No, it doesn't offend me, but it's going to make non-use of blinkers even worse. Why? "The car will do it for me". It's bad enough that lots of drivers don't use their turn signals, now it will become even more problematic as "something else will do it".
In most states, you must travel at least 100 feet in a lane with your blinker on before you switch lanes. I guess that Tesla software has to be able to predict the future!
That would be illegal in Washington, and many other States. Changing a lane without a signal is a traffic infraction; I hope Tesla likes to pay for those!
Getting campaign donations for a stance is be like giving a car to a sales rep for a good deal at the expense of the company they where claiming to work for.
This is illegal, or at least the second one is, the first is only illegal in functioning democracies.
Actually, it is not illegal. Doesn't mean you won't get fired, but what law is broken by giving a sales rep a deal better than the company normally would? There is nothing illegal about it. At all.
Well, there you go, exaggerating again. Actually, many of them specifically analyze the defects in the Electoral College that arise due to the fundamentally flawed coverage in the Constitution, and demonstrate the fallacies that go along with the fantasies of the various apologists by pointing out the actual reality of affairs.
You just confirmed my position. Thank you. People don't like how it operates, so they want to change it. As it operates today - the only votes that matter are the electoral college. You might not like it - but that's the fact.
less than 2%. Dropbox is a desktop - not server - service. If you can configure and run your Linux server - you already have WebDisk, FTP, and a host of other options. This is for desktop file sharing and storage, drag and drop from the desktop. And Linux is such a bit player in that market, it makes zero financial sense to support it.
Seems to me they are trying to protect your 1st Amendment rights by their actions. You don't have to be grateful, that's your right - but they will continue to defend your 1st Amendment right whether you like it or not.
The ATF says you're wrong. But what do they know, they're just the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they know NOTHING about regulation of guns - not like you, AC!
Nice! Here's an interesting idea... Set up an autoresponder e-mail (3DgunPlans@domain.com) and when you e-mail it, you get the files attached in a response...:) That would get around the injunction nicely, AND have effectively zero effort on Mr. Wilson's time!
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use.
There, you can make your own firearm. "Aha!", you say, thinking you trapped me... "I said 'granted the right to make weapons without restriction' and you didn't realize that!"
In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.
Pay a tax, tell the ATF you're going to make it - and you're good to go.
What did we learn? A person can make their own firearm - handgun or rifle - if they choose. And if it's a restricted item (fully automatic, or fires explosives), they have to pay a tax and register with the ATF, as you do when you buy such things. But you can make them still the same.
Does the law say you can eat a bowl of Cheerios in the morning? Better put that spoon down! Unless there is a law on the books prohibiting an action, ANY action is essentially legal. There is NO LAW saying you cannot distribute information about building a firearm (in fact, Amazon has a full list of books on how to turn basic materials into firearms), thus the information is completely legal.
What scares me about you and people with your opinion is that you have turned over ALL your freedoms and rights to the Government. You don't get it - they are YOUR RIGHTS, from the Creator and inherent. You choose to surrender ALL to the Government, and let IT dictate what you can do. One of the central tenets of the Constitution was the duties of Government were limited, and - as the Constitution itself says - it lists what the Federal Government can do. If it's not in that list - it cannot do it.
Our system of law is prohibitive, not permissive; it says what you cannot do - not what you can do. If there is no law restricting the distribution of this 3D file, then it is implicitly legal, and a judge has ZERO basis for banning such distribution. There is no legal grounds for Government to "ban" something without a law behind it.
People with your viewpoint on Government and governance are the true threat to freedom. You wish to turn this concept on its head, effectively allowing Government to tell you what you can do. To lose all freedoms and rights and become a mere serf. It is because Government has defined limits to its powers, and that we have the freedom to do as we will if no law restricts, that keeps society moving. Your approach leads to the USSR, to feudalism, to slavery. You willingly clamp a chain around your neck and hand it to your master - because they get to say what you can do. Sad.
I don't think you understand the fundamentals of how our Constitution works. There is no "list of rights"; rather, there is a list of functions of Government, and ALL OTHER RIGHTS are reserved to the People, or the States. If it's not listed as a function of the Government - then it's the right of the people. Unless there is a law passed, that survives judicial review, that states you cannot manufacture your own gun - then you have the right to do so.
Not a single link you provided had anything to do with the Constitution. National Popular Vote movement? Opinion pieces about what it should be? Stop dealing in fantasies, AC - deal in facts. The electoral college votes for the President, and every State may decide how they want to decide who their electors will vote for. There is NO individual vote for the President - that's per the Constitution.
Electoral College. Read it and realize they are the ones who cast the only votes that matter, and each State determines their own means of electing and elector. A State can decide to choose their elector based on a flip of a coin, a cow patty drop, or popular election in their State. There is no Constitutional directive stating how an individual may vote, or even dictate, how an elector will vote. As a result, there are only 535 votes that matter - the electoral college. And President Trump won a strong majority of those.
People talking about the popular vote don't get it; they are showing their ignorance of the process. It's like talking about which team had the most yards, or had the most hits. What matters at the end of the game is the score - and in the US Presidential election, the score is ONLY based on the electoral vote. Your football team may have had the most total yardage, but if it doesn't have a higher score - it lost.
How about only selling what you can actually supply. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? If you are a fruit vendor and you have a dozen apples, you sell one dozen apples. If you want to sell more than one dozen apples, you must either grow more apples or buy them from a wholesaler.
So basically you have to have 100% full-time capacity for each person? So if they want to sell a 10 Mbps package to 1 million people, they have to have a constant 10 Tbps network? Should the power grid have the ability to supply max power to every home and business at all time? Should roads be able to handle 100% of all cars at all times? Really?
In the old days of networking we called that a committed rate on a burstable connection.
You can still buy that and have guaranteed bandwidth at all times. Of course, it's a LOT more expensive - but you can get it. Is your contention that dedicated bandwidth be the same price as shared bandwidth?
I guess if you want to consider 79% far enough from 80% to be radically different - you got me. Otherwise, the fact is the fact - the 9th is overturned 80% of the time.
So, if your network is getting overwhelmed, you'd advocate that streaming a 4K HD video to a person's phone is as important as a phone call, or text message? Really?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't offend me, but it's going to make non-use of blinkers even worse. Why? "The car will do it for me". It's bad enough that lots of drivers don't use their turn signals, now it will become even more problematic as "something else will do it".
Watches are taking the path of belt buckles...
In most states, you must travel at least 100 feet in a lane with your blinker on before you switch lanes. I guess that Tesla software has to be able to predict the future!
So if the highway or road has a bend in it, your signal will pop on and indicate to those around you that you wish to change lanes. Wonderful!
That would be illegal in Washington, and many other States. Changing a lane without a signal is a traffic infraction; I hope Tesla likes to pay for those!
If ... the driver merges into the right lane and slows down
Which should only happen after a turn signal is activated, and a head and mirror check. Right?
Getting campaign donations for a stance is be like giving a car to a sales rep for a good deal at the expense of the company they where claiming to work for.
This is illegal, or at least the second one is, the first is only illegal in functioning democracies.
Actually, it is not illegal. Doesn't mean you won't get fired, but what law is broken by giving a sales rep a deal better than the company normally would? There is nothing illegal about it. At all.
Can we just ban all lobbyists and campaign donations and kickbacks and bribes?
I mean, if I took money for my company to give preferential treatment to someone or to another company I would be arrested.
Really? You mean you cannot have exclusive contracts, or preferential pricing for some customers? What country do you live in where that is illegal?
But the horrors of a life without zinc are too much to think about!
Seriously, is the ANYTHING bad that hasn't been threatened to happen from climate change?
Halitosis?
Well, there you go, exaggerating again. Actually, many of them specifically analyze the defects in the Electoral College that arise due to the fundamentally flawed coverage in the Constitution, and demonstrate the fallacies that go along with the fantasies of the various apologists by pointing out the actual reality of affairs.
You just confirmed my position. Thank you. People don't like how it operates, so they want to change it. As it operates today - the only votes that matter are the electoral college. You might not like it - but that's the fact.
less than 2%. Dropbox is a desktop - not server - service. If you can configure and run your Linux server - you already have WebDisk, FTP, and a host of other options. This is for desktop file sharing and storage, drag and drop from the desktop. And Linux is such a bit player in that market, it makes zero financial sense to support it.
Here's the basic plans to make your own nuclear bomb, and it is legal to disseminate those. Just like it is legal to disseminate plans on how to make a firearm.
Seems to me they are trying to protect your 1st Amendment rights by their actions. You don't have to be grateful, that's your right - but they will continue to defend your 1st Amendment right whether you like it or not.
The ATF says you're wrong. But what do they know, they're just the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they know NOTHING about regulation of guns - not like you, AC!
Nice! Here's an interesting idea... Set up an autoresponder e-mail (3DgunPlans@domain.com) and when you e-mail it, you get the files attached in a response...:) That would get around the injunction nicely, AND have effectively zero effort on Mr. Wilson's time!
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use.
There, you can make your own firearm. "Aha!", you say, thinking you trapped me... "I said 'granted the right to make weapons without restriction' and you didn't realize that!"
In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.
Pay a tax, tell the ATF you're going to make it - and you're good to go.
What did we learn? A person can make their own firearm - handgun or rifle - if they choose. And if it's a restricted item (fully automatic, or fires explosives), they have to pay a tax and register with the ATF, as you do when you buy such things. But you can make them still the same.
Does the law say you can eat a bowl of Cheerios in the morning? Better put that spoon down! Unless there is a law on the books prohibiting an action, ANY action is essentially legal. There is NO LAW saying you cannot distribute information about building a firearm (in fact, Amazon has a full list of books on how to turn basic materials into firearms), thus the information is completely legal.
What scares me about you and people with your opinion is that you have turned over ALL your freedoms and rights to the Government. You don't get it - they are YOUR RIGHTS, from the Creator and inherent. You choose to surrender ALL to the Government, and let IT dictate what you can do. One of the central tenets of the Constitution was the duties of Government were limited, and - as the Constitution itself says - it lists what the Federal Government can do. If it's not in that list - it cannot do it.
Our system of law is prohibitive, not permissive; it says what you cannot do - not what you can do. If there is no law restricting the distribution of this 3D file, then it is implicitly legal, and a judge has ZERO basis for banning such distribution. There is no legal grounds for Government to "ban" something without a law behind it.
People with your viewpoint on Government and governance are the true threat to freedom. You wish to turn this concept on its head, effectively allowing Government to tell you what you can do. To lose all freedoms and rights and become a mere serf. It is because Government has defined limits to its powers, and that we have the freedom to do as we will if no law restricts, that keeps society moving. Your approach leads to the USSR, to feudalism, to slavery. You willingly clamp a chain around your neck and hand it to your master - because they get to say what you can do. Sad.
I don't think you understand the fundamentals of how our Constitution works. There is no "list of rights"; rather, there is a list of functions of Government, and ALL OTHER RIGHTS are reserved to the People, or the States. If it's not listed as a function of the Government - then it's the right of the people. Unless there is a law passed, that survives judicial review, that states you cannot manufacture your own gun - then you have the right to do so.
Not a single link you provided had anything to do with the Constitution. National Popular Vote movement? Opinion pieces about what it should be? Stop dealing in fantasies, AC - deal in facts. The electoral college votes for the President, and every State may decide how they want to decide who their electors will vote for. There is NO individual vote for the President - that's per the Constitution.
Electoral College. Read it and realize they are the ones who cast the only votes that matter, and each State determines their own means of electing and elector. A State can decide to choose their elector based on a flip of a coin, a cow patty drop, or popular election in their State. There is no Constitutional directive stating how an individual may vote, or even dictate, how an elector will vote. As a result, there are only 535 votes that matter - the electoral college. And President Trump won a strong majority of those.
People talking about the popular vote don't get it; they are showing their ignorance of the process. It's like talking about which team had the most yards, or had the most hits. What matters at the end of the game is the score - and in the US Presidential election, the score is ONLY based on the electoral vote. Your football team may have had the most total yardage, but if it doesn't have a higher score - it lost.
How about only selling what you can actually supply. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? If you are a fruit vendor and you have a dozen apples, you sell one dozen apples. If you want to sell more than one dozen apples, you must either grow more apples or buy them from a wholesaler.
So basically you have to have 100% full-time capacity for each person? So if they want to sell a 10 Mbps package to 1 million people, they have to have a constant 10 Tbps network? Should the power grid have the ability to supply max power to every home and business at all time? Should roads be able to handle 100% of all cars at all times? Really?
In the old days of networking we called that a committed rate on a burstable connection.
You can still buy that and have guaranteed bandwidth at all times. Of course, it's a LOT more expensive - but you can get it. Is your contention that dedicated bandwidth be the same price as shared bandwidth?
Take a look at the four figures. If you cannot spot a trend down since the mid 90s - you're either completely blind or incompetent.
I guess if you want to consider 79% far enough from 80% to be radically different - you got me. Otherwise, the fact is the fact - the 9th is overturned 80% of the time.
So, if your network is getting overwhelmed, you'd advocate that streaming a 4K HD video to a person's phone is as important as a phone call, or text message? Really?