holtt @ 28:

You might want to RTFA before commenting. The article linked in the OP is only a summary but the link to the full article has been posted previously (see post #8). But even ignoring that, the guy you say you agree with actually posted a link to a study acknowledging that rear-end accidents increase significantly when red-light cameras are installed. As far as longer yellow times reducing those accidents, such studies do exist. The fact that you are unaware of them doesn't matter much, especially when you are unwilling to do even a token bit of reading. In addition to the original article, and the link that Takuan posted above, you should also see http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/guidelines-identifying-treating-locations-red-light-running-problem/ which specifically addresses how longer yellow lights increase safety at intersections (though unfortuantely, at the expense of revenue for the city and, often, the private company who runs the red-light camera program).

dougrogers @ 21:

That is a completely different problem, and unfortunately, red light cameras don't do much to help it. My understanding of how most redlight cameras work is that you will only be cited if you enter the intersection after the light has changed. If you enter while the light is green or yellow, you won't be cited if you don't clear the intersection before it turns red. Unfortunately, that means automated enforcement is useless against these sort of infractions. On the other hand a cop writing citations can be extremely effective against both these sorts of offenses, and they actually decrease crashes all around rather than just fatal ones. Seems like the better solution to me.

Monkeyfraud @ 19: I think you're missing the key point here. Yes, traffic cameras do decrease fatal crashes, but as you acknowledge, they often do so at the expense of increased property damage crashes. That may be a worthwhile trade off if this was the only option, but as that article notes, there are additional options that can actually reduce both kinds of accidents. Increasing the length of yellow lights has a demonstrated track record of reducing both types of accidents, as does increased "traditional" police enforcement. Either of these solutions (and probably others as well) reduce accidents, but they don't generate revenue for the cities.

Jonah @ #4:

The sentence after the one that you cite says that they won't sell your email to spammers without your consent:

We will not share your information with these third parties for their own marketing purposes if you request that we not do so.

The sentence after that one is what bothers me:

We may, however, engage in joint marketing activities with selected third parties and may share personal information about our website visitors with them.

What does that mean exactly?

Li Mom @ 33: "Legally painted or illegally painted, the crosswalk was completely visible to anyone who was driving with his/her eyes open."

Great in theory. In practice, not realistic. If you're driving at night typical spray paint will not be very visible-- and even the special paint that they use for street markings can be hard to see on a wet night. If you didn't already know that the crosswalk was there, it would be very easy to miss under many circumstances. There's a reason why cities put up "Traffic Revision Ahead" or similar warning signs when they make a change.

"Not to mention, if he didn't notice a crosswalk, he should have noticed the person in the street."

Generally, yes. But there's a reason why drivers (who are legally required to yield to pedestrians even if they are crossing illegally) are frequently not cited in car/ped accidents. What were the weather conditions? Was the ped talking on their phone and not paying attention? Did the person just run out without looking? Was the unauthorized crosswalk located badly, for example in the middle of a blind corner? All of these factors and plenty more affect whether the driver should reasonably have been able to yield. The presence of the unauthorized crosswalk doesn't necessarily factor into the safety of any of these possibilities, but you can be absolutely certain that it will be mentioned in the lawsuit that's sure to follow.

I'm not arguing for or against the unauthorized crosswalk, just against blaming the driver in a situation where we have absolutely no idea of the actual circumstances. I will say that done badly-- especially if it's not located properly-- an unauthorized crosswalk could actually make things more dangerous, not safer.

I have no idea what he's referring to when he says that "Abu Ghraib [i]s an example of the U.S. failure to understand Middle Eastern culture," but then again, neither do you. Do you think that maybe-- just maybe-- he's referring to something more than the torture?

Way to go Sen. Dodd. If the other Dems had half the spine that you do, we'd probably have President Pelosi by now.

Klokwerk @ 22:

Sorry, it's your analogy that's flawed. Free drink refills are clearly limited to REfills. You can't buy a 22oz. cup, and then fill up a 50 gallon tank. On top of that, there's an implied (and oftentimes stated) limit of "free refills on this visit only".

Comcast's service, on the other hand, is specifically marketed as "unlimited". They have stated bandwidth limits, but no stated usage limits. It's up to Comcast to provide the resources that they advertise, and they have to do it within the framework of their terms of service. If that means that they need bigger pipes, then that's their problem.

But this problem is clearly not caused by bandwidth hogs. There are far simpler and more equitable ways to deal with that problem, such as reducing available upload bandwidth for users who have exceeded a specified high level.

Don't you find it the least bit odd that no other providers have had to resort to the same draconian measures to deal with "P2P kiddies"? BT is the most network friendly way to share files, so if their goal is stopping bandwidth hogs, they're not doing a very good job of it.

Robin Hood @ 14 said "(though the ruling could be got around the same way that refusing to submit to a breathalizer currently is - that is making substantial penalties above and beyond contempt charges for refusing to provide an encryption key when ordered to)"

I don't think so. The reason that the law allows the suspension of your license if you refuse to take a breathalyzer is based on the notion that driving is a privilege, not a right. Since the use of PGP is not otherwise restricted, it would be hard to make that argument here. I don't see any possible way that they could punish you for failing to turn over your key without violating the 5th amendment (not that that would stop them).

#13 Diatryma:

Unfortunately, most banks don't seem to offer a coin counting service anymore. If yours still does, count yourself as lucky (no pun intended).

As someone else pointed out, the way to (legally) avoid the coin counting fee is to use their gift cards. Every night, I throw all my change in my jar & every three months or so cash it in for an Amazon.com gift card and use that as my "Amazon allowance". It's kind of like getting all of my Amazon purchases for free. Sort of.

All good, but I really think that they should extend the warning to being in the same room as a priest. Period. No good can come of it.

BusyDoingNothing @ 11:

Re: the 62% who "did not feel Radiohead's latest album is worth purchasing".

I assume you are saying that 62% of those who downloaded it didn't pay for it. You say that as if it was unreasonable. But keep in mind a few things... Radiohead -specifically- said that you should download their album & pay what you think it was worth. If you aren't a Radiohead fan, $0.00 is not unreasonable to check out a band you're not familiar with (or in my case, you just never "got" (though I haven't yet downloaded the album, paid or not)). Second, 38% is a far larger percentage of the revenue then Radiohead receives when they sell an actual, physical album. Radiohead is a big enough band that they -might- get $1 for every $18 album sold. If so, they get far more then the average band. (See http://cdbaby.net/courtney for the average band's economics)

The point of all this is simply that DRM benefits the record companies (or in the case of Kindle, the publishers) far more then it benefits the artists. When the artists finally realize this, the days of the corporate record companies / publishers will be over.

Please excuse me if none of this make much sense... It's VERY late and I should have been in bed hours ago... I'm skipping a few steps in between the first paragraph and the second, but this is a smart crowd, so I expect that most of you can make the leap.

KludgeGrrl:

What kind of vinegar did you use? Maybe trying a more flavorful vinegar would yield a better result.

Generally speaking, white vinegar won't yield very good results in most cooking.

Zak @ 23 (& Pork Musket @ 17);

Yow! Those are some ridiculously overpriced security bits you linked to. You can find a 100 piece security bit set from numerous dealers, including my company for around $10. I've seen them on sale for even less. This doesn't include the screwdriver, but the bits are the standard size & should work in just about any driver handle. (I apologize for the shameless plug, but I couldn't let people pay double the price for the same basic set)

Sam @3:

I suspect you're criticizing Mr. Scalzi for daring to call someone's beliefs, which you seem to acknowledge are ridiculous, horseshit. While I might agree with you in some circumstances, you're ignoring a very important point: The people who believe this ridiculous horseshit are currently running our country. They are the ones who got us into Iraq. They are the ones who deny global warming. They are the ones who want to regulate the way you live and what you are taught in school. If PC idiots like you just roll over and let them continue to preach their ridiculous horseshit without bothering to tell them that it's horseshit, then they will win. You might be willing to live in a theocracy, but personally, I'm not.

dculberson said:
"but he's no worse than Al Gore. In fact, better, because he's not rubbing other people's noses in their co2 footprint while shitting on the planet himself."

Funny how the righties are are for personal wealth (and passing it down to their children) unless it's a leftie who has money. So, if I understand you correctly, because Al Gore is wealthy he has to keep his mouth shut and not express his opinion? I suppose if the same is true of Rush Limbaugh, Billo, Ann Coulter, Rupert Murdoch, et al., then I'm all for it.

Yes, Al Gore generates co2 in his effort to tell people that they should try to avoid generating co2. Is it really that hard to grasp, though, that if he didn't do something to spread the word the overall result would be even worse (assuming, for the moment, that he is correct about global warming). There's an old saying that should be familiar to any self-respecting wingnut: "You have to spend money to make money". Well, the analog here would be "you have to generate co2 to cut co2". I guarantee you, on a global scale, c02 production is down significantly due to Al Gore's work, and if he stayed at home in Ky the whole time, the result would not have been the same. It isn't really all that hard to grasp if you give it about 1/4 second worth of thought (though I realize that's a lot to ask).

serotonin said:

"He offered his album for free, or for a cost that offered CD-quality DRM-free music for a respectable cost of only $5."

The thing that's always baffled me is that Saul Williams almost certainly made more money off of his album selling it this way then if he had gone the traditional label route. If he had been with a major label, he would have probably made pennies per CD sold at best. Here, he made $5 per CD with none of the headaches of dealing with the label. Granted, he probably sold fewer records, but at 20+ times the profit per copy, that seems a reasonable trade off considering he retains complete artistic & legal control of his music by self-releasing. So all of that considered, why in gods name don't more artists do things this way?!?!

It's certainly true for me. I can think of several artists who I never would have bought if I had not first downloaded their music. Two in particular come to mind that I discovered via p2p and now legally own everything they have released (Johnny Dowd & Kaito). I had a couple of Tom Waits later records, but after downloading some of his earlier stuff, I now own nearly his entire catalog (I own at least 12 of his records, up from 3 prior to downloading his stuff). There are probably numerous other examples, but those are probably the most dramatic.

Even more interesting, during periods when I download more, I also buy more. I haven't downloaded music for probably a year or more, and I've hardly bought any CD's recently-- probably two CDs in the last 6 months. When I am actively downloading stuff, I listen to more music, so I end up buying more music. That's certainly not true of everyone, but I'm willing to bet that it is true of the majority of p2p users, and this is not the first study that I've seen that suggests that I'm right.