D'oh! I should have scrolled down. I almost did and then I thought, "No, nobody is THIS clever. Surely I will be unique." Alas, such is not true. My reply was threaded under a different post but was, for the most part, the same thing.
Where did they recommend outlawing it? The only suggestion that they made was that they would not, personally, be using it. I do not see any comment that indicates they would like to outlaw this device. By your logic I am a purple people eater? I think you failed the whole logic thing and should likely just stick to chewing bubble gum and watching fish.
Then again, I will offer you an easy out, you may have just missed what they wrote due to your biases and thinking you have something to "win." Alternatively, you could just be stupid. There may be a third option but I am hard pressed to think of it.
I think that still makes it only one unless you expect to increase popes as the acreage increases... Then again I suspect that this is an exercise in extrapolation and I am just now getting it. I have seen this before and always been confused. Thank you. Well, assuming I am now getting it, thanks.
Reject all you want. It makes no difference. Your consent is your presence as it is a majority thing and not an individual thing. You can not, as an individual, decide which regulations you wish to obey. If you fall afoul of the law you will learn this quickly. Or, maybe not. You may just protest it and whine instead of learning. Your whiny anarchic views couched in a mislabeled Libertarian moniker are tired and juvenile. I suspect you know this but refuse to accept it.
Either way, you are certainly free to view things as you wish and you are free to openly discuss them (as far as I am concerned) so shine on you crazy diamond. However, for the sake of the rest of us, try to avoid letting people confuse you for a Libertarian (and if you self-identify as one then, seriously, stop as you are not helping). Also, as you seem to be aware, be mindful of the fact that you are going to get a lot of blowback. Maybe try some introspection and see if you can find a path to moderation? I don't know, I am not a psychiatrist.
I do not know how old you are but most of us learned that a pure political system (of any type) is never going to work because ideals will not work with humans in the loop. Maybe, eventually, we will have reached the point of enlightenment and can actually do things like that. Maybe... However, these political theories have been tried and do not work. In theory an anarchy will settle down and be fair. See Somalia to find out how well that actually works.
Show us one paid shill. Just one will do. What is with this imaginary thinking that there are a bunch of paid shills? Sure, they are out there. They are not in abundance and tend to be employed by governments (from what I have read) and not some taxi service with 100 employees and a drunk IT staff of one.
I am a huge fan of Snowden and think he is a patriot of the highest order. However, yes, increasing privacy reduces security. There are trade-offs to be made.
They are not a Libertarian. They have just co-opted the moniker and made a lot of noise. They do not now, nor have they ever, represented the views of the party's majority. They are Republicans who are ashamed to be associated with the Republican party and have decided to claim the title of 'Libertarian' with no actual knowledge of the political platform. They are vocal and, as such, they are influencing the opinions of otherwise fine people. They represent the Libertarian Party about as well as the average PETA or Greenpeace zealots represent the Democrat Party. Unfortunately there is no way to kick people out of the party or to prevent them from using the name. There is also the lack of an effective centralized component that sets out the policy in a clear and easy to understand manner. Thus we end up with hyperbolic gibberish being the de facto party line because the stench that the Republicans created is not appealing to anyone - not even to themselves.
Do not go too hard on yourself, the media is not helping. It is much the same as when the media concentrated on showing the insane people instead of the rational people during the Occupy movement. These non-Libertarians are vocal obstructionists who are doing more to damage the political playing field than they have ever done as Republicans. Then again, perhaps, that is their objective or the objective of those who motivate them to do so. I have my doubts about their ability to think things through enough to do it on their own. They're likely being influenced by the media that they consume and there is, quite likely, someone or something behind that who actually finds this useful. A Limousine Liberal does not represent the Democrats any better than Roman_Mir represents the Libertarians.
I, personally, apologize and accept accountability for this. I need to be more vocal in explaining and I should be more active in organizing the party better so that it accomplishes getting out the information that would negate these fruitcakes. Well, potentially negate them. People, once they start to believe something, are unlikely to change their beliefs regardless of how much new, factual, information they are given.
I am certainly against being taxed for unacceptable things or against being taxed at an unacceptable rate. I am not, for example, against taxation nor am I against a strong government - just against an overly powerful government that unjustly limits personal rights and am aware that rights come with responsibilities. My tax rate, for instance, is actually too low (no, I am not going to pay more - I do, on the other hand, pay a great deal of money and time to a variety of charities). However, even though I feel I should pay more in taxes I feel that the taxes should support other causes. I believe that we must, for our own sake and our own potential, have a social net that is effective. I strongly support, as an example, a single payer health care system. Noblesse Oblige, and all that, is not because they nobles feel generous. It is because if the impoverished have no food they will eat the wealthy. Altruistic behavior is rooted in a common sense approach to self interest but has a more effective PR agent than explaining the details does.
Those seem like altruistic things but they are not. I believe in them because they are quite likely to benefit me in the long run. I do not really care if people are dying in the street - I care that the danger and expense of cleaning up the mess is more expensive than solving the problem in the first place. I have personally managed to accomplish a position where me and mine are taken care of. Providing a system where other people can do the same thing is only going to benefit me (if done right) in the long run and to have a greater benefit on my children and their children beyond them. This may be shocking but I can assure you that I am being quite honest about these opinions of mine and I can assure you that my feelings on the subject are not unique. Hell, I am further left than any Democrat in office. Tha
As a Libertarian I am bothered by your ignorance. There is a such thing as a spectrum. We give money to the government (and I am in favor of a limited government and individual state's rights as well as erring on the side of individual freedom whenever possible) to do things that we can not do as individuals. We would not willingly, as a group or as an individual, provide for the things that a government does. We are greedy and interested in ourselves and our families - such is only natural.
Now we can firmly assert that the various governments are too large, exceeding their charters, and oppressive. What we can not assert, in good faith, is that a system of no government or zero taxes is going to be effective. It is, much like pure AND political ideal, not going to work and never has. There has never been a Democracy, Republic, Anarchic, or Communist government ever. No, not one. Not one single system of government is, or ever will be, purely any of those things. Why? Because they will not work.
The trouble is, I feel, that people fail to understand the idea of moderation. You, yourself and your comment, are a prime example of this. In short, you are a lunatic. In long? Well, I am not going to take the trouble to explain it more than has been explained above. You will fail to comprehend this. You will not accept it. You may even want to argue with it. You are wrong. Enlightenment may reach you but that is unlikely. I have been wrong before and have firmly established views that would be nearly impossible to change so do not think I do not understand your position. I have been there before. I encourage you to think about your belief system and to speak less. I do not want you to silence yourself for the sake of silence - rather I want you to read and listen, actually listen in an attempt to understand the people around you, so that you can see why your system is not going to work.
Also, it is shameful (to some folks) to be affiliated with the Republican party. Co-opting the name Libertarian and then attempting to change it to fit what you feel it should be in just a dick move. Most Libertarians were pretty sane and rational until the influx of Republicans who are way too vocal considering their minority status. It is disgusting and limits their chance of success and the only reason for it is that you shit up your own backyards so much you were forced to shit up someone else's area because your's stunk too much to appeal to anyone. This is hardly acceptable behavior and, worse, you know it but do it anyway and perform mental gymnastics to justify your actions.
As much as I wish it were true - but not for me, I like driving and I am an *excellent* driver (just like everybody else), it simply is not going to happen for a very long time. I am willing to put money on this if anyone is willing to put it into escrow, establish a time limit, and setup their rules and make it worth my time financially.
I modeled traffic as my career. That is a long story so I will skip it. This is not an appeal to authority but is rather an explanation as to where I am coming from and what my familiarity is with the subject at hand. Again, this is not me being an expert and disagreement is certainly in order.
There are too many things that are not being considered with autonomous cars. Unless there is a human in the loop who can immediately take control of the vehicle then there simply is no way this can be done safely and a human can not take control in a safe manner and requiring that type/much of attention negates the value of the autonomous vehicle in the first place. How about if an animal jumps into your lane? Does the vehicle slow to avoid it? Does it slow and turn right (and possible result in death/injury to the driver)? Does it turn left and go into that lane and possibly hit a minivan with a bunch of children? How about if it is not an animal but simply a cardboard box flying off the back of the truck in front of you? How about if it is a child running in the road? How will it deal with accidents? How will it deal with road conditions that are beyond the normal operating range - like flooding, collapse, or emergency construction? How does it prioritize dealing with emergency vehicles? What common courtesies does it enforce? How does it deal with different cultures - the way people drive where I live is vastly different than the traffic on I5 from LA to SF? How does it deal with unknown and sudden weather changes? Sometimes it is snowing at my house but not snowing by the time you get to the end of my driveway. What happens when things change and the system is not updated to reflect this? Signage that broadcasts information for the car is a great idea but, then again, who is going to foot the bill to put them into place?
I could go on.
These things can be solved, maybe. They must first be considered. They must have solutions. The easiest way will be to have them communicate with each other and a total system replacement all at the same time. That is not going to happen. What will we do with the older vehicles? What if people do not want to get rid of their older vehicles? Who is going to pay for all the new vehicles? The whole political aspect makes this a non-starter except in special-use cases. This would be good tech for certain things but is not going to be anything large-scale for a very, very long time.
We can wish, hope, and pray to our various gods but this is not going to happen in the time frame which they have alloted. There are many reasons to say this is the case and, for now, there are no viable answers. There is a time and a place for limited autonomy. These times and places will increase over time as things adapt. To think that there will be self-driving cabs (beyond testing phase) in a time-frame of 10 to 15 years is to believe in pink unicorns, the tooth fairy, and corporate accountability - all at the same time.
I am willing to match anyone's escrow between $1000 and $10,000 USD. They can set the "rules" if they want and I will agree to anything reasonable and take that bet. Hell, I will give 2:1 odds on it for the first 10 people to put up their bets.
Google is your friend. This is pretty much well known at this point. It is also quite factual unless the news has spent a lot of time editing videos and using Photoshop. You could have learned of this with almost no effort. Point, click, type in "paris uber riots," press enter, and maybe click on images or news. I know, I know... Google is so very far away. And they are complicit in the conspiracy to make us think that this really happened!
You are advocating giving them a penalty that is not lawful? I am not 100% positive, and I am too lazy to look, but I suspect that, even in France, there is no law that allows a judge to revoke someone's driving penalties for violent protests. I am in favor of them being penalized, absolutely. I think that the judge should follow the law. The laws here, and elsewhere, clearly state what may be applied in the judgment. It is, for something like this - up to a Class B crime - up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. There is no clause that says the judge can order the bailiff to whack his pee-pee. The driving laws include verbiage that allows revoking the driving privilege such as: Up to a $5000 fine, 1 year in jail, and a suspension of driving privileges up to 3 years.
I am not sure that I want a judge to make arbitrary choices like adding on various punishments. What a judge *can* do is offer alternative sentencing but I do not think this is a case for this. A judge can, for example, offer to let you do 30 hours of community service and pay a $50 fine, like picking up trash, if you are otherwise going to be sentenced to a $500 fine. The judge can not simply revoke your driver's license for a property crime like littering. I am grateful for that though I do not, generally, have to be judged but the idea is comforting.
Now, I suppose, I could be mistaken - I am not a lawyer. I suppose other jurisdictions could be different. Most of my dealings have been with corporate/business or contract law. My few other legal experiences are not adequate for drawing any conclusions beyond what I have learned from talking with lawyers and learned in Civics. I welcome correction if I am mistaken.
I have been to every major city in the United States. I have also been to many of the smaller ones and to many that were just barely qualified to be called cities. I have used a taxi in almost every single one of those places at one point or another. I have only had one poor experience. I have a property, I had just purchased it, in Henderson. I wanted a ride to Vegas. The taxi driver refused to take me even when I offered him what was pretty much double his estimate.
Now I have not taken a taxi in years - I am going to estimate about ten years, so my question are these... Have they changed? Have your/our expectations changed? Where you taking taxis ten years ago? Today I either drive, rent a car, or hire a driver so I really do not know the spectrum.
I did not test it but it should work for Tampermonkey which is available, as a fork of Greasemonkey - the scripts are interchangeable, for both Opera and Chrome.
I believe my comment ended up threaded under the wrong person. I, myself, am to blame. I stand by my pointlessness. After all, it is what I must do. Sorry about that - it was meant to be threaded elsewhere.
I am a big fan of Opera, I am using it now, and think the beta has come a long ways. The dev beta is also nice. Also, Opera is not guilty of either being installed maliciously nor of bundling malicious software into its installers. I have been an Opera user for a long time and really like their software. It would be nice to get them into the various distro repositories though but that is another point for another day. Then again, it is not like I am not off-topic already.
Finally, again, my sincere apologies for not threading my reply properly. I am not sure what I was thinking. I can not even blame beer or drugs. I can only blame either stupidity or lack of sleep. I think I will prefer the blame goes to the latter.
I'd not seen it before so I gave it a look. It is nice but too small for my taste. I might order one for times when I am traveling light. It looks like something good to add to the RV for when I go out hiking or something that would suit nicely for just hiking around here. Built-in cell phone connectivity is not something I'd seriously looked at in the past - I just hook my phone up or just use my phone. This is a feature that I can see myself taking advantage of in the future though. I am not sure that I like vendor lock-in with it but I have yet to find something that isn't but I have not searched for it as, I mentioned, it not something I have considered a feature that I wanted.
You, seemingly, will find any way to be irate. This can not be good for your health. You could try, I don't know, not using an Apple? I do not like them so I do not use them. I do not make it a point to bash them or find reasons to not like them. I do not like them because I have not taken the time to become familiar with their operating system and while I do own a slightly older MacBook it seldom gets turned on unless a guest wishes to make use of it. I bought it to learn about them because a few people kept asking me to work on them.
Anyhow, seriously... Being worked up and "concerned" is not a good state to be in. If you do not like it then you have a bunch of choices. Letting something control you, as you are doing, is giving it power over you and doing so is absurd, especially when it is something you do not like. Take it with a grain of salt but, seriously, either get professional help or just let it go.
Maybe it is me but a smaller size has never, well not recently - say 15-20 years, been a factor when I choose a new laptop. In all actuality, I almost always get a laptop that is "full size." I suspect there is a specific name for them but I do not know it. I prefer to get a laptop that has a full keyboard and a separate number pad of its own. I prefer to get a laptop that is large enough to have a second drive bay. I prefer having a second drive in them, especially if it is something I intend to use productively more so than something I use passively.
Again, this is something that may just be limited to me. I doubt I am the only one because, while increasing in rarity, they are still being made though finding one that suits my needs and has a second drive bay is becoming more difficult. At least I am able to still get a full number pad. When I want something smaller I get a netbook. If I want something lighter I will bring a tablet (though I have two, none is nearly as nice as my older Motion was). If I want something even more portable then I have a phone in my pocket that is faster than the computers were for the first 2/3+ of my life.
Maybe Tiny Linux or something along that line? Alternatively dig into the old repositories and find a very old version of a *NIX distro. Security would be a minor issue.
Slashdot Mirror
D'oh! I should have scrolled down. I almost did and then I thought, "No, nobody is THIS clever. Surely I will be unique." Alas, such is not true. My reply was threaded under a different post but was, for the most part, the same thing.
Where did they recommend outlawing it? The only suggestion that they made was that they would not, personally, be using it. I do not see any comment that indicates they would like to outlaw this device. By your logic I am a purple people eater? I think you failed the whole logic thing and should likely just stick to chewing bubble gum and watching fish.
Then again, I will offer you an easy out, you may have just missed what they wrote due to your biases and thinking you have something to "win." Alternatively, you could just be stupid. There may be a third option but I am hard pressed to think of it.
And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?
I suggest we start calling them fanny-packs.
I think that still makes it only one unless you expect to increase popes as the acreage increases... Then again I suspect that this is an exercise in extrapolation and I am just now getting it. I have seen this before and always been confused. Thank you. Well, assuming I am now getting it, thanks.
Reject all you want. It makes no difference. Your consent is your presence as it is a majority thing and not an individual thing. You can not, as an individual, decide which regulations you wish to obey. If you fall afoul of the law you will learn this quickly. Or, maybe not. You may just protest it and whine instead of learning. Your whiny anarchic views couched in a mislabeled Libertarian moniker are tired and juvenile. I suspect you know this but refuse to accept it.
Either way, you are certainly free to view things as you wish and you are free to openly discuss them (as far as I am concerned) so shine on you crazy diamond. However, for the sake of the rest of us, try to avoid letting people confuse you for a Libertarian (and if you self-identify as one then, seriously, stop as you are not helping). Also, as you seem to be aware, be mindful of the fact that you are going to get a lot of blowback. Maybe try some introspection and see if you can find a path to moderation? I don't know, I am not a psychiatrist.
I do not know how old you are but most of us learned that a pure political system (of any type) is never going to work because ideals will not work with humans in the loop. Maybe, eventually, we will have reached the point of enlightenment and can actually do things like that. Maybe... However, these political theories have been tried and do not work. In theory an anarchy will settle down and be fair. See Somalia to find out how well that actually works.
Show us one paid shill. Just one will do. What is with this imaginary thinking that there are a bunch of paid shills? Sure, they are out there. They are not in abundance and tend to be employed by governments (from what I have read) and not some taxi service with 100 employees and a drunk IT staff of one.
I am a huge fan of Snowden and think he is a patriot of the highest order. However, yes, increasing privacy reduces security. There are trade-offs to be made.
They are not a Libertarian. They have just co-opted the moniker and made a lot of noise. They do not now, nor have they ever, represented the views of the party's majority. They are Republicans who are ashamed to be associated with the Republican party and have decided to claim the title of 'Libertarian' with no actual knowledge of the political platform. They are vocal and, as such, they are influencing the opinions of otherwise fine people. They represent the Libertarian Party about as well as the average PETA or Greenpeace zealots represent the Democrat Party. Unfortunately there is no way to kick people out of the party or to prevent them from using the name. There is also the lack of an effective centralized component that sets out the policy in a clear and easy to understand manner. Thus we end up with hyperbolic gibberish being the de facto party line because the stench that the Republicans created is not appealing to anyone - not even to themselves.
Do not go too hard on yourself, the media is not helping. It is much the same as when the media concentrated on showing the insane people instead of the rational people during the Occupy movement. These non-Libertarians are vocal obstructionists who are doing more to damage the political playing field than they have ever done as Republicans. Then again, perhaps, that is their objective or the objective of those who motivate them to do so. I have my doubts about their ability to think things through enough to do it on their own. They're likely being influenced by the media that they consume and there is, quite likely, someone or something behind that who actually finds this useful. A Limousine Liberal does not represent the Democrats any better than Roman_Mir represents the Libertarians.
I, personally, apologize and accept accountability for this. I need to be more vocal in explaining and I should be more active in organizing the party better so that it accomplishes getting out the information that would negate these fruitcakes. Well, potentially negate them. People, once they start to believe something, are unlikely to change their beliefs regardless of how much new, factual, information they are given.
I am certainly against being taxed for unacceptable things or against being taxed at an unacceptable rate. I am not, for example, against taxation nor am I against a strong government - just against an overly powerful government that unjustly limits personal rights and am aware that rights come with responsibilities. My tax rate, for instance, is actually too low (no, I am not going to pay more - I do, on the other hand, pay a great deal of money and time to a variety of charities). However, even though I feel I should pay more in taxes I feel that the taxes should support other causes. I believe that we must, for our own sake and our own potential, have a social net that is effective. I strongly support, as an example, a single payer health care system. Noblesse Oblige, and all that, is not because they nobles feel generous. It is because if the impoverished have no food they will eat the wealthy. Altruistic behavior is rooted in a common sense approach to self interest but has a more effective PR agent than explaining the details does.
Those seem like altruistic things but they are not. I believe in them because they are quite likely to benefit me in the long run. I do not really care if people are dying in the street - I care that the danger and expense of cleaning up the mess is more expensive than solving the problem in the first place. I have personally managed to accomplish a position where me and mine are taken care of. Providing a system where other people can do the same thing is only going to benefit me (if done right) in the long run and to have a greater benefit on my children and their children beyond them. This may be shocking but I can assure you that I am being quite honest about these opinions of mine and I can assure you that my feelings on the subject are not unique. Hell, I am further left than any Democrat in office. Tha
As a Libertarian I am bothered by your ignorance. There is a such thing as a spectrum. We give money to the government (and I am in favor of a limited government and individual state's rights as well as erring on the side of individual freedom whenever possible) to do things that we can not do as individuals. We would not willingly, as a group or as an individual, provide for the things that a government does. We are greedy and interested in ourselves and our families - such is only natural.
Now we can firmly assert that the various governments are too large, exceeding their charters, and oppressive. What we can not assert, in good faith, is that a system of no government or zero taxes is going to be effective. It is, much like pure AND political ideal, not going to work and never has. There has never been a Democracy, Republic, Anarchic, or Communist government ever. No, not one. Not one single system of government is, or ever will be, purely any of those things. Why? Because they will not work.
The trouble is, I feel, that people fail to understand the idea of moderation. You, yourself and your comment, are a prime example of this. In short, you are a lunatic. In long? Well, I am not going to take the trouble to explain it more than has been explained above. You will fail to comprehend this. You will not accept it. You may even want to argue with it. You are wrong. Enlightenment may reach you but that is unlikely. I have been wrong before and have firmly established views that would be nearly impossible to change so do not think I do not understand your position. I have been there before. I encourage you to think about your belief system and to speak less. I do not want you to silence yourself for the sake of silence - rather I want you to read and listen, actually listen in an attempt to understand the people around you, so that you can see why your system is not going to work.
Also, it is shameful (to some folks) to be affiliated with the Republican party. Co-opting the name Libertarian and then attempting to change it to fit what you feel it should be in just a dick move. Most Libertarians were pretty sane and rational until the influx of Republicans who are way too vocal considering their minority status. It is disgusting and limits their chance of success and the only reason for it is that you shit up your own backyards so much you were forced to shit up someone else's area because your's stunk too much to appeal to anyone. This is hardly acceptable behavior and, worse, you know it but do it anyway and perform mental gymnastics to justify your actions.
This...
As much as I wish it were true - but not for me, I like driving and I am an *excellent* driver (just like everybody else), it simply is not going to happen for a very long time. I am willing to put money on this if anyone is willing to put it into escrow, establish a time limit, and setup their rules and make it worth my time financially.
I modeled traffic as my career. That is a long story so I will skip it. This is not an appeal to authority but is rather an explanation as to where I am coming from and what my familiarity is with the subject at hand. Again, this is not me being an expert and disagreement is certainly in order.
There are too many things that are not being considered with autonomous cars. Unless there is a human in the loop who can immediately take control of the vehicle then there simply is no way this can be done safely and a human can not take control in a safe manner and requiring that type/much of attention negates the value of the autonomous vehicle in the first place. How about if an animal jumps into your lane? Does the vehicle slow to avoid it? Does it slow and turn right (and possible result in death/injury to the driver)? Does it turn left and go into that lane and possibly hit a minivan with a bunch of children? How about if it is not an animal but simply a cardboard box flying off the back of the truck in front of you? How about if it is a child running in the road? How will it deal with accidents? How will it deal with road conditions that are beyond the normal operating range - like flooding, collapse, or emergency construction? How does it prioritize dealing with emergency vehicles? What common courtesies does it enforce? How does it deal with different cultures - the way people drive where I live is vastly different than the traffic on I5 from LA to SF? How does it deal with unknown and sudden weather changes? Sometimes it is snowing at my house but not snowing by the time you get to the end of my driveway. What happens when things change and the system is not updated to reflect this? Signage that broadcasts information for the car is a great idea but, then again, who is going to foot the bill to put them into place?
I could go on.
These things can be solved, maybe. They must first be considered. They must have solutions. The easiest way will be to have them communicate with each other and a total system replacement all at the same time. That is not going to happen. What will we do with the older vehicles? What if people do not want to get rid of their older vehicles? Who is going to pay for all the new vehicles? The whole political aspect makes this a non-starter except in special-use cases. This would be good tech for certain things but is not going to be anything large-scale for a very, very long time.
We can wish, hope, and pray to our various gods but this is not going to happen in the time frame which they have alloted. There are many reasons to say this is the case and, for now, there are no viable answers. There is a time and a place for limited autonomy. These times and places will increase over time as things adapt. To think that there will be self-driving cabs (beyond testing phase) in a time-frame of 10 to 15 years is to believe in pink unicorns, the tooth fairy, and corporate accountability - all at the same time.
I am willing to match anyone's escrow between $1000 and $10,000 USD. They can set the "rules" if they want and I will agree to anything reasonable and take that bet. Hell, I will give 2:1 odds on it for the first 10 people to put up their bets.
That depends... Is Kurkosdr my first or my last name? Also, what color are the sheets?
Google is your friend. This is pretty much well known at this point. It is also quite factual unless the news has spent a lot of time editing videos and using Photoshop. You could have learned of this with almost no effort. Point, click, type in "paris uber riots," press enter, and maybe click on images or news. I know, I know... Google is so very far away. And they are complicit in the conspiracy to make us think that this really happened!
You are advocating giving them a penalty that is not lawful? I am not 100% positive, and I am too lazy to look, but I suspect that, even in France, there is no law that allows a judge to revoke someone's driving penalties for violent protests. I am in favor of them being penalized, absolutely. I think that the judge should follow the law. The laws here, and elsewhere, clearly state what may be applied in the judgment. It is, for something like this - up to a Class B crime - up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. There is no clause that says the judge can order the bailiff to whack his pee-pee. The driving laws include verbiage that allows revoking the driving privilege such as: Up to a $5000 fine, 1 year in jail, and a suspension of driving privileges up to 3 years.
I am not sure that I want a judge to make arbitrary choices like adding on various punishments. What a judge *can* do is offer alternative sentencing but I do not think this is a case for this. A judge can, for example, offer to let you do 30 hours of community service and pay a $50 fine, like picking up trash, if you are otherwise going to be sentenced to a $500 fine. The judge can not simply revoke your driver's license for a property crime like littering. I am grateful for that though I do not, generally, have to be judged but the idea is comforting.
Now, I suppose, I could be mistaken - I am not a lawyer. I suppose other jurisdictions could be different. Most of my dealings have been with corporate/business or contract law. My few other legal experiences are not adequate for drawing any conclusions beyond what I have learned from talking with lawyers and learned in Civics. I welcome correction if I am mistaken.
The only ones? How many monarchies are still in Europe?
I have been to every major city in the United States. I have also been to many of the smaller ones and to many that were just barely qualified to be called cities. I have used a taxi in almost every single one of those places at one point or another. I have only had one poor experience. I have a property, I had just purchased it, in Henderson. I wanted a ride to Vegas. The taxi driver refused to take me even when I offered him what was pretty much double his estimate.
Now I have not taken a taxi in years - I am going to estimate about ten years, so my question are these... Have they changed? Have your/our expectations changed? Where you taking taxis ten years ago? Today I either drive, rent a car, or hire a driver so I really do not know the spectrum.
"It's a fact!" - Kids in the Hall (Not my favorite repeating sketch. That would go to 30 Helens Agree or the Head Crushing dude. Yes, I am old.)
Where is your citation for your claim?
It's all exploding fauna and flames until someone pokes an eye out.
I did not test it but it should work for Tampermonkey which is available, as a fork of Greasemonkey - the scripts are interchangeable, for both Opera and Chrome.
I believe my comment ended up threaded under the wrong person. I, myself, am to blame. I stand by my pointlessness. After all, it is what I must do. Sorry about that - it was meant to be threaded elsewhere.
I am a big fan of Opera, I am using it now, and think the beta has come a long ways. The dev beta is also nice. Also, Opera is not guilty of either being installed maliciously nor of bundling malicious software into its installers. I have been an Opera user for a long time and really like their software. It would be nice to get them into the various distro repositories though but that is another point for another day. Then again, it is not like I am not off-topic already.
Finally, again, my sincere apologies for not threading my reply properly. I am not sure what I was thinking. I can not even blame beer or drugs. I can only blame either stupidity or lack of sleep. I think I will prefer the blame goes to the latter.
I'd not seen it before so I gave it a look. It is nice but too small for my taste. I might order one for times when I am traveling light. It looks like something good to add to the RV for when I go out hiking or something that would suit nicely for just hiking around here. Built-in cell phone connectivity is not something I'd seriously looked at in the past - I just hook my phone up or just use my phone. This is a feature that I can see myself taking advantage of in the future though. I am not sure that I like vendor lock-in with it but I have yet to find something that isn't but I have not searched for it as, I mentioned, it not something I have considered a feature that I wanted.
You, seemingly, will find any way to be irate. This can not be good for your health. You could try, I don't know, not using an Apple? I do not like them so I do not use them. I do not make it a point to bash them or find reasons to not like them. I do not like them because I have not taken the time to become familiar with their operating system and while I do own a slightly older MacBook it seldom gets turned on unless a guest wishes to make use of it. I bought it to learn about them because a few people kept asking me to work on them.
Anyhow, seriously... Being worked up and "concerned" is not a good state to be in. If you do not like it then you have a bunch of choices. Letting something control you, as you are doing, is giving it power over you and doing so is absurd, especially when it is something you do not like. Take it with a grain of salt but, seriously, either get professional help or just let it go.
Maybe it is me but a smaller size has never, well not recently - say 15-20 years, been a factor when I choose a new laptop. In all actuality, I almost always get a laptop that is "full size." I suspect there is a specific name for them but I do not know it. I prefer to get a laptop that has a full keyboard and a separate number pad of its own. I prefer to get a laptop that is large enough to have a second drive bay. I prefer having a second drive in them, especially if it is something I intend to use productively more so than something I use passively.
Again, this is something that may just be limited to me. I doubt I am the only one because, while increasing in rarity, they are still being made though finding one that suits my needs and has a second drive bay is becoming more difficult. At least I am able to still get a full number pad. When I want something smaller I get a netbook. If I want something lighter I will bring a tablet (though I have two, none is nearly as nice as my older Motion was). If I want something even more portable then I have a phone in my pocket that is faster than the computers were for the first 2/3+ of my life.
Maybe Tiny Linux or something along that line? Alternatively dig into the old repositories and find a very old version of a *NIX distro. Security would be a minor issue.
For whom?