Since it appears my sarcasm was lost, parent was speaking to Hulu making assertions about where you are located, and I was speaking to Hulu making assertions about your citizenship. It was a grammar joke. i.e. Hulu may know that the ip you appear to be at is in America, but Hulu *can't* know that you are an American.
$90? Holy crap. I pay about 69.95 for cable internet, with anything I want to watch available on said internet for free, and a magic jack for phone service that costs $20 a year, or a little less than $2 a month...
I understand your point, but lets not follow the red herring. His memories were not owned, the passwords were. His memory is just a method of storage for the passwords. They aren't dictating that he remember or forget the passwords; they could care less about his memory; they just want the passwords. Why weren't they written down somewhere? Had he had the system passwords documented, like any *good* sysadmin does, then his "memory" wouldn't be an issue.
mod parent up informative, greencastle PA comcast giving me 20/4 and that's not even highest level of service. DSL can't come anywhere near that, century link's highest package is 10/.9 at about the same price of $55 a month.
Estimates of the number of U.S. traffic deaths caused by cell phone talking while driving are generally in the 2,000 - 3,000 range with one hundred times as many injuries.
So lets see here. 73% of drivers talk on cell phone while driving, yet cell phone driving related deaths are about 3,000 a year and injuries let's say 300,000 a year.
I can't find any stats on how many people are driving drunk at any given time, but doing the math of 3 out of 4 people on the road causing 3,000 deaths a year with that activity, vs the > 11,000 drunk driving deaths a year, means that in order for cell phone driving to be "just as" deadly as drunk driving...well I don't feel like extrapolating it all out, but you get the point. Drunk driving deaths, injuries, etc are *SIGNIFICANTLY* higher when you compare the % of the populace who participates in the activity vs. the proven amount of death/injury/whatever that has been caused by it.
So there are your links and statistics. Anything else I can help you with today?
found motorists who talk on cell phones while driving are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the legal limit of 0.08 percent
So someone talking on their phone while driving = someone with BAC.08; in reverse it doesn't necessarily work that way though. If I go drink a few shots and get out on the road with a BAC of.15, then drunk driver != cell phone driver. Basic laws of math or whatever will tell you that if b !=a then a!= b.
"Drunk Driver" is a wide and general term, so you can't say "cell phone drivers are as bad as drunk drivers" because I can show you drunk drivers who are barely conscious. You could argue that cell phones drivers are as bad as drivers who are *AT* the legal limit for alcohol, but you cannot arbitrarily argue that they are as bad as anyone at or above that limit.
Therefor, "cell phone drivers are as bad as drunk drivers" = false. Thanks for playing.
The reason you do not hear about these things is because you do not research them.
Or it could be because common sense tells me we have many more people talking on a phone and driving than we do drinking and driving, probably by an order of magnitude or more, and yet there are more and/or worse accidents caused by drunk driving in spite of this. Arrogant as it may sound, I can tell you from personal experience. I have driven drunk, and I drive everyday while talking on the phone. There is no comparison; it's not even close.
driving while talking on cell phone != drunk driving. That is silly and ridiculous. How many times do you hear of someone running a red light at 80 and smashing into another vehicle because they were on the phone? etc etc I could extrapolate that out a looong way. I won't argue that it isn't distracting, but on par with drunk driving? Give me a break.
While that may be true, my point is that it isn't automatically (or at least isn't completely) incorrect to say "you got punched in the face because you went to his house".
Sure, maybe the bottom underlying factor is you reek, but regardless if you hadn't continued coming over, you wouldn't have continued to be punched in the face.
I understand automatically assuming causation because of correlation is a logical fallacy, but it is just as illogical and just as fallacious to assume that there is no causation between two correlated(sic?) items just because it's unknown. i.e. maybe I never told you that you reek, does it *really* change the cause of you getting punched? From a "scientific" or "literal" viewpoint I suppose, maybe, but from a "real world" perspective, I doubt it.
Again, I get the reasoning and your point, I just think people are a bit quick to throw out that particular "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
For the record, Correlation != Causation is overused.
Classic example. Every time you visit me, I punch you in your face. When you get home, your son says "Dude, every time you go to his house, you come back with a black eye!". To which your wife responds "Now son, correlation does not equal causation". Except that does nothing to change the fact that if you walk in my door again tomorrow, you will get another black eye.
If people are going to continue to spout that little nugget they should at least correct it to "Correlation does not necessarily equal Causation".
Not that I even know what it was we were talking about. So yeah, offtopic I suppose.
According to this site and the state law I think criminally negligent homicide would be a stretch. Not outright incorrect, but a stretch, as recklessly means "with knowledge or belief that x result will happen". I couldn't find a statue for negligent homicide without the criminally.
reckless endangerment
Same issue with the definition of recklessly. It could be applied, but as much as most people consider it a crock, its the "got up in the middle of the night and laid it on the table thinking to put it up in the morning" line that probably gets you off here, as in order to be reckless you have to "consciously disregard" good common sense. One could argue that either due to tiredness in the middle of the night, or due to shock/fight or flight (or coming back down from it) that he wasn't in a "normal" state of mind and therefor did not "consciously" disregard the danger.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing the guys behavior, I'm just saying.
And your post I agree with 100%. He wasn't responsible, but then again neither the constitution nor apparently any existing law requires him to be. If he appears generally remorseful and doesn't have some kind of high life insurance policy on the kid, and/or there is no indication of foul play, then figure out a way to make him take a safety course, get him some counseling, maybe even get him to speak to others about gun safety. Something helpful. Even if it were against the law, no prison term would punish him beyond the natural punishment he will live with, and I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying to make an example of him for the sake of others.
I guess I'm what you would call a gun nut. I believe in the broad and general right of most of the general public to have firearms in their homes pretty much no questions asked, the right to open carry with maybe just a few questions asked, and the right to conceal carry with a few more questions asked.
And I don't even own a gun. Well actually, I do own a break-action single shot 12 gauge that currently is 6 hours away at my parents house, but it hardly counts for this discussion.
Not citing any legitimate law codes, but a quick search of google relates that in the state of TN there is no law against leaving a gun out and accessible to a child. So before the "why didn't they lock him up" questions fly (too late by now, I'm sure), that would be because it doesn't appear to be against the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Since it appears my sarcasm was lost, parent was speaking to Hulu making assertions about where you are located, and I was speaking to Hulu making assertions about your citizenship. It was a grammar joke. i.e. Hulu may know that the ip you appear to be at is in America, but Hulu *can't* know that you are an American.
$90? Holy crap. I pay about 69.95 for cable internet, with anything I want to watch available on said internet for free, and a magic jack for phone service that costs $20 a year, or a little less than $2 a month...
How does Hulu know your nationality?
I understand your point, but lets not follow the red herring. His memories were not owned, the passwords were. His memory is just a method of storage for the passwords. They aren't dictating that he remember or forget the passwords; they could care less about his memory; they just want the passwords. Why weren't they written down somewhere? Had he had the system passwords documented, like any *good* sysadmin does, then his "memory" wouldn't be an issue.
One could argue that the admin passwords were the property of the city, and by not "giving them back", he was stealing from his employer.
speedtest.net showing right now, 21.19/3.55. Part of my upload is skewed by ip phone but not much.
I have seen downloads sustained over 2MB per second.
mod parent up informative, greencastle PA comcast giving me 20/4 and that's not even highest level of service. DSL can't come anywhere near that, century link's highest package is 10/.9 at about the same price of $55 a month.
You have not posted a single link to support any of your arguments. You aren't even in the game.
Fine, I'll take the time to support the obvious with links.
Try this for drunk driver statistics.
For 2008:
11,773 deaths, or 32% of total auto accident deaths (37,261)
About 257,000 injuries
Most frequent BAC among drunk driver accidents that resulted in death, .16
40% of all motor vehicle fatalities are alcohol related
And now the cell phone statistics
For 2008:
6,000 fatalities and 500,000 injuries related to driver distraction (not necessarily cell phone related)
73% of drivers talk on cell phones while driving
Another Site
Estimates of the number of U.S. traffic deaths caused by cell phone talking while driving are generally in the 2,000 - 3,000 range with one hundred times as many injuries.
So lets see here. 73% of drivers talk on cell phone while driving, yet cell phone driving related deaths are about 3,000 a year and injuries let's say 300,000 a year.
I can't find any stats on how many people are driving drunk at any given time, but doing the math of 3 out of 4 people on the road causing 3,000 deaths a year with that activity, vs the > 11,000 drunk driving deaths a year, means that in order for cell phone driving to be "just as" deadly as drunk driving...well I don't feel like extrapolating it all out, but you get the point. Drunk driving deaths, injuries, etc are *SIGNIFICANTLY* higher when you compare the % of the populace who participates in the activity vs. the proven amount of death/injury/whatever that has been caused by it.
So there are your links and statistics. Anything else I can help you with today?
from your own quoted article
found motorists who talk on cell phones while driving are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the legal limit of 0.08 percent
So someone talking on their phone while driving = someone with BAC
"Drunk Driver" is a wide and general term, so you can't say "cell phone drivers are as bad as drunk drivers" because I can show you drunk drivers who are barely conscious. You could argue that cell phones drivers are as bad as drivers who are *AT* the legal limit for alcohol, but you cannot arbitrarily argue that they are as bad as anyone at or above that limit.
Therefor, "cell phone drivers are as bad as drunk drivers" = false. Thanks for playing.
The reason you do not hear about these things is because you do not research them.
Or it could be because common sense tells me we have many more people talking on a phone and driving than we do drinking and driving, probably by an order of magnitude or more, and yet there are more and/or worse accidents caused by drunk driving in spite of this. Arrogant as it may sound, I can tell you from personal experience. I have driven drunk, and I drive everyday while talking on the phone. There is no comparison; it's not even close.
the really spectacular wrecks
While this may not be appropriate conversation for lawling, I still chuckled when I read that. Gold.
driving while talking on cell phone != drunk driving. That is silly and ridiculous. How many times do you hear of someone running a red light at 80 and smashing into another vehicle because they were on the phone? etc etc I could extrapolate that out a looong way. I won't argue that it isn't distracting, but on par with drunk driving? Give me a break.
I'm just wondering how long until the gay post hoc ergo proctor hoc statements show up
We're talking trillions of dollars here. Who bears the cost? You perhaps.
Holy Moly!! Here in the US, I can't even imagine what it would be like for citizens to bear the cost of a 10 trillion dollar liability!!
While that may be true, my point is that it isn't automatically (or at least isn't completely) incorrect to say "you got punched in the face because you went to his house".
Sure, maybe the bottom underlying factor is you reek, but regardless if you hadn't continued coming over, you wouldn't have continued to be punched in the face.
I understand automatically assuming causation because of correlation is a logical fallacy, but it is just as illogical and just as fallacious to assume that there is no causation between two correlated(sic?) items just because it's unknown. i.e. maybe I never told you that you reek, does it *really* change the cause of you getting punched? From a "scientific" or "literal" viewpoint I suppose, maybe, but from a "real world" perspective, I doubt it.
Again, I get the reasoning and your point, I just think people are a bit quick to throw out that particular "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
For the record, Correlation != Causation is overused.
Classic example. Every time you visit me, I punch you in your face. When you get home, your son says "Dude, every time you go to his house, you come back with a black eye!". To which your wife responds "Now son, correlation does not equal causation". Except that does nothing to change the fact that if you walk in my door again tomorrow, you will get another black eye.
If people are going to continue to spout that little nugget they should at least correct it to "Correlation does not necessarily equal Causation".
Not that I even know what it was we were talking about. So yeah, offtopic I suppose.
negligent homicide
According to this site and the state law I think criminally negligent homicide would be a stretch. Not outright incorrect, but a stretch, as recklessly means "with knowledge or belief that x result will happen". I couldn't find a statue for negligent homicide without the criminally.
reckless endangerment
Same issue with the definition of recklessly. It could be applied, but as much as most people consider it a crock, its the "got up in the middle of the night and laid it on the table thinking to put it up in the morning" line that probably gets you off here, as in order to be reckless you have to "consciously disregard" good common sense. One could argue that either due to tiredness in the middle of the night, or due to shock/fight or flight (or coming back down from it) that he wasn't in a "normal" state of mind and therefor did not "consciously" disregard the danger.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing the guys behavior, I'm just saying.
and by "not responsible", I obviously mean "irresponsible", not "not at fault"
And your post I agree with 100%. He wasn't responsible, but then again neither the constitution nor apparently any existing law requires him to be. If he appears generally remorseful and doesn't have some kind of high life insurance policy on the kid, and/or there is no indication of foul play, then figure out a way to make him take a safety course, get him some counseling, maybe even get him to speak to others about gun safety. Something helpful. Even if it were against the law, no prison term would punish him beyond the natural punishment he will live with, and I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying to make an example of him for the sake of others.
I guess I'm what you would call a gun nut. I believe in the broad and general right of most of the general public to have firearms in their homes pretty much no questions asked, the right to open carry with maybe just a few questions asked, and the right to conceal carry with a few more questions asked.
And I don't even own a gun. Well actually, I do own a break-action single shot 12 gauge that currently is 6 hours away at my parents house, but it hardly counts for this discussion.
when is this idiot (the stepfather) going to be charged with manslaughter?
My initial guess would be "When he breaks a law"
Not citing any legitimate law codes, but a quick search of google relates that in the state of TN there is no law against leaving a gun out and accessible to a child. So before the "why didn't they lock him up" questions fly (too late by now, I'm sure), that would be because it doesn't appear to be against the law.
Search for child access prevention in the page
It was a shotgun, and this was a 3 year old.
Uhm, what article did you read? FTA: ...it was a .380 smith and wesson pistol. Why are we talking about shotguns?
From Headline: Headline: Some Newegg Customers recieved fake ...
From Parent: Both were preorders from a reputable online seller, so I'm doubting that they were resealed copies
Is this sarcastic?
3a: to seize, gain, or win by trickery
Value/worth is not something that can be stolen.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, your argument is that a counterfeiter is *not* gaining value by trickery. Is this correct?