Comment Re:Safety vs Law (Score 1) 475
So do trucks blithely crash into your car every time you slow down, or did you slam on the breaks exactly as you were instructed not to do?
So do trucks blithely crash into your car every time you slow down, or did you slam on the breaks exactly as you were instructed not to do?
They're successful when you consider that the point was to move tax revenue to crony pockets:
All takedowns have to be sworn under penalty of perjury. Next time google gets one that points to a page with no infringement (just happened) (just happened again) (oops, and again, okay, I'll stop counting now) whoever sent it needs to be prosecuted for perjury. The infringement notice bots would be shut down in 10 minutes when those behind them are suddenly facing prosecution.
As I've said time and again: we don't need a new law - we need to enforce what we've got.
No, No, they don't have a right to know.
I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste. You still have not given a single legitimate reason why low speed limits (by themselves), or slow drivers (by themselves) are dangerous.
People who are driving at a speed that is far outside the average speed on a particular road are a danger simply because the difference between their speed and others is likely to be large. Note that whether they're going "faster" or "slower" doesn't matter - it's the difference in speed.
If I'm going 90MPH and I bump someone going 89MPH we'll be fine and have minimal damage to our cars. If I'm going 45 and bump someone going 44 it's the same. But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.
I remember reading something a few years ago said by a patrol officer. Basically, fast drivers and slow drivers cause the same number of accidents. But in his experience the fast drivers were part of the accident while the slow drivers caused other people to have an accident (trying to avoid the slow poke) and drove off possibly unaware that they had caused an accident.
The Microsoft party-line has always been that retraining employees to use Linux is far more expensive than paying those license fees...
Does "Microsoft party-line" mean that Microsoft has actually expressed this? Or is it code for, "I heard a lot of Slashdotters bitching about this"?
Or in other words, cite please?
The hardest part is the macro language. VBA is an unspeakable horror, but it is well-documented and there are 20 years worth of forum help posts online fixing whatever problem you are currently working on.
You don't want to cut off their web browsing, you want to cut their power. Get the electric companies to cut the power till they pay up. Can't download or watch them infringing files with no power.
Cut the power!!!!
Actually the analogous action would be to drop their line voltage to 30V and perhaps change the frequency to 20Hz.
You cannot prove a negative.
Sure you can. I was once falsely (and maliciously) accused of something, and was able to prove that I was 100 km away in a different city for the extended weekend, with hundreds of witnesses. 7 witnesses was more than sufficient.
So, you proved that you were somewhere else, which is a positive.
Oh for fucks sake, you KNEW what he meant by the post.
Of course he knew what the OP meant, but I have to side with mrchaotica and I'll tell you why. A large part of the population thinks that copyrights are something that only big companies own. When people say "it's illegal to download copyrighted content" they perpetuate that myth. Nearly everything I download in a given day is copyrighted, it's just that the author has given permission for it to be downloaded. All the posts on
So the issue is about whether it's unauthorized sharing, not whether it's copyrighted. I make that distinction simply because I don't want to help lay the groundwork for a fundamental change in copyright law at some point.
I'm not disputing what you claim, just saying that your use case is marginal. It's like snowmobiles. Some people use them for work. For the most part, they are toys.
What's stopping him from going on the roof? I doubt the police would try and snag him into a helicopter.
I'm going to throw an assumption out there: very, very few people are doing this. Yes, you could - in theory - "dock" your phone/tablet and do productive things with it. But a really top-notch phone is going to cost you $600+ and a really low-end computer that can kick the shit out of it will cost $200. I think that anyone who can afford the monitor, keyboard, and high-end phone will probably not sweat the cheap cpu too much.
So in the end, while I'm sure there are people in the fringes doing productive things on their phones and tablets, for the vast majority they are toys. This is not meant to be a disparaging comment - I have a smartphone, I have tablets... but I don't do anything more productive on them than take short notes and check email. Mostly they are consumption devices.
Perfectly allowed? ISIS is being bombed by the US military!
(sorry for the obscurity)
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.