Though bit by bit there is some middle ground. As other technologies advance there are usually people looking back to see if new stuff might help solve some of the old technical challenges. Serious researchers have not given up on thorium, but they are much more realistic about its short/medium term viability then the hopefuls.
However, carving out that bit of scope was deliberate. Even though it was not part of the case they explicitly mentioned that it would not be covered, so implicitly they are indeed saying that if an officer had asked her to stop it would not be a 1st amendment violation.
Every few decades there is a movement or two that discovers that things are cheaper if you skip the rules, and they look around and can not see horrible things happening so they assume that things simply don't go wrong (as opposed to there being a regulatory structure that is helping)... but after a while things go wrong, people get sick, people get hurt, long term consequences start becoming visible, and those injured by the workarounds start demanding regulation so it does not happen to others... then wait a decade for people to forget again.
'aware' is really the key word here. Everything tends to be fine until it isn't, and these services are fantastic if one lives in a fantasy world where everyone is fair and safe (kinda needed for libertarian and anarchist models), but people have been spoiled by the benefits of regulation and oversight so they assume they will get the same level of assurance but at a lower cost.
As you say, people would buy lead painted toys if the price is lower and no one they know personally got sick from them.
Having worked in an industry that has to deal with the maze of local regulations, you would be surprised how much of a headache that can be, and yes, if you are big enough, those localities WILL come after you if someone in their jurisdiction buys something that is illegal there. We ended up having to do things like forbid sales to Canada, New Jersey, Utah, etc, because of all the little (but enforced) laws that come into play. All of the things they list are product types that frequently have restrictions regarding who can sell them, who they can be sold to, or variations of the items that need to be validated by local authorities before sale. It really is that much of a mess.
They would have to check all the states and jurisdictions involved, which is pretty much everywhere unless they implement some kind of geo-ip blocking. Weapon accessories, including scopes, sometimes have local restrictions.
It should not. However throwing it in there makes the law sound reasonable so they can extend the punishment for more abstract crimes like 'our contractor charged us X million dollars to clean up' and 'we lost customers due to our crappy security being exploited'.
Throw a bit about death and injury in there, but it will probably get used for monetary losses.
Not really. Kickstarter is big enough that they have to worry about legal issues, and weapons gets into a legally difficult area to operate in, just like all the other things on their prohibited list. It is annoying and I wish it was not so, but it is neither stupid nor shortsighted.
The same type of problem exists to a lesser degree with those types of projects too. Various areas get really twitchy over non-gun weapons and since only guns are 2nd amendment protected are free to have all sorts of laws about their sale and use.
Though to be fair, the securities were being packaged so that the risk was intentionally hidden, which could reasonably be considered fraud. If not so profitable it probably would have been considered illegal. More importantly, if some small time scam artist was doing the same practice they probably would have been charged.
They are foreseeable in hindsight. At the time there was a lot of reasonable debate about what was happening and what the consequences would be, with very little prediction of the scale that occurred.
So.... equal treatment is 'not taking it lying down'? That is less like striking back and more like official recognition with all the rights and responsibilities that affords.
While I am in favor of legalization and letting people decide, one thing to keep in mind is that psychoactive chemicals are kinda like chloroform when it it comes to danger, the dosage for effectiveness and the dosage for risky side effects have a pretty big overlap. The difference between people who have a reaction and who do not is not in the strength or maturity of the user, but often just down to luck. Granted heavy users have their own risks, but even the 'responsible' recreational dosages can randomly do lasting damage.
One of the problems with drugs being underground is we tend to get all our perceptions from, well, direct perceptions, so if nothing goes wrong with our local community (or we can write off bad trips as 'the person must not have been responsible) then it gives the perception of being much safer then it actually is. Which is one of the reasons I feel they should be legal, there would be much better visibility.
That is where 'care enough' comes in. If 90% want stricter gun control, but say, immigration issues are a higher priority for may people, they will vote on the immigration axis regardless of what their gun control beliefs are since we vote in general representatives.
I agree that voters can be liked to, frightened, manipulated, etc, but that does not absolve us of being responsible for the outcome. They manipulate people based off what people want and feel, in a way it is just our own political thoughts thrown into sharp relief and reflected back.
Unfortunately, we get the government that most voters want, or at minimal is a product of most voter's desires. If 90% of the voters wanted the NSA gone and had that as their big determining issue, it would be gone pretty quickly. But voters want a complex mix of often mutually exclusive thing and with a whole range of priorities. The NSA stuff just is not important enough to enough people.
It does not help that the difference between what the policy describes as "criminal leakers and publicity seekers" is purely in how the agency spins it.
It depends on how critical the new features are. Chances are many of the new features will only apply to a certain number of use cases, so it could be that they are spreading the features around, thus it would not be 'too many' for any given individual.
I had a similar thought. Yeah permits and inspection costs are non-trivial, but they are no where near the material or labor costs unless you are stripping an old house for parts (i.e. free materials) and using near-slave immigrant labor. Though at that point the bribes needed would probably be greater then the permit costs too.
Ah, that old case. It should be noted that there were actually hundreds of injury cases associated with their coffee. They had really bumped up the temperature to unsafe levels and were fully aware that that the standard accidents people had with beverages were resulting in significant burns compared to normal serving levels. The government should have intervened long before that, but they did not because civil suits were the 'solution'.
The problem was not that it was 'hot', but that they were serving it much hotter then would be typical since that was cheaper then using cups with marginally more insulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Or less cynically, "worth the money" can mean all sorts of things in secondary effects such as the aforementioned "student training"
Though bit by bit there is some middle ground. As other technologies advance there are usually people looking back to see if new stuff might help solve some of the old technical challenges. Serious researchers have not given up on thorium, but they are much more realistic about its short/medium term viability then the hopefuls.
However, carving out that bit of scope was deliberate. Even though it was not part of the case they explicitly mentioned that it would not be covered, so implicitly they are indeed saying that if an officer had asked her to stop it would not be a 1st amendment violation.
The summary was amateurish and bias even by slashdot standards. Where has this new style of 'reads like some random blog post' story come from?
They also carry extra insurance and are required to follow safety regulations when it comes to maintenance and inspection of vehicles.
Every few decades there is a movement or two that discovers that things are cheaper if you skip the rules, and they look around and can not see horrible things happening so they assume that things simply don't go wrong (as opposed to there being a regulatory structure that is helping)... but after a while things go wrong, people get sick, people get hurt, long term consequences start becoming visible, and those injured by the workarounds start demanding regulation so it does not happen to others... then wait a decade for people to forget again.
'aware' is really the key word here. Everything tends to be fine until it isn't, and these services are fantastic if one lives in a fantasy world where everyone is fair and safe (kinda needed for libertarian and anarchist models), but people have been spoiled by the benefits of regulation and oversight so they assume they will get the same level of assurance but at a lower cost.
As you say, people would buy lead painted toys if the price is lower and no one they know personally got sick from them.
Having worked in an industry that has to deal with the maze of local regulations, you would be surprised how much of a headache that can be, and yes, if you are big enough, those localities WILL come after you if someone in their jurisdiction buys something that is illegal there. We ended up having to do things like forbid sales to Canada, New Jersey, Utah, etc, because of all the little (but enforced) laws that come into play. All of the things they list are product types that frequently have restrictions regarding who can sell them, who they can be sold to, or variations of the items that need to be validated by local authorities before sale. It really is that much of a mess.
They would have to check all the states and jurisdictions involved, which is pretty much everywhere unless they implement some kind of geo-ip blocking. Weapon accessories, including scopes, sometimes have local restrictions.
In practice it is been interpreted as applying to firearms exclusively. Even at the time it was understood to cover 'guns', but not knives or canons.
It should not. However throwing it in there makes the law sound reasonable so they can extend the punishment for more abstract crimes like 'our contractor charged us X million dollars to clean up' and 'we lost customers due to our crappy security being exploited'.
Throw a bit about death and injury in there, but it will probably get used for monetary losses.
Not really. Kickstarter is big enough that they have to worry about legal issues, and weapons gets into a legally difficult area to operate in, just like all the other things on their prohibited list. It is annoying and I wish it was not so, but it is neither stupid nor shortsighted.
The same type of problem exists to a lesser degree with those types of projects too. Various areas get really twitchy over non-gun weapons and since only guns are 2nd amendment protected are free to have all sorts of laws about their sale and use.
Though to be fair, the securities were being packaged so that the risk was intentionally hidden, which could reasonably be considered fraud. If not so profitable it probably would have been considered illegal. More importantly, if some small time scam artist was doing the same practice they probably would have been charged.
They are foreseeable in hindsight. At the time there was a lot of reasonable debate about what was happening and what the consequences would be, with very little prediction of the scale that occurred.
So.... equal treatment is 'not taking it lying down'? That is less like striking back and more like official recognition with all the rights and responsibilities that affords.
While I am in favor of legalization and letting people decide, one thing to keep in mind is that psychoactive chemicals are kinda like chloroform when it it comes to danger, the dosage for effectiveness and the dosage for risky side effects have a pretty big overlap. The difference between people who have a reaction and who do not is not in the strength or maturity of the user, but often just down to luck. Granted heavy users have their own risks, but even the 'responsible' recreational dosages can randomly do lasting damage.
One of the problems with drugs being underground is we tend to get all our perceptions from, well, direct perceptions, so if nothing goes wrong with our local community (or we can write off bad trips as 'the person must not have been responsible) then it gives the perception of being much safer then it actually is. Which is one of the reasons I feel they should be legal, there would be much better visibility.
That is where 'care enough' comes in. If 90% want stricter gun control, but say, immigration issues are a higher priority for may people, they will vote on the immigration axis regardless of what their gun control beliefs are since we vote in general representatives.
I agree that voters can be liked to, frightened, manipulated, etc, but that does not absolve us of being responsible for the outcome. They manipulate people based off what people want and feel, in a way it is just our own political thoughts thrown into sharp relief and reflected back.
Unfortunately, we get the government that most voters want, or at minimal is a product of most voter's desires. If 90% of the voters wanted the NSA gone and had that as their big determining issue, it would be gone pretty quickly. But voters want a complex mix of often mutually exclusive thing and with a whole range of priorities. The NSA stuff just is not important enough to enough people.
It does not help that the difference between what the policy describes as "criminal leakers and publicity seekers" is purely in how the agency spins it.
In a way, it is almost preferable that they start taking away the illusion of cross platform tools and be honest about it.
It depends on how critical the new features are. Chances are many of the new features will only apply to a certain number of use cases, so it could be that they are spreading the features around, thus it would not be 'too many' for any given individual.
Well, he was making money and was pro-freedom so he would probably be held up as a hero in the US too.
I had a similar thought. Yeah permits and inspection costs are non-trivial, but they are no where near the material or labor costs unless you are stripping an old house for parts (i.e. free materials) and using near-slave immigrant labor. Though at that point the bribes needed would probably be greater then the permit costs too.
Ah, that old case. It should be noted that there were actually hundreds of injury cases associated with their coffee. They had really bumped up the temperature to unsafe levels and were fully aware that that the standard accidents people had with beverages were resulting in significant burns compared to normal serving levels. The government should have intervened long before that, but they did not because civil suits were the 'solution'.
The problem was not that it was 'hot', but that they were serving it much hotter then would be typical since that was cheaper then using cups with marginally more insulation.