Indeed. Observe violence rates compared with the playing of violent video games. Despite trying to restrict them, studies that look at the long term actually find a negative correlation between violent video games and real life violence. You have to look at very young children shortly after the game to find increases.

There is an artist who actually more or less does this. He also successfully sells the art, often bartering it for hotel stays and such. He never claims it to be real money.

They did try to charge him with counterfeiting once, though. I remember reading that chargers ended up being dropped because he didn't use anything more mechanical than a fountain pen for his work, and the law(at least at the time) specified printing, mechanical reproduction, which he wasn't doing. They were shocked that he was hand drawing everything.

Complicating it even more was that, as art, every 'bill' he created was worth more than face value. IE a "twenty" would go at auction for $10k or something crazy. He'd be a fool to try to pass one of his creations off as 'real money' because it'd be worth less that way. ;)

Good point. I see a big difference between criminalizing owning some pictures and simply being restricted from broadcasting said images via television or even just plastering them on a billboard.

I guess my support for restrictions on the first boils down to
1. Active attacks - this would include the speeches through bullhorns at windows at 3 am. They're trying to disrupt your sleep, which causes injury. Ban.
2. Inciting violence - varies between calling for duels to endorsing violent overthrow of the country. I'll note that expressing a belief shouldn't normally trigger this. It has to be done with intent to cause violence. Basically you shouldn't be held guilty of a violation because you said 'I'm pro-choice' and a bunch of pro-lifers attacked you.
3. Libel/Slander - probably should come under 'active attack', but lying to harm your target isn't allowed.

Yes, I support the rights of the Phelps to hold anti-gay demonstrations and the KKK to march, and I hate both of them. I support the banning of child porn on the basis that a child is injured in the process of creating it, ergo there shouldn't be any traffic of it.

On the other hand, while creepy drawings lack the harmed individual(s). As somebody who really believes that free speech isn't free if offensive speech isn't free, and lacking any scientifically sound studies that show that banning the stuff will reduce molestation/abuse rates, I have to go against banning them.

The balloons Google is experimenting with do reach the stratosphere. 20 km altitude.

LOL. You don't know much about Sergey Brin, do you?

The ownership thing can be mildly obnoxious. It's fairly standard practice at Google to click the checkbox to allow all attendees to edit a meeting. Even without that, though, it's always possible to make the change on your own copy; no one else will see the change if they look, but you can add someone (or a room), and the meeting will be added to the appropriate person/room calendar. Maybe Google Calendar works a little differently externally... I wouldn't think that part would be different.

Doesn't the Chromebox offer you the ability to type in a meeting name? That's another option on the internal system. We just go to the other room and manually enter the meeting name. Actually this was a problem a couple of years ago, but refreshes have gotten fast enough I haven't had to do that for a while, except when no one added a Hangout to begin with and we just have to make one up on the fly. Then we pick a name send it to everyone via chat or whatever, and type it into the room controller.

As for getting the other room booked, that's easy. Just make a calendar appointment and put the room on it. Fast.

+1

Excellent points.

I remember an early case where the kid(with his parent's support) fought using the GPS logger installed on his car due to an earlier speeding incident that showed he wasn't speeding at the time the cop said he was. The GPS company sent representatives(for free). The parents hired a lawyer on principle, etc...

He ended up losing, but the court/prosecution spent so much money fighting it that it was just insane. Their intent was to set a precident that 'GPS doesn't count'. Of course, what really happened is that the company took that experience and retooled their devices some - shorter intervals, instant AND average speed, signed log files so you could be assured they weren't edited, etc...

I can be much more verbose now, I have time.

NHTSA and other associated organizations have done lots of math and studies to determine and verify 'best' designs for nearly every kind of intersection out there, which includes proper yellow light timing.

To put it in context - while I kept it generic I could have said 'increase yellows to NHTSA or similar standards'. If you look at the studies, yellows shorter than NHTSA recommendations tend to have more accidents and red light running. Yellows longer than NHTSA standards don't do much, so it seems they've done their work. Indeed, if all intersections utilize the same standards, you gain the benefit that drivers learn to expect how long the yellow will be at a given intersection - 'Level, 35 mph, the yellow will be 'this' long and I have time to make it/not make it'. No matter where the intersection is.

Thing is though, local governments are discovering that a properly designed intersection that meets NHTSA and similar department rules regarding a well designed intersection won't have enough red-light runners to justify the expense of cameras, and that designing it right(or fixing the flaws) makes it safer than what red light cameras can provide. Of course, this presents a problem - the safest course is to fix the intersection, but that costs money. Cameras at least theoretically 'make' money, so they're preferred in areas concerned more about revenue.

Of course, courts throwing out fines left and right(including forcing the government to pay back all collected fines in select situations) when it's discovered that the reason for excessive red light running is an improperly designed or programmed intersection alters the finances. Much less when it's discovered that somebody shortened the yellow because they weren't making enough, as has occasionally happened. Heads really tend to roll then. The problem is that even if the government and camera company select intersections that happen to have a short yellow, when they're forced to retime the light to standards suddenly revenue drops. Running the cameras are no longer worth it.

I suggest reading the sources. It's noted all over that increasing yellow duration at problematic intersections works(at least most of the time). Nearly always there's some problem to be corrected - yellow timing is easy though. Sometimes all you need is a warning light earlier on.

Bingo. Independent studies have shown that red light cameras don't really reduce serious accidents(T-Boning at speed and such), but can drastically increase the number of rear-end collisions. Not that I want to argue your experience, but there's reasons why I kept it all statistical - accidents will happen no matter what as long as humans are still behind the wheel. All we can do is minimize them.

Actually, following NHTSA and similar standards tends to be very effective at reducing accident rates.

Cite?

It seems to me that the main obstacle to such studies is detailed information on gun ownership, because mortality information is readily available, and not just from law enforcement. The CDC tracks it closely.

In any case, I'd love to see this research done... though I suspect that I anticipate a different result than you expect.

Nonsense. Even individuals aren't only one thing. They're different things at different times and in different contexts. Further, you're talking about two large groups of people; there's clearly a lot of variation among them.

You're a little bit closer in recognizing that women aren't all the same. Congratulations! But you're still wrong. A given woman can like some kinds of math but not others, can like math during some parts of her life but not others, can even like math in some moods but not others.

I addressed this in the paragraph below the one you quoted, and a bit more in the paragraph after that.

A womans contribution requires 9 months, during which time any distraction, disruption or stress can cause the "person creation" process to fail catastrophically.

If that were true, the human race would have become extinct long ago. Pregnant women are actually pretty robust and remain capable of just about anything (except becoming pregnant again) for the great majority of the 9 months.

At the end of the day, the problem is people like you...

That's not the best way to start a sentence in which you care to make a point.

Yeah I would say "OMG YOU ARE A STUPID ____" is endemic to the tech industry. I'm definitely guilty of it. Within half an hour you can have two people do it back and forth in half jest. But it's also true of nerdy girls in school and nerdy boys. Nerds are generally the victim of mocking so to be superior gives them an opportunity to take it out on others. It's not helpful--but it is understandable.

but lose the guilt-tripping SJW faux indignation BS.

I bet you care deeply about ethics in gaming journalism.