Then people start going to prison for fraud and the telecom ends up on the receiving end of a nasty antitrust suit. And possibly loses their status as sole provider of that infrastructure.
SCOTUS doesn't have to take a case, ever, because of the numerous cases that they could hear they get to pick and choose. What probably happened is that they saw the questions involved as being ones that would be important in the future. The article unfortunately fails to mention whether this is affirming a lower court decision on the matter. But, this allowed them to set precedence which would then apply to all federal courts in future disputes.
It's because phone service is considered a vital necessity for things like calling for emergency services. Cable lacking that ability hasn't historically had to deal with that. Plus, during it's early incarnations it was just an antenna on a hillside with wires leading to the houses, basically just expanding the availability of OTA programming to areas that were too far to get it with standard equipment.
Obviously, that was well before they started offering internet service or VoIP.
Doesn't matter why you were in the intersection, you still have to clear the intersection before the red light. The only way in which this could result in somebody getting a ticket would be if they were turning left and couldn't get clear the intersection because some asshole was trying to run the light themselves.
You don't get whiplash when you're hit from behind. At least not with cars made in recent years. You get whiplash when hit from the front or possibly sides. Cars going back to at least the '80s had head rests which prevented the head from moving backward far enough to cause whiplash. But forward and to the side there is no such protection. Airbags help a bit, but you're not typically going to see the amount of damage that you would from a side impact.
So, ultimately, if you're going to be hit, being hit from behind is probably the safest, however it's also the direction from which you should never be hit, as the driver behind you is supposed to be far enough back and paying attention so that they don't hit you.
The other thing is that red light cameras do not cause rear end collisions, stupid driver cause rear end collisions. The correlation is something to be concerned with, but there are already laws on the books dictating that you shouldn't be tailgating.
You're begging the question here. Lengthening the all red time has the problem of decreasing the volume of traffic that can go through a given intersection in a given time. I realize that it's popular on libertarian slashdot to view this as being all about making money, but most police officers would be more than happy to never write another ticket and never make another arrest if there was nobody out there committing the infractions that would result in those situations. If the city council is wanting to set these up for revenue, then it's your own damned fault for being too cheap to pay the taxes necessary to support your government services.
Also, nice straw man, you've got there with the ambulance. Typically in cases like that where you can't get over the ambulance driver will just drive on the wrong side of the street long enough to get around the blockage. Plus, they typically have a pretty good idea of where the traffic is at any given moment such that they can avoid cases where they can't just circumvent the traffic jams.
Which is sort of like parking tickets. If your car is parked somewhere that results in a ticket, you're expected to pay by default. There isn't really anything fundamentally different about this. A parking enforcement officer could also screw up reading the plates.
The technology isn't perfect, but neither are forms of enforcement that involve people.
Ultimately, this sounds a lot more like people that are mad about no longer being able to endanger other people's lives by running red lights without having to worry about getting caught. I keep see the increased incidents of rear end collisions referenced as to why these cameras are bad, but ultimately, in much of the country we have tailgating laws for a reason, people are supposed to keep plenty of space so that they don't have an accident if the driver ahead suddenly applies the breaks. And rear end collisions are significantly less likely to result in death or serious injury than t-bone collisions, the ones that they're trying to prevent.
Which strikes me as a relatively reasonable compromise. I'm not sure how much better people were expecting. The iOS is a walled garden, and if you want to use the devices without jailbreaking them, then you're going to have to live with Apple's rules.
No, you need roughly 2.1 children per couple on average in order to maintain the population. If every couple would restrict themselves so as to average out at 2 children per couple there would be a gradual decrease in population. Additionally, in most developed countries few parents actually choose to go beyond 2, so it's really not something that's worth worrying about.
That's the problem, historically mother's maiden name and last 4 numbers were alright, not great, but because it required some time commitment to find it wasn't too bad unless the person was being targeted. But these days, those answers for the security question are often quickly and easily available on the net. Friend your grandma on facebook? Chance are even that you've just given that bit away. And the last 4 digits are probably already floating around out there due to one of the numerous exploits that's hit one of the businesses you've used.
It's a difficult call. By that standard we may as well never bother doing anything about it because it's just weather. And in another 80 years when things get really bad, it will still be weather because we're not dealing with a long enough period of time. It's a tough position to be in, most people are too lazy and stupid to recognize that we need to do something now. But are more than happy to bend over for whatever the government wants when sufficiently scared.
The problem would largely go away if people would stop encouraging the FUD, instead listen to reasoned opinion and do something based upon that. By the time we can legitimately talk about changes to climate it'll already be too late to do much about it.
Over population is definitely something that we need to be concerned with. But in practice that problem tends to take care of itself when the population gets adequate, food, education and support in old age. Few people genuinely want to have more than 3 kids, the number is small enough that if a few people choose to have more it's probably not even worth worrying about.
The bigger issue is in parts of the world where parents have to depend upon their children to care for them in old age. Parents have no way of knowing how many children will survive to adulthood and as such tend to have a lot more children in order to make sure that they're cared for. These kids then tend to make a similar choice and over time the population just keeps on growing.
But, rather than disasters, the bigger thing we need to be concerned with is how much of the planet's surface we're dedicating to agriculture and living space. We definitely could grow the population quite a bit and still be able to sustain ourselves, it's just the cost would be extraordinary and we'd have to give up our wild spaces.
And as a result they have serious problems with human trafficking in sex slaves. The idea behind it wasn't to legalize prostitution so much as improve the lives of prostitutes. They recognized that it was unlikely that they would managed to stop it so they tried to ameliorate the situation. Unfortunately, that's just caused problems with human trafficking.
I realize that this is libertarian/., but let's not kid ourselves about the real consequences of legalized prostitution in that sense. It's not a bunch of women choosing to go into prostitution, I'm sure some do, it's more common for it to be a horrific form of exploitation. And no, I don't think that it's any less so when it's men that are selling their bodies.
Public just means that members of the public are allowed to visit any trial they wish without needing permission. Space permitting of course. There is no constitutional provision which dictates that they have to be televised and there has yet to be a ruling from SCOTUS that says that they must be televised.
There are pros, but the big cons of contaminating future jury pools and harm to witnesses are significant enough to warrant careful consideration of the issue.
That right there is the problem. I can't imagine how we could change the constitution so as to prevent the media circus that some of these proceedings result in without adversely affecting the ability of the media to engage in legitimate journalistic coverage of trials in general.
It's obvious to pretty much everybody that there is a problem with the way that the press covers high profile trials, but nobody has been able to propose a solution which doesn't lend itself to the sorts of abuses which our Constitution was in part designed to prevent.
The question is what precisely constitutes a public trial. The founding fathers definitely didn't envision the possibility of the entire nation viewing a trial, and in my view this would be a mistake. The public nature of a trial is to ensure transparency, however when such proceedings are televised it dries up the pool of potential jurors as well. Which is usually not a problem, however sometimes there's a civil suit which follows a criminal trial or for one reason or another the case has to be retried all or in part.
I realize that it's not a popular opinion, but this is something which has potentially very serious consequences to the nation as a whole. Ones which definitely weren't anticipated by the founding fathers.
Because that would be a legitimate threat to national security. Information doesn't necessarily just escape, it tends to slowly leak out in drips and providing a feed of military personnel is hardly the kind of thing that promotes the necessary ideals for being successful in military endeavors. It works for democracy, but the military isn't a democracy and their job is to fight the wars that the elected officials have decided they should fight. Transparency of that sort is hardly helpful for anybody.
I disagree, cameras only make sense for things like Law enforcement, it's complete bullshit to make somebody take a pay cut to work in the public sector and then force them to give up all their privacy as well. There's no reason why we need cameras in most of those cases when an independent auditor can already ensure adequate transparency in a way that the public watching can't.
Plus, you're not their boss. I know that people are going to disagree, but you're not. When you can hire and fire them and call the shots, then you can be the boss. But watching a few minutes or even hours of somebody working is hardly qualification for making an assessment of their job quality. Ultimately all you do is make the ones that are legitimately slacking off find more innovative ways of hiding it. If they were a waste of salary to begin with, I doubt very much that they're going to allow themselves to be found out just because you want cameras.
Law enforcement is very different since most of that stuff is done in public and they're frequently subpoenaed. Having that evidence is ultimately good for everybody involved as it makes things more certain.
To be honest, the bigger issue would be getting busted while they get off free. I doubt very much that they'd fail to pay the money that they promise for work. They're criminals, but that doesn't mean that they'd be dumb enough to short change the person writing their code.
Plus, what makes you think that cybercriminals are any less apt to violence than regular ones? If they're able to pay you, they're able to find you, and if they can find you then they could hire somebody to dispatch you if you so chose. Organized crime is organized crime, the internetiness of it all doesn't change that.
Now that I think of it, why don't they do a Fallout in Asia? The closest they've come to that was Operation Anchorage and that was still in the North America.
It's only inevitable when you cut down on regulatory authority to satisfy the whack job libertarian lobby. All forms of energy have possible downsides to them, and some of them can be catastrophic in nature, hardly seems fair to single out the nuclear energy industry when the oil industry has more or less led us to the brink of disaster and wants to keep leading into the abyss.
Slashdot Mirror
Then people start going to prison for fraud and the telecom ends up on the receiving end of a nasty antitrust suit. And possibly loses their status as sole provider of that infrastructure.
SCOTUS doesn't have to take a case, ever, because of the numerous cases that they could hear they get to pick and choose. What probably happened is that they saw the questions involved as being ones that would be important in the future. The article unfortunately fails to mention whether this is affirming a lower court decision on the matter. But, this allowed them to set precedence which would then apply to all federal courts in future disputes.
It's because phone service is considered a vital necessity for things like calling for emergency services. Cable lacking that ability hasn't historically had to deal with that. Plus, during it's early incarnations it was just an antenna on a hillside with wires leading to the houses, basically just expanding the availability of OTA programming to areas that were too far to get it with standard equipment.
Obviously, that was well before they started offering internet service or VoIP.
Doesn't matter why you were in the intersection, you still have to clear the intersection before the red light. The only way in which this could result in somebody getting a ticket would be if they were turning left and couldn't get clear the intersection because some asshole was trying to run the light themselves.
You don't get whiplash when you're hit from behind. At least not with cars made in recent years. You get whiplash when hit from the front or possibly sides. Cars going back to at least the '80s had head rests which prevented the head from moving backward far enough to cause whiplash. But forward and to the side there is no such protection. Airbags help a bit, but you're not typically going to see the amount of damage that you would from a side impact.
So, ultimately, if you're going to be hit, being hit from behind is probably the safest, however it's also the direction from which you should never be hit, as the driver behind you is supposed to be far enough back and paying attention so that they don't hit you.
The other thing is that red light cameras do not cause rear end collisions, stupid driver cause rear end collisions. The correlation is something to be concerned with, but there are already laws on the books dictating that you shouldn't be tailgating.
You're begging the question here. Lengthening the all red time has the problem of decreasing the volume of traffic that can go through a given intersection in a given time. I realize that it's popular on libertarian slashdot to view this as being all about making money, but most police officers would be more than happy to never write another ticket and never make another arrest if there was nobody out there committing the infractions that would result in those situations. If the city council is wanting to set these up for revenue, then it's your own damned fault for being too cheap to pay the taxes necessary to support your government services.
Also, nice straw man, you've got there with the ambulance. Typically in cases like that where you can't get over the ambulance driver will just drive on the wrong side of the street long enough to get around the blockage. Plus, they typically have a pretty good idea of where the traffic is at any given moment such that they can avoid cases where they can't just circumvent the traffic jams.
Which is sort of like parking tickets. If your car is parked somewhere that results in a ticket, you're expected to pay by default. There isn't really anything fundamentally different about this. A parking enforcement officer could also screw up reading the plates.
The technology isn't perfect, but neither are forms of enforcement that involve people.
Ultimately, this sounds a lot more like people that are mad about no longer being able to endanger other people's lives by running red lights without having to worry about getting caught. I keep see the increased incidents of rear end collisions referenced as to why these cameras are bad, but ultimately, in much of the country we have tailgating laws for a reason, people are supposed to keep plenty of space so that they don't have an accident if the driver ahead suddenly applies the breaks. And rear end collisions are significantly less likely to result in death or serious injury than t-bone collisions, the ones that they're trying to prevent.
Which strikes me as a relatively reasonable compromise. I'm not sure how much better people were expecting. The iOS is a walled garden, and if you want to use the devices without jailbreaking them, then you're going to have to live with Apple's rules.
No, you need roughly 2.1 children per couple on average in order to maintain the population. If every couple would restrict themselves so as to average out at 2 children per couple there would be a gradual decrease in population. Additionally, in most developed countries few parents actually choose to go beyond 2, so it's really not something that's worth worrying about.
That's the problem, historically mother's maiden name and last 4 numbers were alright, not great, but because it required some time commitment to find it wasn't too bad unless the person was being targeted. But these days, those answers for the security question are often quickly and easily available on the net. Friend your grandma on facebook? Chance are even that you've just given that bit away. And the last 4 digits are probably already floating around out there due to one of the numerous exploits that's hit one of the businesses you've used.
It's a difficult call. By that standard we may as well never bother doing anything about it because it's just weather. And in another 80 years when things get really bad, it will still be weather because we're not dealing with a long enough period of time. It's a tough position to be in, most people are too lazy and stupid to recognize that we need to do something now. But are more than happy to bend over for whatever the government wants when sufficiently scared.
The problem would largely go away if people would stop encouraging the FUD, instead listen to reasoned opinion and do something based upon that. By the time we can legitimately talk about changes to climate it'll already be too late to do much about it.
Over population is definitely something that we need to be concerned with. But in practice that problem tends to take care of itself when the population gets adequate, food, education and support in old age. Few people genuinely want to have more than 3 kids, the number is small enough that if a few people choose to have more it's probably not even worth worrying about.
The bigger issue is in parts of the world where parents have to depend upon their children to care for them in old age. Parents have no way of knowing how many children will survive to adulthood and as such tend to have a lot more children in order to make sure that they're cared for. These kids then tend to make a similar choice and over time the population just keeps on growing.
But, rather than disasters, the bigger thing we need to be concerned with is how much of the planet's surface we're dedicating to agriculture and living space. We definitely could grow the population quite a bit and still be able to sustain ourselves, it's just the cost would be extraordinary and we'd have to give up our wild spaces.
And as a result they have serious problems with human trafficking in sex slaves. The idea behind it wasn't to legalize prostitution so much as improve the lives of prostitutes. They recognized that it was unlikely that they would managed to stop it so they tried to ameliorate the situation. Unfortunately, that's just caused problems with human trafficking.
I realize that this is libertarian /., but let's not kid ourselves about the real consequences of legalized prostitution in that sense. It's not a bunch of women choosing to go into prostitution, I'm sure some do, it's more common for it to be a horrific form of exploitation. And no, I don't think that it's any less so when it's men that are selling their bodies.
On precisely what basis is net neutrality unconstitutional?
That's actually a good idea. Subject to prosecutor's objections, that's probably the most sensible solution that I've seen to the problems involved.
Public just means that members of the public are allowed to visit any trial they wish without needing permission. Space permitting of course. There is no constitutional provision which dictates that they have to be televised and there has yet to be a ruling from SCOTUS that says that they must be televised.
There are pros, but the big cons of contaminating future jury pools and harm to witnesses are significant enough to warrant careful consideration of the issue.
That right there is the problem. I can't imagine how we could change the constitution so as to prevent the media circus that some of these proceedings result in without adversely affecting the ability of the media to engage in legitimate journalistic coverage of trials in general.
It's obvious to pretty much everybody that there is a problem with the way that the press covers high profile trials, but nobody has been able to propose a solution which doesn't lend itself to the sorts of abuses which our Constitution was in part designed to prevent.
The question is what precisely constitutes a public trial. The founding fathers definitely didn't envision the possibility of the entire nation viewing a trial, and in my view this would be a mistake. The public nature of a trial is to ensure transparency, however when such proceedings are televised it dries up the pool of potential jurors as well. Which is usually not a problem, however sometimes there's a civil suit which follows a criminal trial or for one reason or another the case has to be retried all or in part.
I realize that it's not a popular opinion, but this is something which has potentially very serious consequences to the nation as a whole. Ones which definitely weren't anticipated by the founding fathers.
Because that would be a legitimate threat to national security. Information doesn't necessarily just escape, it tends to slowly leak out in drips and providing a feed of military personnel is hardly the kind of thing that promotes the necessary ideals for being successful in military endeavors. It works for democracy, but the military isn't a democracy and their job is to fight the wars that the elected officials have decided they should fight. Transparency of that sort is hardly helpful for anybody.
I disagree, cameras only make sense for things like Law enforcement, it's complete bullshit to make somebody take a pay cut to work in the public sector and then force them to give up all their privacy as well. There's no reason why we need cameras in most of those cases when an independent auditor can already ensure adequate transparency in a way that the public watching can't.
Plus, you're not their boss. I know that people are going to disagree, but you're not. When you can hire and fire them and call the shots, then you can be the boss. But watching a few minutes or even hours of somebody working is hardly qualification for making an assessment of their job quality. Ultimately all you do is make the ones that are legitimately slacking off find more innovative ways of hiding it. If they were a waste of salary to begin with, I doubt very much that they're going to allow themselves to be found out just because you want cameras.
Law enforcement is very different since most of that stuff is done in public and they're frequently subpoenaed. Having that evidence is ultimately good for everybody involved as it makes things more certain.
Probably a good thing then that churches are the last place that you'll ever find God.
To be honest, the bigger issue would be getting busted while they get off free. I doubt very much that they'd fail to pay the money that they promise for work. They're criminals, but that doesn't mean that they'd be dumb enough to short change the person writing their code.
Plus, what makes you think that cybercriminals are any less apt to violence than regular ones? If they're able to pay you, they're able to find you, and if they can find you then they could hire somebody to dispatch you if you so chose. Organized crime is organized crime, the internetiness of it all doesn't change that.
Now that I think of it, why don't they do a Fallout in Asia? The closest they've come to that was Operation Anchorage and that was still in the North America.
Yawn, let me know when it hits 11.
It's only inevitable when you cut down on regulatory authority to satisfy the whack job libertarian lobby. All forms of energy have possible downsides to them, and some of them can be catastrophic in nature, hardly seems fair to single out the nuclear energy industry when the oil industry has more or less led us to the brink of disaster and wants to keep leading into the abyss.