I live in Minneapolis, and my house was built in 1902, and arrived via rails exactly how you described. Most of the houses on my block are from the same time as well.
It doesn't really go far if at all, if owner is drunk.
Not really, it is surprisingly easy to ride around while totally shitfaced. Casually bicycling around doesn't require the kind of fine motor control and fast reflexes that driving does.
If it's reasonable to force people to install them on their cars, it's reasonable to make people use them with their bicycle in the same circumstances
No, it is not reasonable. A 30 lb bicycle, which for most riders barely goes above 20mph, being considered equivalent to a 2000+ pound machine that can trivially exceed 80 mph, is downright idiotic.
The question I don't know the answer to is if you throw the baseball onto my land and I refuse to allow you to retrieve it, does that baseball become mine?
There never was an original intent to "intellectual property" as you think it does because it doesn't exist in the US. Instead, we have patents, copyrights, and trademarks, three different sets of laws with three different purposes.
For patents, there was never any intention about protecting 'the little guy', it was to discourage secrets and to enrich the public domain, by making a bargain in exchange for disclosing of secrets. Prior to patents, many technological acheivements were kept secret and when the inventor died or guild disbanded, the knowledge went to the grave with them.
If intellectual property ever had an original intent, it would be to confuse people into thinking of all three of those sets of laws as the same thing, and to compare them to physical goods. It seems to have worked on you.
You don't need DVCS for more than one developer, but certainly for some teams, organizations, and situations it offers a lot of benefits.
Fir a lot of projects the DVCS advantages are tenuous. A lot of regulated industries mandate by law fairly strict top-down control that erodes a lot of the DVCS benefits. A lot of projects are not pure software projects that have lots of required binaries files that git and mercurial are powerless to merge sensibly. A lot of organizations have a variety of projects all stored in a single repository for whatever reason, and having to clone the entire thing for a single project is a nuisance.
For situations like those, which are commonplace in the commercial world, SVN and the centralized model is a fine way of doing things.
In my experience, DVCS is excellent for pure software projects, and sucks for anything else. SVN on the other hand is a great tool that is useful for a great number of projects beyond software.
In otherwords, use the tool with the right capabilities for the task at hand, not because of what's trendy.
It's not like the courts can do anything about it. The money to pay for that is set by the legislature. I don't foresee any legislator voting to increase taxes or fees to increase payments for jurors. Coupled with the social stereotype that jury duty is for idiots, it's a downward spiral.
The law is full of vagueness and contradictions. The very term "reasonable", which is common in many criminal statutes, by its very nature is open to interpretation and depends on situation.
You are right in that the laws are written much as computer programs are, except the people writing them don't even have remotely the skill to properly do so. And the law doesn't have an implementation to test against, it's written and goes straight into production. We all know how well that practice usually turns out for software developers.
Unlike code, with the law, instead of a bluescreen, when an error occurs, someone gets killed, goes to prison, or loses their property.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
Why would that be absurd? When individuals are facing legal judgments, they often face huge figures that destroy their financial situation. Why should corporations be safeguarded against that risk?
That's not going to work, because you'll never be able to economically write a requirements document so complete that the behavior is so well defined that you can get meaningful test coverage from it.
To get that kind of completeness you'd have to code the entire software in MSWord, which is a terrible programming language, and without ever testing it along the way.
Testing needs to be a continuous process as part of software development, not something that happens parallel or afterwards.
if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law
They can't take the box by force, but the US can instead throw you, the owner of it, in the slammer until you cough up the requested evidence. Where the evidence is, is irrelevant.
Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based?
Why shouldn't they? MS is a United States company. Why should MS, or any other corporation, be able to only abide by US law when it is convenient for them, and break it other times? If the laws of two jurisdictions are incompatible with each other, the corporation should have to make a hard choice and only operate in a single jurisdiction, and use other avenues to expand business to the other.
This is not a case of the US trying to compel a European Company into doing something, it is compelling Microsoft, subject to US law, to turn over data it holds, albeit in a different company. If an American individual is subpoenaed for information relating to a crime, resisting turning it over because it's held in a safe deposit box abroad, is no more an acceptable excuse than "it's in my other pants".
An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country. It's still illegal for an American to smoke weed or solicit 14 year old prostitutes abroad, despite those being legal in some places of the world. If American persons have to play by United States rules 24x7, why should a corporation get to pick and choose?
Your scenario only seems ridiculous because car companies don't share all their mechanical drawings. It would not be unreasonable to be expected to look up the torque in the mechanical schematics if that information was readily available to you.
You don't expect the manual for a computer motherboard to list the resistor values of every resistor on the motherboard, do you?
While it is true Aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit, the breaking point depends on what the stresses are in the material. "will eventually crack" can translate to 20 minutes of riding, or 20 million years of riding. An aluminum frame can be made where its fatigue life well exceeds the practical life of the bicycle.
If it takes 4.54 billion years of knocking the frame with your fingernail for the frame to fail, there really isn't a problem with it.
Because many people prefer the risk of it being stolen or being disarmed in the middle of a scuffle, than to have those risks, plus the additional risk of the weapon refusing to fire due to some hard to resolve technical issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you live in Detroit and drive a Pontiac 600 SUX?
He isn't making shit. More like playing a legally enforced game of "dibs".
I live in Minneapolis, and my house was built in 1902, and arrived via rails exactly how you described. Most of the houses on my block are from the same time as well.
Even though I might be accused of being a communist, I think this kind of practice should be against the law.
They only have fiber in southwest Minneapolis. Everywhere else is USI wireless which is contracted through the city.
Not really, it is surprisingly easy to ride around while totally shitfaced. Casually bicycling around doesn't require the kind of fine motor control and fast reflexes that driving does.
No, it is not reasonable. A 30 lb bicycle, which for most riders barely goes above 20mph, being considered equivalent to a 2000+ pound machine that can trivially exceed 80 mph, is downright idiotic.
I can help you with that. The answer is no.
Reading your state's statutes concerning destruction of property might give you multiple reasons why you shouldn't/couldn't.
There never was an original intent to "intellectual property" as you think it does because it doesn't exist in the US. Instead, we have patents, copyrights, and trademarks, three different sets of laws with three different purposes.
For patents, there was never any intention about protecting 'the little guy', it was to discourage secrets and to enrich the public domain, by making a bargain in exchange for disclosing of secrets. Prior to patents, many technological acheivements were kept secret and when the inventor died or guild disbanded, the knowledge went to the grave with them.
If intellectual property ever had an original intent, it would be to confuse people into thinking of all three of those sets of laws as the same thing, and to compare them to physical goods. It seems to have worked on you.
You don't need DVCS for more than one developer, but certainly for some teams, organizations, and situations it offers a lot of benefits.
Fir a lot of projects the DVCS advantages are tenuous. A lot of regulated industries mandate by law fairly strict top-down control that erodes a lot of the DVCS benefits. A lot of projects are not pure software projects that have lots of required binaries files that git and mercurial are powerless to merge sensibly. A lot of organizations have a variety of projects all stored in a single repository for whatever reason, and having to clone the entire thing for a single project is a nuisance.
For situations like those, which are commonplace in the commercial world, SVN and the centralized model is a fine way of doing things.
In my experience, DVCS is excellent for pure software projects, and sucks for anything else. SVN on the other hand is a great tool that is useful for a great number of projects beyond software.
In otherwords, use the tool with the right capabilities for the task at hand, not because of what's trendy.
It's not like the courts can do anything about it. The money to pay for that is set by the legislature. I don't foresee any legislator voting to increase taxes or fees to increase payments for jurors. Coupled with the social stereotype that jury duty is for idiots, it's a downward spiral.
The law is full of vagueness and contradictions. The very term "reasonable", which is common in many criminal statutes, by its very nature is open to interpretation and depends on situation.
You are right in that the laws are written much as computer programs are, except the people writing them don't even have remotely the skill to properly do so. And the law doesn't have an implementation to test against, it's written and goes straight into production. We all know how well that practice usually turns out for software developers.
Unlike code, with the law, instead of a bluescreen, when an error occurs, someone gets killed, goes to prison, or loses their property.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
Why would that be absurd? When individuals are facing legal judgments, they often face huge figures that destroy their financial situation. Why should corporations be safeguarded against that risk?
You think the media publishers type up each individual request?
That's not going to work, because you'll never be able to economically write a requirements document so complete that the behavior is so well defined that you can get meaningful test coverage from it.
To get that kind of completeness you'd have to code the entire software in MSWord, which is a terrible programming language, and without ever testing it along the way.
Testing needs to be a continuous process as part of software development, not something that happens parallel or afterwards.
if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law
They can't take the box by force, but the US can instead throw you, the owner of it, in the slammer until you cough up the requested evidence. Where the evidence is, is irrelevant.
Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based?
Why shouldn't they? MS is a United States company. Why should MS, or any other corporation, be able to only abide by US law when it is convenient for them, and break it other times? If the laws of two jurisdictions are incompatible with each other, the corporation should have to make a hard choice and only operate in a single jurisdiction, and use other avenues to expand business to the other.
This is not a case of the US trying to compel a European Company into doing something, it is compelling Microsoft, subject to US law, to turn over data it holds, albeit in a different company. If an American individual is subpoenaed for information relating to a crime, resisting turning it over because it's held in a safe deposit box abroad, is no more an acceptable excuse than "it's in my other pants".
An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country. It's still illegal for an American to smoke weed or solicit 14 year old prostitutes abroad, despite those being legal in some places of the world. If American persons have to play by United States rules 24x7, why should a corporation get to pick and choose?
Your scenario only seems ridiculous because car companies don't share all their mechanical drawings. It would not be unreasonable to be expected to look up the torque in the mechanical schematics if that information was readily available to you.
You don't expect the manual for a computer motherboard to list the resistor values of every resistor on the motherboard, do you?
I'm thinking they should be on the hook for supporting them for 95 years: the length of their copyright terms.
While it is true Aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit, the breaking point depends on what the stresses are in the material. "will eventually crack" can translate to 20 minutes of riding, or 20 million years of riding. An aluminum frame can be made where its fatigue life well exceeds the practical life of the bicycle.
If it takes 4.54 billion years of knocking the frame with your fingernail for the frame to fail, there really isn't a problem with it.
Because many people prefer the risk of it being stolen or being disarmed in the middle of a scuffle, than to have those risks, plus the additional risk of the weapon refusing to fire due to some hard to resolve technical issue.
Right, because I'm sure the engineers at Toyota haven't thought about this kind of stuff.
There is a non-zero probability of someone dying due to the presence of pretty much anything. That doesn't automatically make it "pretty serious"