Because the Constitution allows for the use of federal funds for post roads. If the mail goes through the airport, then they are allowed to use federal funds to get the mail from the airport to the city. I'm normally against excessive federal spending, but this is one of the few times they're actually trying to do something constitutional with the money.
It could also cause misunderstandings. I remember getting a reply email from my boss asking what equaled d. I guess if you're an engineer and occasionally use math in your emails, it's probably better to use ":) " instead of " =D "
Many misunderstandings can be prevented by writing better prose. For instance, if you tell a coworker you resent their last message, they probably wont understand that you "re-sent" it. In fact, a flame war is likely to break out. And a smiley probably wouldn't have helped.
I see what you mean. Sorry for the assumption of insult. It's just that most people find putting a dollar value on human life unthinkable. If you read some of the comments left in that link I posted earlier, you'll see what I mean.
Perhaps the problem in the Pinto case is that they used the dollar value of the litigation rather than the life. If they had used your $4.5 million per person, they would have probably gone ahead with the recall. But even then, people would have been crying foul.
That must have been a hard thing to decide for you and the rest of the jury. Especially if you have kids. I wonder what my munchkin thinks I'm worth.:-)
Just like car manufacturers have actuaries that calculate the expected number of deaths from a design flaw and whether they can withstand the expected legal costs, etc.
I always thought that Fight Club line was just fiction. But then I saw this Ford memo. Scary to see it in plain black and white. I wonder if they still do business that way? From a design standpoint, I can see the trade-offs; but once a major safety flaw has been discovered it should be addressed. But really the RIAA situation is entirely different. They are not putting anybody's life at risk (unless you count the fact that some of the people they are suing are on fixed income and will have to give up their air conditioning or heart medicine for a few months).
A little off topic, but for people who say that it's utterly unconscionable to design anything but the safest car possible, I have to ask them if they would even buy it if it were available. It wouldn't come cheap. The problem is just as much economics as ethics: if you could buy either a $20,000 car that gave you a 95% chance of surviving an accident or a $100,000 car with a 99.9% chance, which would you choose? I think I'd save the $80k and put it in a fund for something more likely to save my life, like paying medical costs or the like.
If you live in a major market, you can still get reasonably good TV for free. In Houston there's something like ten English-speaking channels over the air-waves. Most of the signals are pretty strong, and if you get a good set of bunny ears, you can pick up some of them as clear as cable. The only reason we got Dish last year was because my wife was pregnant and moody and got really mad about the whole Monday-Night-Football-on-ESPN thing.
I wonder how all of this is going to change when the airwaves go digital...
Blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals are boogeymen to lots of people, too (at least here in Cut and Shoot, Texas). But we consider it unconscionable to make hiring decisions based on race, religion, or sexual preference. Race, gender, age and sexual preference all have correlations to undesirable employee traits, too. Whites are more likely to commit embezzlement; women are more likely to get pregnant and leave work; old people are more likely to require more health care costs; and straight men are more likely to commit sexual harassment. But we don't hire people based on correlations. We hire people based on their individual abilities and behaviors at work. We don't ask if they broke the speed limit on the way to the interview.
What next? A company won't hire you because you don't eat your vegetables? After all, if you don't eat enough fiber, you are more likely to be constipated and take too much time on the toilet when you should be working.
But really this fingerprinting stuff is not like drug screening at all. So I'm not quite sure why the GP brought it up.
I rather like design patents. I think of them as a short duration 3D copyright for things that are aesthetically pleasing. It has shorter durations than trademark and copyright, and it's harder to get than either. And unlike trademark, it doesn't come with that nasty "sorry but we have to sue you or else we'll lose our trademark" thing.
It's one of the few "IP" laws that really meet the constitutional mandate of promoting the "useful Arts." Regular copyright is arguably for arts that aren't particularly useful.:-) It's unfortunate to see that the software companies have sunk their teeth into them as they have for normal patents. Although a patent search with APT/4 as the query shows me that none of the last 50 design patents appear to be software related. They're all "real" stuff, not icons and logos. That's at least one good sign.
I really have been enjoying your views on this topic. They seem very well thought out. As an opponent of software patents, I have been coming up with some holes in my own thoughts about the subject, and I was wondering if you (or any other Slashdotter) might have some insight to offer.
What would you say if I made a machine whose sole purpose was to accomplish the same task as the software in question, let's say a word processor. I could design a mechanical computer or a relay logic computer that could do word processing. Of course it would take a few megawatts to run, and it would be about the size of an office building, but it could be done. It's not general purpose. If I try to get it to find the square root of 1764 it will just sit there and do nothing. Now, assuming I designed said machine before any other word processor was built, would I have the moral right to patent this machine? Obviously the law would allow it, but do you personally, as an opponent to software patents, have a problem with patenting a machine that does the same thing that software does? It's not a rhetorical question; I have no idea how you (or any other software freedom fighter) would respond.
Also, what do you think of design patents? I'll wager a nickel that at least one of the Microsoft patents is a design patent (such as the shield shown on the Wikipedia article).
It's also not about "a decision based on the law" as you state, but how the jury interprets the law, which is a gigantic distinction. Judges cannot under any circumstances tell juries what the law means. They can read the applicable law statues to the jury but it's up to the jury to decide what they think it means.
That's absolutely incorrect. Juries interpret the facts. The judge interprets the law (except for jury nullification, but that's a different story). And it's up to the DA and defense attorney to explain what the law means in relation to the case. It is then up to the jury to decide whether the facts in the case are enough to warrant conviction.
I served on a needlessly long jury trial for assault with a deadly weapon. Both the DA and the defense attorney set about explaining what the law meant in their opening statements. We heard the evidence, during which the judge interpreted the law by ruling on objections. After the closing arguments, the judge gave us our charge, which is another interpretation of the law, boiled down to explain what we were required to find for a guilty verdict. It was also an interpretation of the law in the sense that the judge had ruled out the possibility of finding the defendant guilty of any lesser offenses. We decided the facts, nothing else. It was a pretty simple "not guilty" in this case.
What a jury thinks a law means and what judges and lawyers think a law means are 2 different things.
More like 15 different things each juror, two attorneys, and one judge.
As for the main point of the GP, even the most jaded juror must realize that it could just as easily be them sitting in the defendants chair. To say that all juries are just interested in getting back to work is baseless. I for one enjoyed the time off, and I liked serving my community. I would be surprised if it's even a substantial fraction of juries that are of the "screw justice let's get out of here" mindset.
well, like I said, I hadn't RTFM, but I have now.:-) The point is the same whether it's a school district or a licensing board (as in this case). I don't think it's right for people in authority to try to enforce professionalism away from the office/classroom, but they do. And if you agree to be part of the organization in question (business, university, school district, professional board, etc.), then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like the rules, go work at a place that isn't so draconian.
I'd imagine the people who didn't think she was professional enough felt bound by the NEA code of ethics. Specifically, an educator "Shall not assist any entry into the profession of a person known to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute." My guess is they consider drunken pirates to be of unqualified character. To bad there's not a line in there requiring a sense of humor. I'd imagine that's a pretty "relevant attribute" when your dealing with snotty-nosed brats that can't tie their own shoes.
While I find this case pretty stupid, the parent in me was wondering what my child would think if he saw his teacher drinking at a party. Then I remembered I'm not a puritan and will probably end up taking my kid to at least one party where I get hammered in a pirate suit. So he'll probably just think, "Oh look! Ms. Snyder has the same hat as daddy!"
I have a teacher friend who had to make her MySpace profile private for this very reason; her boss saw it as unprofessional. There weren't pictures of her getting stoned at a party or anything; her principal just thought she should have such a visible private life. Additionally, several school districts even go so far as to have "no public drinking" policies. So if she was in one of these districts (I know, I know, RTFM), that could be reason enough. I hate it that employers think they can control every aspect of your life, but if you sign the contract it's your own damn fault.
Where I live (Houston area), they will not take your plastic unless it is explicitly marked #1 or #2. If it doesn't have the mark, they throw it in your lawn. No note, no explanation. Just rubbish all over your yard. They did the same with the beer bottles. That was a pleasant thing to come home to.
Bullshit. The facts of the story, as admitted by the police, are that the student finished a creative writing assignment as instructed and turned it in to his teacher. Under no circumstances does that fall under disorderly conduct, since it was a private communication between two people that did not contain a threat or incite any violence. Even if all three of your points indicate that the kid is a ticking time bomb, charging him with disorderly conduct for turning in the paper is still unwarranted. Now if by #1 you mean his overall conduct has been disorderly in the past, let them charge him for those actions, not for the writing.
Much to my surprise, there is indeed a federal disorderly conduct regulation, 36 C.F.R. 2.34 (whatever that means). I can't figure out what part of the constitution authorizes such a law, but that has never really stopped congress from passing laws before. Most (all?) states have their own disorderly conduct statute covering fighting and making unreasonable noises or threatening gestures. Any such statute is governed by the Constitution, including: the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and assembly, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches, the Eighth Amendment's protection against unreasonable fines or punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection.
I don't know that I've ever read a more thorough (or for that matter, any) review of the social implications of grave-pissing. Maybe I've been reading to much Slashdot, but I found it quite insightful. Thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
- long walk on a beach
- skiing
- rock climbing
- photography
- photography on a beach
- rock climbing on a beach
- photographing skiing (almost)
I couldn't find one of somebody photographing while skiing past a rock-climber on a beach, sorry.We might even call it AT&T-1000.
Gute Idee! Ich habe den Artikel "plötzlicherausbruchdesgesundenmenschenverstands" ge-tagged.
Because the Constitution allows for the use of federal funds for post roads. If the mail goes through the airport, then they are allowed to use federal funds to get the mail from the airport to the city. I'm normally against excessive federal spending, but this is one of the few times they're actually trying to do something constitutional with the money.
It could also cause misunderstandings. I remember getting a reply email from my boss asking what equaled d. I guess if you're an engineer and occasionally use math in your emails, it's probably better to use " :) " instead of " =D "
Many misunderstandings can be prevented by writing better prose. For instance, if you tell a coworker you resent their last message, they probably wont understand that you "re-sent" it. In fact, a flame war is likely to break out. And a smiley probably wouldn't have helped.
Perhaps the problem in the Pinto case is that they used the dollar value of the litigation rather than the life. If they had used your $4.5 million per person, they would have probably gone ahead with the recall. But even then, people would have been crying foul.
That must have been a hard thing to decide for you and the rest of the jury. Especially if you have kids. I wonder what my munchkin thinks I'm worth. :-)
If that was really a summary, I don't think it did you any disservice to read it.
I always thought that Fight Club line was just fiction. But then I saw this Ford memo. Scary to see it in plain black and white. I wonder if they still do business that way? From a design standpoint, I can see the trade-offs; but once a major safety flaw has been discovered it should be addressed. But really the RIAA situation is entirely different. They are not putting anybody's life at risk (unless you count the fact that some of the people they are suing are on fixed income and will have to give up their air conditioning or heart medicine for a few months).
A little off topic, but for people who say that it's utterly unconscionable to design anything but the safest car possible, I have to ask them if they would even buy it if it were available. It wouldn't come cheap. The problem is just as much economics as ethics: if you could buy either a $20,000 car that gave you a 95% chance of surviving an accident or a $100,000 car with a 99.9% chance, which would you choose? I think I'd save the $80k and put it in a fund for something more likely to save my life, like paying medical costs or the like.
If you live in a major market, you can still get reasonably good TV for free. In Houston there's something like ten English-speaking channels over the air-waves. Most of the signals are pretty strong, and if you get a good set of bunny ears, you can pick up some of them as clear as cable. The only reason we got Dish last year was because my wife was pregnant and moody and got really mad about the whole Monday-Night-Football-on-ESPN thing.
I wonder how all of this is going to change when the airwaves go digital...
Yup. When a cop tells you to turn off your camera, it's a sticky situation.
*starts humming Broadway tunes*
What next? A company won't hire you because you don't eat your vegetables? After all, if you don't eat enough fiber, you are more likely to be constipated and take too much time on the toilet when you should be working.
But really this fingerprinting stuff is not like drug screening at all. So I'm not quite sure why the GP brought it up.
It's one of the few "IP" laws that really meet the constitutional mandate of promoting the "useful Arts." Regular copyright is arguably for arts that aren't particularly useful. :-) It's unfortunate to see that the software companies have sunk their teeth into them as they have for normal patents. Although a patent search with APT/4 as the query shows me that none of the last 50 design patents appear to be software related. They're all "real" stuff, not icons and logos. That's at least one good sign.
What would you say if I made a machine whose sole purpose was to accomplish the same task as the software in question, let's say a word processor. I could design a mechanical computer or a relay logic computer that could do word processing. Of course it would take a few megawatts to run, and it would be about the size of an office building, but it could be done. It's not general purpose. If I try to get it to find the square root of 1764 it will just sit there and do nothing. Now, assuming I designed said machine before any other word processor was built, would I have the moral right to patent this machine? Obviously the law would allow it, but do you personally, as an opponent to software patents, have a problem with patenting a machine that does the same thing that software does? It's not a rhetorical question; I have no idea how you (or any other software freedom fighter) would respond.
Also, what do you think of design patents? I'll wager a nickel that at least one of the Microsoft patents is a design patent (such as the shield shown on the Wikipedia article).
I served on a needlessly long jury trial for assault with a deadly weapon. Both the DA and the defense attorney set about explaining what the law meant in their opening statements. We heard the evidence, during which the judge interpreted the law by ruling on objections. After the closing arguments, the judge gave us our charge, which is another interpretation of the law, boiled down to explain what we were required to find for a guilty verdict. It was also an interpretation of the law in the sense that the judge had ruled out the possibility of finding the defendant guilty of any lesser offenses. We decided the facts, nothing else. It was a pretty simple "not guilty" in this case.
More like 15 different things each juror, two attorneys, and one judge.As for the main point of the GP, even the most jaded juror must realize that it could just as easily be them sitting in the defendants chair. To say that all juries are just interested in getting back to work is baseless. I for one enjoyed the time off, and I liked serving my community. I would be surprised if it's even a substantial fraction of juries that are of the "screw justice let's get out of here" mindset.
I'd imagine the people who didn't think she was professional enough felt bound by the NEA code of ethics. Specifically, an educator "Shall not assist any entry into the profession of a person known to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute." My guess is they consider drunken pirates to be of unqualified character. To bad there's not a line in there requiring a sense of humor. I'd imagine that's a pretty "relevant attribute" when your dealing with snotty-nosed brats that can't tie their own shoes.
While I find this case pretty stupid, the parent in me was wondering what my child would think if he saw his teacher drinking at a party. Then I remembered I'm not a puritan and will probably end up taking my kid to at least one party where I get hammered in a pirate suit. So he'll probably just think, "Oh look! Ms. Snyder has the same hat as daddy!"
I have a teacher friend who had to make her MySpace profile private for this very reason; her boss saw it as unprofessional. There weren't pictures of her getting stoned at a party or anything; her principal just thought she should have such a visible private life. Additionally, several school districts even go so far as to have "no public drinking" policies. So if she was in one of these districts (I know, I know, RTFM), that could be reason enough. I hate it that employers think they can control every aspect of your life, but if you sign the contract it's your own damn fault.
We really need a "+1, ironic" mod.
Just wait a couple of days, I'm sure it will come up again.
It almost makes sense the other way, too, as in making the technology more robust.
Where I live (Houston area), they will not take your plastic unless it is explicitly marked #1 or #2. If it doesn't have the mark, they throw it in your lawn. No note, no explanation. Just rubbish all over your yard. They did the same with the beer bottles. That was a pleasant thing to come home to.
This should back you up.
Bullshit. The facts of the story, as admitted by the police, are that the student finished a creative writing assignment as instructed and turned it in to his teacher. Under no circumstances does that fall under disorderly conduct, since it was a private communication between two people that did not contain a threat or incite any violence. Even if all three of your points indicate that the kid is a ticking time bomb, charging him with disorderly conduct for turning in the paper is still unwarranted. Now if by #1 you mean his overall conduct has been disorderly in the past, let them charge him for those actions, not for the writing.
Much to my surprise, there is indeed a federal disorderly conduct regulation, 36 C.F.R. 2.34 (whatever that means). I can't figure out what part of the constitution authorizes such a law, but that has never really stopped congress from passing laws before. Most (all?) states have their own disorderly conduct statute covering fighting and making unreasonable noises or threatening gestures. Any such statute is governed by the Constitution, including: the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and assembly, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches, the Eighth Amendment's protection against unreasonable fines or punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection.
I don't know that I've ever read a more thorough (or for that matter, any) review of the social implications of grave-pissing. Maybe I've been reading to much Slashdot, but I found it quite insightful. Thanks!