Comment Re:It depends... (Score 1) 335
What happens if a dog runs into the road?
Then a dog dies, if the owner can be located they are cited for a violation of the leash law, and my insurance company sues them to recover their losses.
What happens if a dog runs into the road?
Then a dog dies, if the owner can be located they are cited for a violation of the leash law, and my insurance company sues them to recover their losses.
that might be, but the law in most states will say otherwise. If you rear end someone, even if they suddenly stop on a highway, you'll get the ticket and your insurance will pay for their car.
Most states have a law against cutting people off and slamming on the brakes, but you're going to need a dashcam or some reputable witnesses (more reputable than the other driver, that is) to prove it.
120mph on a 60mph limited road is only safe if there is actually not one car in your sight. No matter who you are.
...and with the corollary that you also have to not be outdriving your vision. I often see people come around a corner head-on in my lane and at speed and they clearly couldn't see whether they were going to hit me or not. A little faster, riding the center line, we'd have met, they'd have been at fault, we'd both have been badly injured and possibly killed. And these are predictable results at legal speeds.
Equipment failures are more than twice as likely at 120 mph as at 60 mph, and roads don't have run-offs like race tracks do. In cases where race tracks don't have those run-offs, racers often die.
You would wager that the author of the study didn't think about something that simple?
No, I would wager that the *ahem* individual who summarized the story got the upshot wrong — because, as was discussed here when that story was posted, what the study shows is that red light cameras cause the total number of accidents to go up while causing the number of the incidents likely to cause serious injury to go down. At least one comment actually gave the relative percentages and showed that red light cameras likely do reduce the occurrence of serious injury accidents.
I find it to be a dubious claim that cameras reduce T-bone collisions. No one T-bone's another car while paying attention.
It's still what the available studies say. If you can find a study that says otherwise, we can debate it.
The database has already one worried comment saying that automatically revealing a vulnerability just like that might be a bad idea.
Not automatically revealing a vulnerability just like that would be an even worse idea. Sometimes, there is no good idea, just the best of bad options.
The entire process is a feedback loop with a delay built in. This delay causes the problems we call unemployment and depression, but the feedback loop eventually fixes them.
Yes, that's the idea.
The amount of work that needs to be done is mindbogglingly. We don't do it because it is so big, and not as important as feeding each other. Things like genetic research, space research, policing polluting factories, rescuing abandoned animals, etc. etc. etc. etc.
The first three of those things are all things which in the USA in particular are actually prevented by government, in one way or another. Take policing polluting factories. I know someone who used to get paid by the government (EPA IIRC) to climb stacks and probe them for emissions. He told me that everything he ever sampled was over the limits, and that they can find stacks over the limit as quick as they can pay people to sample them. But what happens next? A handslap, a fine that doesn't actually make the activity unprofitable. Because too big to fail, or any of a million other excuses, or legal incompetence, or deliberate legal incompetence... Or space research, not only do we not have the will to invest in space instead of murder, but we don't have the education system to produce engineers in numbers — it's deteriorating, not improving, to boot. So yes, all of those things are possible, but the current order actually opposes them! What it's going to take to turn this economic situation around is probably what it took last time: massive public works projects. There's loads of opportunities. Of course, that money has to come from somewhere, and the middle class is already broke, so if the rich don't open their pockets real soon now- you know the rest.
We are not running out of work, we are instead figuring out how to deal with the more critical problem that free us up to solve the less critical but much HARDER problems. Each time we do that, we create a whole new set of jobs.
That's the problem, we aren't figuring out how to deal with the most critical problems. We already know, we're just blowing them off.
Why am I not surprised?
Maybe you knew I'd stop reading that paragraph when it appeared you were just jerking off.
Your culture & laws appear shitty to other cultures.
They're not my laws. They don't care what I think.
As I said, see your culture in the Supreme Court... hope you like it when our culture is foisted on you.
Snicker snort. It's certainly going from the coasts inwards, which has been the trend since always.
In one area of the country it's considered child neglect to let a kid walk home from school a quarter mile (read: "harmful to others"). In another area of the country it's considered harmful to allow consenting adults to do what they want behind closed doors.
Oh, you mean the law. See, there are distinctions which are not written into the law: they don't label the laws which make victimless events into victimless crimes as such, but that's what they are. And when no one is being harmed, but an activity is being criminalized, then the law is a lie. And in some areas, it is child neglect to let a kid walk home from school a quarter mile. In others, it isn't.
Are you just hand waving an appeal to anonymous authority here?
I'm hand-waving away the whole notion that I'm after the moral high ground. I'm explaining to you how the system works, since you don't seem to understand.
Enjoy having our culture forced upon you via judicial ruling and federal mandate then.
You, too. Since we can't seem to agree on a set of rules that will allow us all to get along and focus our attention where it should be focused, that's what we're going to get.
All of the wealth in America, including all corporate assets, all retirement plans, and all home equity, is less than $350k per citizen. That won't solve much.
Stop letting people sneak it out of the country legally, which you can only do if you have scads of money.
The entire premise of Capitalism is that you buy wealth, rather than being gifted it for loyalty to the leader or military conquest, so the better you invest your wealth, the more you can accumulate. That's a good thing when it works out that way!
Yeah. Only it hasn't worked that way in a long time. Once you get enough money to buy legislation, the game board is tilted.
Technicians are going to be needed to service the machines. Anyone who grew up in an area influenced by the car industry will tell you that. We all started training to be technicians and millwrights years ago.
Service revenues on automobiles are in the toilet because they're designed for much longer warranty periods today, and there are less mechanics than ever. Anyone familiar with the car industry will tell you that.
The trend in electronics is towards more modularity, and it won't be long before the robots are repairing one another with regularity.
The problem is that the concept of jobs here in the US is so politicized, real job growth isn't going anywhere, as long as one group believes big business can be completely independent (thought the bank crashes in 1929, the 1980s, and 2008 would teach that is a lie), and the other group believes that hammering on gun control, disparaging the police, or knee-jerk polarizing issues will actually do anything other than just dig both sides in deeper, rather than promote compromise. Marx was wrong, and Ayn Rand was wrong. Both sides need to deal with that.
The problem is that some people still believe that there are two sides represented in American politics, while both (R)s and (D)s work first and foremost for the corporations which spend the money to get them re-elected. And they do get re-elected, 95% of the time, although well over 70% of people say they would like change in government.
There are substantive differences between the parties, but none of them actually matter because both parties are being manipulated by money first and foremost.
jobs are defined by work that people want to do.
Jobs are defined by work that people with money don't want to do.
When people automate jobs away, they decide to do more work, creating new jobs.
Or, more tasks to automate. Which creates a few more jobs, yes, but not many.
When the speed limit is below what most people are comfortable driving at, then the person obeying the speed limit suddenly becomes a road hazard.
Nope. When people outdrive their vision and/or tailgate, then they become a road hazard. All else being in order, the person obeying the speed limit is doing nothing hazardous, unless the speed limit is so low that it causes traffic to back up. It's up to you to decide how to react when someone obeys the law. You can see them as a pragmatist, or you can get steaming mad, but it won't change the outcome either way.
Now, I firmly believe that people should get the fuck out of the way and let traffic come through, and I put my driving where my mouth is and if I'm in the way, I do the same. I will pull over into a turnout or onto the shoulder at the drop of a hat — any hat — because I don't personally want people behind me, I don't want people holding me up, and I don't want to be the asshole that people are upset with, while simultaneously (and positively) wanting to make the world a better place by acting like a better person. And, since I am not perfect, I often get angry with people who don't get out of the way when I would like to drive faster. But I don't kid myself that it's their fault that I'm angry. I don't imagine that the road is my personal playground, except in those moments of amazing self-entitlement.
The only time I get really angry any more is when people come into my lane head-on. That makes me quite cross. I consider it a deadly attack on my life, and it's all the more offensive when it is the result of carelessness. Usually, however, it is simple self-absorption: people outdriving their skill level, and not giving two shits about anyone including themselves.
But aren't most of the eBay netbooks single core? The one I still use (Dell Inspiron mini 1012) has an Atom N450 with one core and two threads.
There's plenty of cheap dual-core netbooks on eBay. The fact that most of the available netbooks are single-core is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless your assertion is that shoppers might be confused by the availability of hardware they don't want. If that's so, you ought to have made it sooner. It'd be nonsense anyway; if you search ebay for netbook, all the top results are dual-core. And, you can always search for dual-core, or you can select specific processors.
Are you attempting to claim moral authority over a "coward" merely because you use a pseudonym?
Nope. The issue at hand was congeniality, not moral authority. Try reading.
Also, our laws aren't shitty.
Subjective.
You may not like them, but that's life.
You may not like me acting to change them, but that's life.
Repeat after me: I should be tolerant of other cultures.
Yes, you should. If your laws are intolerant of other cultures, they should be attacked.
Again, "harmful to others" is a matter of perspective.
No. It isn't. Whether you care is a matter of perspective.
You have no moral high ground here...
I don't even know where here is, I was just making general statements. And apparently, others agree with me more than they do you.
What I propose is detente;
What you propose is maintenance of a status quo which was artificially created. That is not detente.
Cultural capitultion sounds appealing, right?
Progress, it isn't just for semiconductors.
You didn't specify if you believe if a god(s) exist or not.
That's because I don't believe if a god(s) exist or not.
Do you pray? If not, according to the parent definitions, you are an agnostic atheist.
Poppycock. You can believe in one or more deities and still pray to none.
You have a message from the operator.
