Similarly universities should not be able to patent or commercialize anything where the research done to develop [if] it was funded with taxpayer dollars
Why shouldn't they be able to commercialize it?
Becuase they didn't pay to develop it. Are you retarded?
Automated cars as they exist now don't drive like this. Don't you read/.? They use a combination of cameras and laser range finders to navigate surfaces and obstacles (with varying results).
Also GPS can not pin point down to the lane level and last thing you want is for to think you are on a side road next to the highway and slow you down to a max of 25MPH
What are you on about? A traffic lane is 9 ft (for small surface streets) to 12 ft (for Interstate Highways) in the US. GPS systems can be accurate to less than a foot. They usually aren't in civilian systems because this requires some special equipment to process the signal quickly enough to achieve that level of accuracy, but for a self-driving car the accuracy is obviously worthwhile.
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't want to give up "freedom to control my vehicle" to get out of responsibility, I want to give it up because I fucking hate driving. It's a waste of two-four hours of my life everyday that could be spent more productively if the car did it for me.
The fact that people who don't agree with me have the potential to injure or kill others certainly makes it attractive to say that all drugs should be banned.
Everyone has the potential to injure or kill others. Your reasoning is childish at best.
An altered state of mind could be extremely dangerous in certain situations - driving, caring for children, even using a stove.
So can an un-altered state of mind.
Your reasoning is on the same level of saying that since you might drown if you get a cramp while swimming after eating, no one should eat. It simply doesn't follow. What does follow is that one shouldn't swim right after eating.
I'm all for personal freedoms, but when people with chemically impaired judgement start a fire and I have to stand out in the snow in my robe at 3 AM for 45 minutes then having those guys punished sounds pretty good to me.
And you sound like a selfish, self-righteous prick to me. But you don't see me suggesting you should be thrown in prison, do you? I mean, your complaint is that you had to stand outside for 45 minutes? Dear christ, call the fucking waambulance. There are legitimate reasons to be upset when someone sets fire to a building, but whining about having to stand outside reveals you as the petty drama queen you are.
Hopefully in the near feature some form of preventative control can be implemented that reduces the frequency of death that occurs due to chemical impairment that is generally accepted.
They're called ignition interlocks, and they exist already (and in some states are mandated for those with DUI convictions). What I hope for, is that assholes like you die off sooner than the rest of us.
Selection bias. The people who are blatantly high all the time mostly wouldn't be doing anything anyway, so they smoke pot to pass the time they'd spend staring at the wall regardless. There are plenty of functional potheads who smoke everyday--you just don't know they do because they are functional and not blatant about it so you don't know they're smoking. Pot's not like crack or heroin, which fundamentally hijack your biochemistry, and change your priorities in ways you cannot control.
No it wasn't even that. Some dude who happens to work in the Pentagon suggested that cyber attacks by foreign nations COULD be considered acts of war and could be met with retaliation. That does not make it policy any more than if a random hobo had said it.
Opiates are legal, well regulated and discouraged. Ever heard of morphine, vicodin, oxycontin, and codeine? Certain SPECIFIC opiates are illegal, but as a class opiates are "well regulated and discouraged." The fact that specific opiates (heroin being the prime case as it has minimal upsides relative to other opiates and a whole shit ton of downsides) are illegal doesn't change that designation.
You know, I'm ok with the government regulating gambling. I like knowing the dice are only as loaded as the house admits (i.e. by the design of the game, rather than by fraud).
You're sounding about as rational as Freud. You obviously can't be wrong, because you can just make up anything to prove you right, and you can do it without even interrupting your cocaine habit.
That may be, but it has the large advantage of being an early presidential primary state. There isn't likely any other state where a 20,000 vote swing could have much if any influence on national politics.
Do they let you not pay for voice calls on those phones? Didn't think so.
Try working on those reading comprehension skills. Start with the meaning of the word 'replace.' I did not say that they wouldn't let you make voip calls. I said they wouldn't let you replace their phone calling service with voip, meaning they won't decouple calling plans from data plans in anyway that would save you money.
You're more delusional than I am if you think the phone carriers will allow VOIP to replace their calling service on their cell networks. And I can see multiple mermaids fellating me at the moment, so...
It was never the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."
Really? The history of 19th century America is the history of one group wanting to use another group's property, and doing so over, and over, and over. You must be a real American to be so ignorant of your own country's history. Off the top of my head:
Repeated relocation of Native Americans to steal their land. Chattel Slavery (using some else's body the way I want without their consent). Grazing rights conflicts in the west. Water rights conflicts in the west. Mineral/oil rights conflicts. Railroad right-of-way conflicts.
I'm sure a few dozen more specific cases could be added.
In short, America was ALWAYS the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."
Slashdot Mirror
First thing I thought of when I saw the headline.
No, you just think that because you can't see your penis over your cheeto gut.
Similarly universities should not be able to patent or commercialize anything where the research done to develop [if] it was funded with taxpayer dollars
Why shouldn't they be able to commercialize it?
Becuase they didn't pay to develop it. Are you retarded?
Automated cars as they exist now don't drive like this. Don't you read /.? They use a combination of cameras and laser range finders to navigate surfaces and obstacles (with varying results).
Also GPS can not pin point down to the lane level and last thing you want is for to think you are on a side road next to the highway and slow you down to a max of 25MPH
What are you on about? A traffic lane is 9 ft (for small surface streets) to 12 ft (for Interstate Highways) in the US. GPS systems can be accurate to less than a foot. They usually aren't in civilian systems because this requires some special equipment to process the signal quickly enough to achieve that level of accuracy, but for a self-driving car the accuracy is obviously worthwhile.
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't want to give up "freedom to control my vehicle" to get out of responsibility, I want to give it up because I fucking hate driving. It's a waste of two-four hours of my life everyday that could be spent more productively if the car did it for me.
Maybe you should have picked a better example, because most prostitutes in the world are not volunteers.
No it isn't, because the federal government does not hold birth certificates.
Moreover, I dare you to cite a single actual case.
So, you'd trade one exploited group of people for another - so long as they're American?
No, he said he doesn't support the creation and entrenchment of an underclass that exists without the labor law protections. What are you smoking?
Oh, I should note I'm 100% Cherokee.
That's alright, nobody's perfect.
The fact that people who don't agree with me have the potential to injure or kill others certainly makes it attractive to say that all drugs should be banned.
Everyone has the potential to injure or kill others. Your reasoning is childish at best.
An altered state of mind could be extremely dangerous in certain situations - driving, caring for children, even using a stove.
So can an un-altered state of mind.
Your reasoning is on the same level of saying that since you might drown if you get a cramp while swimming after eating, no one should eat. It simply doesn't follow. What does follow is that one shouldn't swim right after eating.
I'm all for personal freedoms, but when people with chemically impaired judgement start a fire and I have to stand out in the snow in my robe at 3 AM for 45 minutes then having those guys punished sounds pretty good to me.
And you sound like a selfish, self-righteous prick to me. But you don't see me suggesting you should be thrown in prison, do you? I mean, your complaint is that you had to stand outside for 45 minutes? Dear christ, call the fucking waambulance. There are legitimate reasons to be upset when someone sets fire to a building, but whining about having to stand outside reveals you as the petty drama queen you are.
Hopefully in the near feature some form of preventative control can be implemented that reduces the frequency of death that occurs due to chemical impairment that is generally accepted.
They're called ignition interlocks, and they exist already (and in some states are mandated for those with DUI convictions). What I hope for, is that assholes like you die off sooner than the rest of us.
Selection bias. The people who are blatantly high all the time mostly wouldn't be doing anything anyway, so they smoke pot to pass the time they'd spend staring at the wall regardless. There are plenty of functional potheads who smoke everyday--you just don't know they do because they are functional and not blatant about it so you don't know they're smoking. Pot's not like crack or heroin, which fundamentally hijack your biochemistry, and change your priorities in ways you cannot control.
No it wasn't even that. Some dude who happens to work in the Pentagon suggested that cyber attacks by foreign nations COULD be considered acts of war and could be met with retaliation. That does not make it policy any more than if a random hobo had said it.
What's at issue is a third party adding functionality to AVM's product that likely competes with another AVM product sold at a higher price.
Therefore I declare this thread now over. There is no new ground to cover.
Someone obviously doesn't know anything about poker.
Opiates are legal, well regulated and discouraged. Ever heard of morphine, vicodin, oxycontin, and codeine? Certain SPECIFIC opiates are illegal, but as a class opiates are "well regulated and discouraged." The fact that specific opiates (heroin being the prime case as it has minimal upsides relative to other opiates and a whole shit ton of downsides) are illegal doesn't change that designation.
You know, I'm ok with the government regulating gambling. I like knowing the dice are only as loaded as the house admits (i.e. by the design of the game, rather than by fraud).
It certainly changes the stupidity of blaming either party for it as if the other wouldn't have also done it.
You're sounding about as rational as Freud. You obviously can't be wrong, because you can just make up anything to prove you right, and you can do it without even interrupting your cocaine habit.
That may be, but it has the large advantage of being an early presidential primary state. There isn't likely any other state where a 20,000 vote swing could have much if any influence on national politics.
Do they let you not pay for voice calls on those phones? Didn't think so.
Try working on those reading comprehension skills. Start with the meaning of the word 'replace.' I did not say that they wouldn't let you make voip calls. I said they wouldn't let you replace their phone calling service with voip, meaning they won't decouple calling plans from data plans in anyway that would save you money.
You're more delusional than I am if you think the phone carriers will allow VOIP to replace their calling service on their cell networks. And I can see multiple mermaids fellating me at the moment, so...
The real question with Star Wars is why various tech elements never seem to be carried to their logical conclusions.
Because Star Wars is not, never was, never will be science fiction.
Adding "in space" to a basic fantasy quest narrative with wizards does not make it science fiction.
It was never the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."
Really? The history of 19th century America is the history of one group wanting to use another group's property, and doing so over, and over, and over. You must be a real American to be so ignorant of your own country's history. Off the top of my head:
Repeated relocation of Native Americans to steal their land.
Chattel Slavery (using some else's body the way I want without their consent).
Grazing rights conflicts in the west.
Water rights conflicts in the west.
Mineral/oil rights conflicts.
Railroad right-of-way conflicts.
I'm sure a few dozen more specific cases could be added.
In short, America was ALWAYS the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."
This one goes in your mouth, this one in your butt. Wait, no...yeah...no, that one goes in your butt.