Fire departments have enormous up-front costs to acquire resources like equipment, maintenance, training, etc. Every time a department deploys those resources, it lessens its ability to respond to future emergencies.
There is, and I don't think many people realize that. Our area just bought a new ladder truck. How much do you think that thing cost? $1.2 million. And all that equipment. Struts to stabilize your car while we pull you out of it? $20,000. Jaws to cut open said car? $20-40,000. Basic FF training? $2,000... EMS? $2,000... incident command, fire behavior, adjunct training (night ops, hybrid cars, etc, etc)... cha-ching, cash register. Facilities. Maintenance.... it adds up.
However, in this case no *human* lives were at stake. Therefore the fire department is not obligated to respond to a call that is not within their coverage boundary. Additionally, stepping outside of their boundaries would have voided any occupational hazard insurance they may carry, because providing fire response outside of their duty radius is considered action outside of the line of duty.
Agreed, but to clarify, there would have been lives at stake, those of the firefighters. One of the first things we are taught? "Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk little to save little."
Haha. My fire district (which/doesn't/ operate on this policy) services 6000 people, runs 800 EMS and maybe 50 fire calls a year, of which less than 5 are fully involved structure fires.
How many fire engines, ambulances and staff were you hoping to keep going on $375/yr, exactly? Because if people only had to pay the fee during or after an event, I can guarantee that they'd/only/ pay then.
What confuses me every time I try to use Windows is how many tasks I have to do on the top of the desktop that Linux does for me automatically without any intervention from me.
Name a few, name three. Three examples from your claim of "how many tasks" should be easy enough, right?
And precisely what does that say? That he's not allowed to express his opinions. In fact, this is more creative editing from you. What in fact happened in the "little while later after dodging the question" was Domscheit-Berg saying "the three people I named above" (which he did, in the same transcript).
Like someone else said, I'm more suspicious of your motivations than I am of Domscheit-Bergs.
Well, I guess a story about "self-important attention whores" just wouldn't be complete without a quote or two from Jimbo "self-important attention whore" Wales...
it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question.
From the interview:
Assange: Was this you?
Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this
Uhhh... this wasn't a "bad boy, you're doing ten mph over" traffic stop, issue citation, leave.
This is someone who was charged with multiple counts of reckless endangerment, failure to stop, speeding (and when we say speeding, we're referring to "approaching 130mph on a 60mph freeway"), and so on. Let's not go pretending he was some persecuted citizen busted by a cop trying to make quota.
And whilst I disagree with the "wiretapping" b.s., this guy is utterly disingenuous - his video shows the unmarked car clearly has lights flashing, there's audible siren... "I didn't know who it was!" my hairy ass.
Hell, even in this still image, you can see the lights on the cop car. "I wasn't sure if I was being robbed..." - yeah, by some ballsy carjacker who runs someone off the road whilst they're being pursued by multiple cops, okay, I buy that...
How nice, also, of you, to do the work of thousands of sociologists and philosophers, theologians worldwide, and in one fell swoop, less than twenty keystrokes on Slashdot, declare agnostics to be misguided and wrong.
And given I've seen six month old children successfully navigate between apps, play games
Please, put some videos of these supposed children on YouTube. Or have their parents offer them up for scientific study. A 6 month old isn't even putting together coherent word sounds yet. Just a goo-goo ga-ga babble. They don't walk, many don't even crawl. They will sit only if propped up. They primarily explore objects around their immediate vicinity by putting them in their mouths.
They are certainly not fucking "navigating between apps, playing games" on the jesusDevices.
No matter how small or insulting it is, it's still 100% more than Microsoft pays for bug reports, and Microsoft's release schedule on the fixes is downright glacial compared to Google or Firefox. Assuming they don't outright ignore you or threaten to sue you for violating the EULA.
Nice FUD. Microsoft issues patches monthly, and more frequently, out-of-band for critical security fixes.
Please, point to the last instance where MSFT threatened to sue for violating the EULA by reporting a bug in IE.
What I ended up doing, since I have a lot of wireless traffic in my house, from Bluetooth to multiple laptops, was some of the Linksys/Cisco new devices, WET610N, WRT610N, etc. I set up a 2.4GHz G/N network, and purely for the media center (which is wirelessly connected) I ran 5GHz N to it, and a 8 port GbE switch for Xbox, STB, Soundbridge, etc). I have not noticed any glitches, even in 1080p content.
Precisely. I have a Roku HD, and a Zotac MAG - and really, the only reason I got the Zotac MAG was impatience for Hulu Plus on the Roku, and a random collection of movies on my media server (though truth be told, even that wasn't strictly necessary - I have Twonky MediaServer and an Xbox 360 for that, and Roku SoundBridge for internet radio) - my wife loves, geeky as she is, the fact that it's all controlled through a Harmony remote, not byzantine different pieces of software (the first gen HTPC I set up required Winamp for some things, WMP for others, VLC for yet others)...
LMAO, do you think this would fly in, hmmm, any jurisdiction on the face of the planet?
"Your Honor, I did not agree to the EULA, that was the autonomous workings of a piece of software I installed for the express purpose of accepting EULAs so I could try to feign a claim of plausible deniability."
What will happen in this case I wager is that the "license is free with the purchase of the media", ergo on damage to the media, "your license to use the product will still be valid, you just need to purchase replacement media". Cake, eat it too? Of course it is...
Leaving aside the agreement or disagreement I have with this decision, your complaint isn't entirely valid. If I sell you something I have no right to, and the rightful owner demands it back, under the law you are required to do so. Of course, then you are fully entitled to seek restitution, compensation and potentially damages from me for your costs, but you still have to return the item. The point at which you became aware that I was not the rightful owner, and that the rightful owner wanted the item back is the point where you are about to be committing theft (without getting into a sideline tangent on copyright infringement vs theft for the purposes of demonstrating analogy).
Also, I'd like for it to now be legally disallowed to use the term "buy software" in a commercial context as it no longer applies and would falsely advertise what it is that we "purchase".
Their claim will merely be (and many publishers already use this parlance) that you're "buying a licence". (How that sidesteps the whole 'buy' issue, I'm not sure, other than 'buying a non-transferable licence').
Nice try, but no, it's not. You may wish to actually bother to read the agreement you signed when you opened that account. Universally, you will find a clause that says "At all times, any cards issued attached to account remain the property of [issuing institution] and must be returned upon demand."
I have the right to control who uses it (me only).
If anything, you mean the responsibility. I don't think you'll find many rights to using a card. You could authorize additional users, but when you let someone else use your card, you'd be forfeiting any and all protections against liability stemming from the use of said card.
I have DEMAND PHOTO ID written below my signature, so the clerk will ask to see my photo.
Again, it's a basic tenet of human maturity and responsibility that we read and comprehend the contracts we enter into. However, evidently, many of us choose not to, and wax indignant and polemic, ignorant of our ignorance. In your cardholder contract, the one you signed, if not also on the card itself, you'll find a clause, "This card is valid ONLY UPON the signature of the cardholder.". In many cases, this emphasis is explicit. Many contracts / institutions will also state that you are not to write CHECK ID on the card.
That same contract will also state that your issuing institution, and the merchants in its network reserve the right to seize and retain possession of your card, and that the merchant may destroy the card on instruction from the institution. Remember, it's not your property?
Now, why, may you ask, would they accept a signature on the back of your card, and not "CHECK ID"? Several reasons: 1) what makes you think your average merchant is trained in recognizing counterfeit ID or verifying identity from facial features? (Not that they are expected to be graphologists either, but that's another matter). 2) Some people like to believe that having such a request on their card raises the bar of liability and / or protection for them from fraudulent claims - "Did they check my ID?" - when in fact it does no such thing, after all your issuing institution made no such agreement with you, and in fact you went outside the bounds of your agreement to impart an obligation on your relationship between you and your merchant that has no bearing, weight or merit.
Don't even bother referring to card-not-present transactions. The merchant pays a higher fee on such transactions, precisely because of the increased risk.
Don't get your panties all twisted up because someone on the Internet has the unmitigated gall to suggest you actually read the contracts you enter into before mouthing off petulantly.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, and I don't think many people realize that. Our area just bought a new ladder truck. How much do you think that thing cost? $1.2 million. And all that equipment. Struts to stabilize your car while we pull you out of it? $20,000. Jaws to cut open said car? $20-40,000. Basic FF training? $2,000... EMS? $2,000... incident command, fire behavior, adjunct training (night ops, hybrid cars, etc, etc)... cha-ching, cash register. Facilities. Maintenance.... it adds up.
Agreed, but to clarify, there would have been lives at stake, those of the firefighters. One of the first things we are taught? "Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk little to save little."
How many fire engines, ambulances and staff were you hoping to keep going on $375/yr, exactly? Because if people only had to pay the fee during or after an event, I can guarantee that they'd /only/ pay then.
Name a few, name three. Three examples from your claim of "how many tasks" should be easy enough, right?
I'm not sure your so-called point...
Or something. Meh.
Like someone else said, I'm more suspicious of your motivations than I am of Domscheit-Bergs.
Good points, and valid. Yet, somehow, "but it was only a speeding ticket" was somehow "insightful". Goose, gander.
Well, I guess a story about "self-important attention whores" just wouldn't be complete without a quote or two from Jimbo "self-important attention whore" Wales...
From the interview:
Very invasive, indeed. What a weasel.
Which would be why I said "although I disagree entirely with the wiretapping BS they tried to pull", I suspect ...
This is someone who was charged with multiple counts of reckless endangerment, failure to stop, speeding (and when we say speeding, we're referring to "approaching 130mph on a 60mph freeway"), and so on. Let's not go pretending he was some persecuted citizen busted by a cop trying to make quota.
And whilst I disagree with the "wiretapping" b.s., this guy is utterly disingenuous - his video shows the unmarked car clearly has lights flashing, there's audible siren... "I didn't know who it was!" my hairy ass.
Hell, even in this still image, you can see the lights on the cop car. "I wasn't sure if I was being robbed..." - yeah, by some ballsy carjacker who runs someone off the road whilst they're being pursued by multiple cops, okay, I buy that...
Is your neighbor running a grow house? Maybe you should look for a vampire feed ...
How nice, also, of you, to do the work of thousands of sociologists and philosophers, theologians worldwide, and in one fell swoop, less than twenty keystrokes on Slashdot, declare agnostics to be misguided and wrong.
Or is it some person's view of a world that may, or may well not, exist?
I'm going more for the latter, which renders your point somewhat moot.
Please, put some videos of these supposed children on YouTube. Or have their parents offer them up for scientific study. A 6 month old isn't even putting together coherent word sounds yet. Just a goo-goo ga-ga babble. They don't walk, many don't even crawl. They will sit only if propped up. They primarily explore objects around their immediate vicinity by putting them in their mouths.
They are certainly not fucking "navigating between apps, playing games" on the jesusDevices.
Nice FUD. Microsoft issues patches monthly, and more frequently, out-of-band for critical security fixes.
Please, point to the last instance where MSFT threatened to sue for violating the EULA by reporting a bug in IE.
Go on, I'm waiting...
Borderline troll, I think.
Who cares?
What I ended up doing, since I have a lot of wireless traffic in my house, from Bluetooth to multiple laptops, was some of the Linksys/Cisco new devices, WET610N, WRT610N, etc. I set up a 2.4GHz G/N network, and purely for the media center (which is wirelessly connected) I ran 5GHz N to it, and a 8 port GbE switch for Xbox, STB, Soundbridge, etc). I have not noticed any glitches, even in 1080p content.
Precisely. I have a Roku HD, and a Zotac MAG - and really, the only reason I got the Zotac MAG was impatience for Hulu Plus on the Roku, and a random collection of movies on my media server (though truth be told, even that wasn't strictly necessary - I have Twonky MediaServer and an Xbox 360 for that, and Roku SoundBridge for internet radio) - my wife loves, geeky as she is, the fact that it's all controlled through a Harmony remote, not byzantine different pieces of software (the first gen HTPC I set up required Winamp for some things, WMP for others, VLC for yet others)...
"Your Honor, I did not agree to the EULA, that was the autonomous workings of a piece of software I installed for the express purpose of accepting EULAs so I could try to feign a claim of plausible deniability."
What will happen in this case I wager is that the "license is free with the purchase of the media", ergo on damage to the media, "your license to use the product will still be valid, you just need to purchase replacement media". Cake, eat it too? Of course it is ...
Leaving aside the agreement or disagreement I have with this decision, your complaint isn't entirely valid. If I sell you something I have no right to, and the rightful owner demands it back, under the law you are required to do so. Of course, then you are fully entitled to seek restitution, compensation and potentially damages from me for your costs, but you still have to return the item. The point at which you became aware that I was not the rightful owner, and that the rightful owner wanted the item back is the point where you are about to be committing theft (without getting into a sideline tangent on copyright infringement vs theft for the purposes of demonstrating analogy).
Their claim will merely be (and many publishers already use this parlance) that you're "buying a licence". (How that sidesteps the whole 'buy' issue, I'm not sure, other than 'buying a non-transferable licence').
That being said, you are wrong on so many levels:
Nice try, but no, it's not. You may wish to actually bother to read the agreement you signed when you opened that account. Universally, you will find a clause that says "At all times, any cards issued attached to account remain the property of [issuing institution] and must be returned upon demand."
If anything, you mean the responsibility. I don't think you'll find many rights to using a card. You could authorize additional users, but when you let someone else use your card, you'd be forfeiting any and all protections against liability stemming from the use of said card.
Again, it's a basic tenet of human maturity and responsibility that we read and comprehend the contracts we enter into. However, evidently, many of us choose not to, and wax indignant and polemic, ignorant of our ignorance. In your cardholder contract, the one you signed, if not also on the card itself, you'll find a clause, "This card is valid ONLY UPON the signature of the cardholder.". In many cases, this emphasis is explicit. Many contracts / institutions will also state that you are not to write CHECK ID on the card.
That same contract will also state that your issuing institution, and the merchants in its network reserve the right to seize and retain possession of your card, and that the merchant may destroy the card on instruction from the institution. Remember, it's not your property?
Now, why, may you ask, would they accept a signature on the back of your card, and not "CHECK ID"? Several reasons: 1) what makes you think your average merchant is trained in recognizing counterfeit ID or verifying identity from facial features? (Not that they are expected to be graphologists either, but that's another matter). 2) Some people like to believe that having such a request on their card raises the bar of liability and / or protection for them from fraudulent claims - "Did they check my ID?" - when in fact it does no such thing, after all your issuing institution made no such agreement with you, and in fact you went outside the bounds of your agreement to impart an obligation on your relationship between you and your merchant that has no bearing, weight or merit.
Don't even bother referring to card-not-present transactions. The merchant pays a higher fee on such transactions, precisely because of the increased risk.
Don't get your panties all twisted up because someone on the Internet has the unmitigated gall to suggest you actually read the contracts you enter into before mouthing off petulantly.