A perfectly reasonable rule iff there is a corresponding penalty for a pedestrian lingering near the edge of the road leaving oncoming motorists without a clearly readable intention or whom, having been yielded the right of way, fails to expeditiously cross said trafficway and thereby obstructing traffic.
Will the computer take the potential lawsuit from the dog owner who happens to have video of your car taking zero evasive action when their precious furry family member wandered into the street? I for one am not willing to accept liability for the decisions of a machine, and unlike the proponents of high-frequency trading I don't think a lawyer could get the laws of physics to roll back the mistakes made by a self-driving car.
Ok, I'm no gun nut but I do enjoy arguing for its own sake so here goes.
Urban environments have experienced what permissive concealed carry (in effect though rarely in law) would look like. There have been periods of time and neighborhoods where large numbers of people carry handguns concealed.
Were the concealed carry people in your uncited example the type of citizens who would qualify for a permit if they were legal? The kind of responsible concealed carry permit holder that would best be a crime deterrent tend to also be the type that wouldn't intentionally break the law no matter how strongly they may disagree with it.
What are otherwise unpleasant situations escalate into lethal situations. Even if there is some level of crime that is deterred people would rather have 5 additional shopliftings or vandalisms in exchange for 1 less shooting.
Here you are considering a trade-off between non-violent property crimes and shootings, to be fair you must compare between more similar crimes. How many additional rapes are the people willing to accept? Muggings? Car-jackings?
Obviously guns can help when there is a total breakdown of policing. But that's far rarer than guns helping to lead to breakdown of policing.
Citizen owned guns are probably most effective somewhere between the two extremes. In a lawless state self defense becomes an arms race, in a police-state they weaken the power of the state (not necessarily a bad thing), and somewhere in the middle they serve as an additional layer of defense against an immediate threat while deterring overall crime-rates making the limited police resources more effective.
The FBI is of the opinion that a gun was fired 260 times in 2011 resulting in defense of life.
That number clearly excludes law enforcement officer discharges, of which there were 36 in NYC alone during that same year. Also missing from that statistic are the untrackable number of times mere brandishment of a firearm achieved the same end (i.e. defense of life).
About 50x that number died in gun related homicides and another 70x that number in gun related suicides.
I think most urban people would agree those are about the numbers they've experienced.
The ratios you quote are meaningless since the numbers are measured with wildly different methodologies and errors (see previous point). And lastly and most politically incorrect of all: How many more Columbines or Sandy Hooks would you be willing to accept if we eliminated gun-related suicide entirely?
Part of the difficulty with teaching children how to manage money is the abstraction of value, worth and effort. Adding a additional layer of plastic over the problem will only make it worse. Giving an allowance of real money that they can visually watch diminish as they spend it is a better way for them to learn.
As much as I despise the practice of these predatory in-app systems, I have to chime in that iTunes does not require a credit card at all. You can create an account with just a $10 gift card. Apple has never had and will never get my creditcard information.
Define basic income. How many cell phones, cable channels and MB/sec can I get with my basic income? If the answer to any of those is >0 then I contend it is no longer a basic income.
This may just be a semantics argument but how can you call the state-provided healthcare and roads "free" when you start from the premise that you pay the state for the priveledge of using those benefits? You may have just extended the/. definition of free.
free, (adj) 1. as in beer 2. as in information 3. as in already paid for
What about the country that pays an executive $400,000/year, while providing everything (housing, food, drugs, entertainment) as a "benefit"?
Is that still reasonable? Clearly not.
FTFY. By the way, begging the question or no true scotsman (not sure which you were going for there) are just as fallacious as reductio ad absurdum, although I would say the GP was making more of a straw man argument.
Who says the network wasn't designed that way on purpose?
I know of malls that have actively resisted efforts to extend public transportation (buses) to their premises. Seems that the management there didn't think that their target demographic (upper-middle class suburbanites with money to burn) have any use for public transportation, or want to shop in an establishment alongside those who do.
"How about a bomb anecdote? You know, no punchline, just a really cute story. Or suppose you intended to remark, not as a joke, but as an ironic musing. Are they prepared to make that distinction? Why, I think NOT." George Carlin
Why hasn't China flooded the market with cheap, high quality hearing aids yet?
For the same reason they haven't flooded any technology market with cheap, high quality goods. Because that is not their stong-point. Cheap, questionable quality (possibly toxic) hearing aids would be their market.
Of course you won't be able to have a Chinese hearing aid if you work for the US Government or want to maintain a US security clearance.
In 1950-70 the average American paid 20% of their wage to Housing, Interest and Taxes... now spends 70% of his income on housing, interest and tax.
That includes too many variables to derive any meaningful insight.
Here let me make it worse: In 1950-70 the average American paid 21% of their wage to Housing, Interest, Taxes and Porn... now spends 71% of his income on housing, interest, tax and porn. Clearly we must take action to reverse the unstatainable upward trend in pornography costs.
More money goes into lobbying for preferential treatment and marketing than development, while many older, perfectly suitable remedies are taken off the market and prohibited altogether.
If a pharma company publicly argues that an old version of its product is unsafe then aren't they opening themselves up to huge liability claims, and even criminal negligence charges if they sat on that information until after they patent version 1.0.1a?
How about this:
Allow anyone to take an existing product (even one that is still under patent protection), make is slightly stronger or last slightly longer and allow them to file for a patent on the new product. The original patent owner would still have their patent but the owner of the improved-product patent is not encumbered in anyway by the still existing patent for the inferior=original patent. If minor changes indeed create a new patentable idea then it shouldn't matter who makes them. This would at least prevent the original patent owner from sitting on improvements until 1-day before his existing patent expires. First-to-file might be good for something after all.
In theory in the private health insurance scenario, Mr. Unhealthy will pay more for his than Hal_Porter therefor he is not penalized for Mr. U's lifestyle. Under the national health service scenario HP probably ends up paying more than Mr. U once he ends up on permanent disability due to his poor lifestyle. That's fair right?
This expansion of federal authority started under the Washington administration and has continued under the Obama administration. Like all Federal power expansions no future administration will argue they don't need the power as this is an issue that is without party bounds. Both parties seek expansion of federal powers and any argument that one party doesn't is window dressing to convince rubes.
Slashdot Mirror
A perfectly reasonable rule iff there is a corresponding penalty for a pedestrian lingering near the edge of the road leaving oncoming motorists without a clearly readable intention or whom, having been yielded the right of way, fails to expeditiously cross said trafficway and thereby obstructing traffic.
Will the computer take the potential lawsuit from the dog owner who happens to have video of your car taking zero evasive action when their precious furry family member wandered into the street? I for one am not willing to accept liability for the decisions of a machine, and unlike the proponents of high-frequency trading I don't think a lawyer could get the laws of physics to roll back the mistakes made by a self-driving car.
PS: And how did we end up discussing this in a thread about AGW denialism?
Urban environments have experienced what permissive concealed carry (in effect though rarely in law) would look like. There have been periods of time and neighborhoods where large numbers of people carry handguns concealed.
Were the concealed carry people in your uncited example the type of citizens who would qualify for a permit if they were legal? The kind of responsible concealed carry permit holder that would best be a crime deterrent tend to also be the type that wouldn't intentionally break the law no matter how strongly they may disagree with it.
What are otherwise unpleasant situations escalate into lethal situations. Even if there is some level of crime that is deterred people would rather have 5 additional shopliftings or vandalisms in exchange for 1 less shooting.
Here you are considering a trade-off between non-violent property crimes and shootings, to be fair you must compare between more similar crimes. How many additional rapes are the people willing to accept? Muggings? Car-jackings?
Obviously guns can help when there is a total breakdown of policing. But that's far rarer than guns helping to lead to breakdown of policing.
Citizen owned guns are probably most effective somewhere between the two extremes. In a lawless state self defense becomes an arms race, in a police-state they weaken the power of the state (not necessarily a bad thing), and somewhere in the middle they serve as an additional layer of defense against an immediate threat while deterring overall crime-rates making the limited police resources more effective.
The FBI is of the opinion that a gun was fired 260 times in 2011 resulting in defense of life.
That number clearly excludes law enforcement officer discharges, of which there were 36 in NYC alone during that same year. Also missing from that statistic are the untrackable number of times mere brandishment of a firearm achieved the same end (i.e. defense of life).
About 50x that number died in gun related homicides and another 70x that number in gun related suicides.
I think most urban people would agree those are about the numbers they've experienced.
The ratios you quote are meaningless since the numbers are measured with wildly different methodologies and errors (see previous point).
And lastly and most politically incorrect of all: How many more Columbines or Sandy Hooks would you be willing to accept if we eliminated gun-related suicide entirely?
Meanwhile...
In Soviet Russia:
Lawn darts don't miss you.
Which is odd since the majority of crime that could be deterred by permissive concealed carry laws also tends to correlate with urban.
Part of the difficulty with teaching children how to manage money is the abstraction of value, worth and effort. Adding a additional layer of plastic over the problem will only make it worse. Giving an allowance of real money that they can visually watch diminish as they spend it is a better way for them to learn.
As much as I despise the practice of these predatory in-app systems, I have to chime in that iTunes does not require a credit card at all. You can create an account with just a $10 gift card. Apple has never had and will never get my creditcard information.
A better solution: provide a basic income.
Define basic income. How many cell phones, cable channels and MB/sec can I get with my basic income? If the answer to any of those is >0 then I contend it is no longer a basic income.
Didn't the US already remake this one, only they spelled it "Andromeda."
This may just be a semantics argument but how can you call the state-provided healthcare and roads "free" when you start from the premise that you pay the state for the priveledge of using those benefits? You may have just extended the /. definition of free.
free, (adj)
1. as in beer
2. as in information
3. as in already paid for
What about the country that pays an executive $400,000/year, while providing everything (housing, food, drugs, entertainment) as a "benefit"? Is that still reasonable? Clearly not.
FTFY. By the way, begging the question or no true scotsman (not sure which you were going for there) are just as fallacious as reductio ad absurdum, although I would say the GP was making more of a straw man argument.
For IMAP users, the way the IMAP server stores it's flags for Seen, Deleted etc. may not be recognised by the new software.
Ok, I'll give you the Seen and Sent flags, but why is Deleted stored as a flag rather than by say, deleting it?
Well its only fair, we have an entire generation of gamers trained to maximize thier upgrade path so they can go out and kill giant crabs.
Maybe some uber-crab out there has produced a guide recommending crabs upgrade their shells before putting any points into flesh.
Yep, this is just one step removed from this.
Who says the network wasn't designed that way on purpose?
I know of malls that have actively resisted efforts to extend public transportation (buses) to their premises. Seems that the management there didn't think that their target demographic (upper-middle class suburbanites with money to burn) have any use for public transportation, or want to shop in an establishment alongside those who do.
Maybe he is auditioning for head writer on the soon to be released Sony PS4 ad campaign?
"How about a bomb anecdote? You know, no punchline, just a really cute story. Or suppose you intended to remark, not as a joke, but as an ironic musing. Are they prepared to make that distinction? Why, I think NOT." George Carlin
Why hasn't China flooded the market with cheap, high quality hearing aids yet?
For the same reason they haven't flooded any technology market with cheap, high quality goods. Because that is not their stong-point. Cheap, questionable quality (possibly toxic) hearing aids would be their market.
Of course you won't be able to have a Chinese hearing aid if you work for the US Government or want to maintain a US security clearance.
I thought that was the whole point in the first place. Oh, that and crappy flash games.
In 1950-70 the average American paid 20% of their wage to Housing, Interest and Taxes... now spends 70% of his income on housing, interest and tax.
That includes too many variables to derive any meaningful insight.
Here let me make it worse: In 1950-70 the average American paid 21% of their wage to Housing, Interest, Taxes and Porn... now spends 71% of his income on housing, interest, tax and porn. Clearly we must take action to reverse the unstatainable upward trend in pornography costs.
More money goes into lobbying for preferential treatment and marketing than development, while many older, perfectly suitable remedies are taken off the market and prohibited altogether.
If a pharma company publicly argues that an old version of its product is unsafe then aren't they opening themselves up to huge liability claims, and even criminal negligence charges if they sat on that information until after they patent version 1.0.1a?
How about this: Allow anyone to take an existing product (even one that is still under patent protection), make is slightly stronger or last slightly longer and allow them to file for a patent on the new product. The original patent owner would still have their patent but the owner of the improved-product patent is not encumbered in anyway by the still existing patent for the inferior=original patent. If minor changes indeed create a new patentable idea then it shouldn't matter who makes them. This would at least prevent the original patent owner from sitting on improvements until 1-day before his existing patent expires. First-to-file might be good for something after all.
In theory in the private health insurance scenario, Mr. Unhealthy will pay more for his than Hal_Porter therefor he is not penalized for Mr. U's lifestyle. Under the national health service scenario HP probably ends up paying more than Mr. U once he ends up on permanent disability due to his poor lifestyle. That's fair right?
This expansion of federal authority started under the Washington administration and has continued under the Obama administration. Like all Federal power expansions no future administration will argue they don't need the power as this is an issue that is without party bounds. Both parties seek expansion of federal powers and any argument that one party doesn't is window dressing to convince rubes.