SQL guy but even I could write a really simple query to do that.
You're not supposed to put anything other than a quote from an AP article in that form
What if what you want to quote is from an article they published, but it turns out that it was really a quote from someone else? How about this one: "This is going to be a close call." That's what a judge said during a brief hearing. If I entered that text, they would license it to me, even though the quote would be part of the court's records and thus not copyrightable. So they DO NOT own the copyright on whatever the user might enter, even if they do enter something from one of their articles.
If you read the article linked above, and understand what the AP is trying to do here, you will find that I violated their Terms of Use because I quoted more than 4 words and didn't pay them the license fee. I'm not referring to the quote I gave. Instead, I used the phrase "said during a brief hearing." What they are trying to do is stupid.
While I agree with you (I grew up in Phoenix and lived in Houston for a time) the guy that brought up being stuck in traffic said he lives in Seattle. Aside from the record breaking heat that Seattle had last week, it's not usually hot even during the peak summer temps. In addition, if he's talking about crossing a bridge, he probably means the 520 or I-90 which both go over Lake Washington, so we're not talking about a windless, concrete area. Even so, if you need your air conditioning to be on constantly (even in Phoenix) then perhaps you need to tint your windows or should have chosen a white car instead of black. You can turn it off every once in a while and just leave the fan blowing.
I don't know which part of Seattle you're in, but some of them are accessible. And as for accidents on the bridges, you could check firstbefore leaving. That would save you a lot of time no matter what you are driving.
Not that I disagree with you, but by choosing the Mars Rovers instead of Voyager 1 it seems like you are purposely picking a poor example. The Mars Rovers were designed to last at least 90 days, but have lasted over 5 years, which is a good sign that we could build something to last a long time. Voyager 1 has lasted nearly 22 years. Also the Mars Rovers may not have traveled far on Mars (as of May 26, 2009 Opportunity had gone more than 10 miles) but they traveled 320 million miles just to get there. Of course all that ignores that their purpose wasn't just to get there and drive around. Voyager on the other hand is over 10 billion miles from us.
Again, it's not that 22 years and 10 billion miles is nearly enough for a seedship, I'm just pointing out that bringing up the Mars Rovers when the Voyager 1 is a much closer example of of a seedship (in terms of longevity and distance) seems a bit disingenuous.
Your sciencedaily.com article said absolutely nothing about whether organic foods can compete with the crop yields of current farming practices. In fact, nothing from the article suggested that conventional farmers couldn't use those same practices and still yield even higher yields than the organic farmers.
Also, the Cornell study, while promising, did mention a few things against your point:
it might not be as favorable for growing such crops as grapes, apples, cherries and potatoes
cash crops cannot be grown as frequently over time on organic farms
labor costs average about 15 percent higher in organic farming systems
It also acknowledged that the only reason organic foods have equal to or higher economic return per acre is because of the higher prices that organic foods command. In short, organic foods require a higher price, so if we went all organic next year, some who currently can afford food would not be able to.
Yeah, about that correlation vs causation thing. The older your body gets the more likely you are to get cancer. Until we discover the secret to immortality, cancer is going to increase. Look at this chart. Less people died from cancer in 2005 than from Tuberculosis in 1900, but in 2005 only only 2 people per million died from Tuberculosis in the US. People are living much longer than and aren't dying from the same causes as our ancestors. Nobody is living forever, so they're gonna die somehow.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was taught as well. Then after getting into discussions about schooling with lots of teachers (both current and studying-to-be), watching my dad debate policies at school board meetings, etc., I realized that school and education are not necessarily the same thing, and many times are polar opposites. That was years ago.
/. mentioned this book and I highly recommend it.
About a month ago someone here on
If you knew much about the history of compelled schooling, you would realize that a high school education was never meant to prevent you from menial, mind-numbing and stressful jobs. Quite the opposite. It was meant to prepare you for it.
You're not thinking this through. You kill someone for their organs. But for rare blood types (i.e., O negative), you just sentence them to life imprisonment and harvest them every 8 weeks. Any more than that and you risk killing off your money tree, any less and you aren't maximizing revenue.
I don't know what year model of Tacoma you have, so I looked at this years 4 door models.
So only the Sienna AWD models get worse gas mileage than a Tacoma. I recognize it's not that big of a difference, so other factors will weigh more heavily in the purchasing decision, but mileage is not something that your truck is better in, unless you're willing to divulge your trucks exact model and year. Keep in mind that you can't compare what you get with estimates, you have to compare estimate with estimate. Also keep in mind that the EPA recently changed how they calculate mileage and so you have to compare recent numbers.
All the searches I've done so far on insurance (no, I haven't bothered with getting quotes) indicate that minivans are generally cheaper to insure than SUVs. Some SUVs are cheaper than the cheapest minivan, but the most expensive minivan is much cheaper than the most expensive SUV. My google-fu failed me in finding much in the way of insurance for trucks but this indicates that trucks have a wide range seeing as the GMC Sierra was the 3rd least expensive and a Dodge Ram was the most expensive. The only place I did see a Tacoma listed shows that insurance is several hundred dollars more, however, it is generally in your favor in that it shows that 5 years out you may be ahead with a Tacoma over either the Odyssey or the Sienna (depending on the model you choose). The bulk of the difference actually lies in the depreciation, so it also depends on how long you tend to own your vehicles and whether you buy used or not.
And speaking of the convenience factor, you also mentioned that you want to load up the family and go on vacations. You could do that with a four door Tacoma, I suppose. But it would be much more convenient to be in a minivan. Also, minivans are easier for kids and grandma to get into and out of than pickup trucks. They also drive more like a car, which is to say, they are nicer to drive, more responsive, handle better, etc.
So the math does work out in your favor of a Tacoma over an Odyssey or Sienna (depending on models chosen, way you drive, how often, there are other comparisons, etc). But you'd be a fool to not see that SUVs and trucks are generally more expensive than other vehicles. Especially when you start to get people who only want it for the image and not for its utility, which is what the vast majority do. Maybe not you, but the vast majority. So it's a stereotype. You'll just have to live with the fact that you do something that lumps you into that category.
Nearly everyone who has replied to you has said that some people really do have valid reasons for having trucks and SUVs. I know I've said similar in every post of mine in reply to you. But you keep coming back with exceptions for yourself. What all of us are saying is that some people have legitimate needs, the vast majority do not. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. With all that you've said, I'm not convinced, but that's rather irrelevant to whether you actually have valid reasons or not. I'm of the opinion that it's your money and you can spend it how you want, global warming be darned*. However, if I see someone spending their money in a way I think is idiotic, I reserve the right to think they are doing so.
If people had to make a choice between any SUV/truck painted with Hello Kitty or a smaller vehicle, the vast majority would take the smaller vehicle. This is because they don't really need the power, they just like the image associated with SUVs/trucks. Maybe you aren't one of those people, but the way you disparaged minivans in another post sure makes it seem that way.
*My sig is a joke, maybe not a particularly funny one, I'll admit, but a joke nonetheless.
So now you are changing the situation. You said earlier that you "can't afford to have multiple vehicles for every task." But now you're saying you do have multiple vehicles. Which one is it?
Also, the cars you have are/were not even good at mileage. The G35 gets minivan type mileage and either your wife drives almost entirely in-town or she's a lead foot. In that regard, the Scion tC is much better. Why didn't you trade in your wife's car instead?
I said it in another post, but I am a homeowner. When I moved in the U-Haul brought in everything I owned up to that point. Most things bought after that were delivered free of charge. There was no landscape so I had to do the whole thing with my car. I would stop at Home Depot on the way home from work every day and pick up landscaping brick until I thought the car couldn't hold anymore. After one week I had almost enough for an 80 foot long 3.5 foot high retaining wall. Had I been in a bigger hurry or thought it was too inconvenient I would have gone with a one time truck rental or had Home Depot deliver it for me. The rock, topsoil and mulch (several cubic yards of each) were delivered. It was much cheaper to do so than to rent a truck, and certainly cheaper than buying one for that purpose. I was able to rent a rototiller and bring it home in my Fit.
I'm not trying to say that everyone should or even could be like me. What I am saying is that most people don't buy for what they really need. They think they need it, but really they just want to look cool or think they might some day in the future possibly have a use for it but don't correctly judge all the costs involved.
I don't understand you. If you have real and valid reasons for driving an SUV, then by all means do so. I have an uncle that does. I don't consider him an idiot. But why do you feel the need to vindicate yourself so much? The way you put down minivans indicates that you have more of an image issue than a real need issue.
The vast majority of four wheelers weigh about 500 lbs or less. 3500 pound towing capacity is already 5 or 6 ATVs + the trailer. Are you really suggesting you need double that?
Concrete is about 150 lbs per cubic foot. Are you really hauling more than 22 cubic feet of concrete to your home once a week, or even once a month?
I am an American home owner, in addition to being an American home landlord. I own one car. It's a Honda Fit. It's been more than enough the vast majority of the time. Had I bought a truck or SUV it would have been more expensive to buy, operate, insure, maintain, etc in every conceivable way even when I include all the times I've rented another vehicle. Also, I could sell it for nearly as much as I paid for it. I don't have to climb up to get in. The fact is, for the average American home owner, a small car is more practical, efficient, convenient and less expensive. When you include non-homeowners, it becomes even more so.
Admittedly, I've never rented from Home Depot. However, I did rent from U-Haul. I had to pick up a piano and 3 cubic yards of soil. Two separate trips, obviously. I was able to pick it up exactly when I had scheduled it. I had to drop it off after hours which involved leaving the paper work on the seat and throwing the key through a slot. Of course I had to fill up the gas I used (that part should be obvious if you've ever rented any kind of vehicle).
I have one car that is big enough for my wife, two daughters and I. $70 to rent a truck every once in a while is more than worth it from the money I save.
Like I said, some people have valid reasons for getting an SUV. Most people who get an SUV are not those people.
Both the Honda Odyssey and the Toyota Sienna can tow more than 3500 lbs. Even the Hyundai Elantra has a towing capacity of 2000 lbs. If you have a trailer for your four wheelers, I assume you can put some plywood and concrete on that trailer from Home Depot. Also, you might have missed the part where I talked about Home Depot renting you a truck. $19.95 for the first 75 minutes. Let me know of any other problems you have so I can find more solutions for you.
I said you might very well have a valid excuse, but with you not knowing that a minivan has towing capacity of "more than a thousand pounds or so", maybe you really haven't thought your needs or your options through.
Where in your post did you refer to what the average American family needs? But let's pretend that you are average. Even so there are solutions. If you can only afford one type of vehicle, then get one that serves your most common needs best. For the vast majority of people, that would be the commuter vehicle. Depending on the number of kids or carpoolers, maybe a mini-van would be best. For the occasional Home Depot trip, you can rent trucks from either Home Depot, U-Haul or similar. For the occasional camping or cross country trip you can rent from Hertz, Alamo or similar. If you are seriously doing such things more often, then you have a valid excuse.
The problem you face is that so many people who have no valid excuse use SUVs that all SUV drivers are lumped together as morons.
By the way, except for the off-roading stuff, it sounds like a minivan would suit you just fine, but even that depends on how rough of roads you are referring to.
Almost correct. A New Hope was the only one to show blood. Obi-Wan cut off that arm in the cantina.
Until relatively recently on the human evolution timescale, being enough of a jerk would get you killed or kicked out of the tribe. Not too many, if any, tribes were just accepting members at random. You had to be kin. Still, let's say you got kicked out of one tribe, and you successfully moved into another. It wouldn't take long for a group to realize you're a jerk. Assuming none of the tribes around you are willing to kill you, there are still only a few tribes within walking distance before you've been kicked out of them all. Most likely though, you'd end up dead.
Speak for yourself, earthling.
I'll just try for the bonus points.
Normal: not a psychopath.
This is better because: psychopathy hurts other people.
This is better for: people who would be hurt by the psychopath.
Correct. I do not hold Ryder or any of the other companies that supplied Timothy McVeigh with the supplies that he used during the Oklahoma city bombing. Nor do I hold Boeing, American Airlines, nor United Airlines for providing planes to terrorists. Provided, of course, that they had no knowledge of what those supplies were intended for.
If this guy was telling people they could play copyrighted games with the mod, or people were asking him to mod it and told him that it was for playing pirated games, then he should be charged as either an accomplice or an accessory to the crime. But if neither of that happens, then he should, IMO, not be held liable for the actions of others. Similarly, if McVeigh told the Ryder truck rental person that the purpose was a make-shift bomb, and the rental still took place, then the renter should be held liable as an accessory. If Mohamed Atta had told the ticketing agents the purpose for his flight and the sale still happened, then the agent ought to be held liable as an accessory.
The article doesn't say whether he was encouraging the modding for pirated content, nor does it say whether he was aware of any of his clients' specific purposes. Certainly I'm sure he was aware that pirated content was possible. Perhaps he knew and didn't care, maybe he operated under a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, or maybe he was outed because he refused to help someone who told them they wanted to pirate games. The article doesn't indicate any of that. However, In this article he is quoted as saying "If you're talking about piracy, I'm not helping you out." It's now up to the courts to decide, but if what he says is true, then I certainly don't think he should have been arrested, and this only highlights how stupid the DMCA anti-circumvention clause really is.
My point was not about what the vast majority of people do. There are legitimate reasons to mod a console ranging from playing game backups to using the Xbox Media Center and more. What the vast majority of people do with it should be irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is what this guy did. I'll grant that he broke the law (provided the courts agree). However, that is because modding consoles is illegal (circumvention clause in the DMCA, which is a stupid law, IMO), not because modding allows someone else to do something else illegal (copyright infringement). You should never be held liable for the actions of others.
Of course there is. Most of us on slashdot have a stick shift.
Does that matter? Smith and Wesson make money by providing hardware that, as one of its effects, allow people to seriously hurt, maim, injure and kill people. Boeing has made money by providing materials that, as one of its effects, allow people to kill hundreds to thousands of people.
Don't hit reply yet. I know that the majority of people who use Boeing's stuff have never killed anyone, and even the majority of Smith and Wesson's products have never been used to hurt a human (War notwithstanding). But the point is people should be responsible for what they do, not what others do. If every single one of his customers played nothing but pirated games, he still should not be held liable for that.
You're telling me that any search engine/database can search for "Text with quotes around it" and find the phrase exactly from any place on the internet, but the AP can't search their comparatively small database for the same? What kind of crappy database is that? If it can do that then the human component becomes trivial. If the phrase appears in a small number of articles, then it's trivial for a human to go through those articles and determine if the searched-for phrase is actually owned by the AP. If it appears in a large number of articles, then it's a good bet that the phrase is too generic to copyright. If even one of those articles is older than copyright (the AP started in 1846) allows, then they can't claim copyright. I'm not much of a SQL guy but even I could write a really simple query to do that.
What if what you want to quote is from an article they published, but it turns out that it was really a quote from someone else? How about this one: "This is going to be a close call." That's what a judge said during a brief hearing. If I entered that text, they would license it to me, even though the quote would be part of the court's records and thus not copyrightable. So they DO NOT own the copyright on whatever the user might enter, even if they do enter something from one of their articles.
If you read the article linked above, and understand what the AP is trying to do here, you will find that I violated their Terms of Use because I quoted more than 4 words and didn't pay them the license fee. I'm not referring to the quote I gave. Instead, I used the phrase "said during a brief hearing." What they are trying to do is stupid.
There is this new car called the Nissan LEAF. You don't need to feed it, wash it, or clean up after it. Are you sold? Wait, what?
While I agree with you (I grew up in Phoenix and lived in Houston for a time) the guy that brought up being stuck in traffic said he lives in Seattle. Aside from the record breaking heat that Seattle had last week, it's not usually hot even during the peak summer temps. In addition, if he's talking about crossing a bridge, he probably means the 520 or I-90 which both go over Lake Washington, so we're not talking about a windless, concrete area. Even so, if you need your air conditioning to be on constantly (even in Phoenix) then perhaps you need to tint your windows or should have chosen a white car instead of black. You can turn it off every once in a while and just leave the fan blowing.
I don't know which part of Seattle you're in, but some of them are accessible. And as for accidents on the bridges, you could check first before leaving. That would save you a lot of time no matter what you are driving.
Not that I disagree with you, but by choosing the Mars Rovers instead of Voyager 1 it seems like you are purposely picking a poor example. The Mars Rovers were designed to last at least 90 days, but have lasted over 5 years, which is a good sign that we could build something to last a long time. Voyager 1 has lasted nearly 22 years. Also the Mars Rovers may not have traveled far on Mars (as of May 26, 2009 Opportunity had gone more than 10 miles) but they traveled 320 million miles just to get there. Of course all that ignores that their purpose wasn't just to get there and drive around. Voyager on the other hand is over 10 billion miles from us.
Again, it's not that 22 years and 10 billion miles is nearly enough for a seedship, I'm just pointing out that bringing up the Mars Rovers when the Voyager 1 is a much closer example of of a seedship (in terms of longevity and distance) seems a bit disingenuous.
Your sciencedaily.com article said absolutely nothing about whether organic foods can compete with the crop yields of current farming practices. In fact, nothing from the article suggested that conventional farmers couldn't use those same practices and still yield even higher yields than the organic farmers.
Also, the Cornell study, while promising, did mention a few things against your point:
It also acknowledged that the only reason organic foods have equal to or higher economic return per acre is because of the higher prices that organic foods command. In short, organic foods require a higher price, so if we went all organic next year, some who currently can afford food would not be able to.
Yeah, about that correlation vs causation thing. The older your body gets the more likely you are to get cancer. Until we discover the secret to immortality, cancer is going to increase. Look at this chart. Less people died from cancer in 2005 than from Tuberculosis in 1900, but in 2005 only only 2 people per million died from Tuberculosis in the US. People are living much longer than and aren't dying from the same causes as our ancestors. Nobody is living forever, so they're gonna die somehow.