Although I drive, I spend more time as a pedestrian, so I hear you. What I think you want, though, is for drivers to be better at adhering to the traffic laws rather than red light cameras as such. There's a difference: red light cameras don't seem to have that much effect. Not surprising, since that's not their goal. Their goal is revenue generation.
The cameras appear to make the roads more dangerous, not less.
Re: Re: Re: This is not the Religion of Islam (Or Christianity. Or Whatever.)
"Should the rest of Christians "change their branding" because of televangelists ripping off the elderly? Or because of IRA and Ulster loyalist violence?"
From a purely marketing point of view, probably, especially if you include distancing from the more extreme fundamentalists. If they had, they would certainly be viewed in a more positive light by more people than they are.
Why the distinction between websites and ISPs? Because ISPs occupy a much more privileged position on the network.
That's not, or shouldn't be, the argument. It's not wrong, but it leaves out a critical distinction that the major telecoms are trying their hardest to get everyone to ignore. ISPs and content providers are radically different businesses. The rules governing each have to be radically different as well.
I haven't encountered a restaurant with this policy yet (excepting for the one that automatically charge gratuities for large groups), but if I did, that would be a restaurant that I would not go to a second time.
Automatically charging for tips turns it into something that isn't a tip at all -- it's just a garden variety price increase. A tip is an interaction directly between me and the people who provided the service to me. The business itself needs to stay out of it.
Yep. Just like how all of this used to be called Total Information Awareness until public outcry made them stop doing it. Of course, "stop doing that" means it was broken into pieces and renamed, not that it stopped.
This sort of thing is a big part of why eternal vigilance is necessary.
A derivative work is one where an existing work was used as a starting point. Software that uses the api presented by another piece of software is not a derivative work, it is a unique work. To be derivative, it would have to copy a substantial part of the other software, either the code or the look and feel.
If you write something original that plugs into something else, that is an original work, not a derivative one.
No, because Karl is quite clear that he doesn't mean the legal definition of lobbyist, but rather the common sense definition. He's not saying the dude is violating lobbying laws, he's saying that most of what the guy does has the effect of lobbying in the colloquial sense.
According to the company, they determine which calls are exempt based on the phone number involved. That's entirely automatable and can avoid recording the call at all. No later review is necessary (and there'd be nothing to review.)
The company also says that the attorneys have to proactively inform them that they're attorneys and their phone numbers. It's possible that the recorded calls were with attorneys who failed to do this, I don't know.
But even if there is no serious violation here, the outright financial abuse the company is engaging in is despicable.
Yes, there is a strong correlation. However, the cause of dangerous areas is not that they tend to have a lot of blacks in them. It's that they tend to be very poor. That there are lots of blacks in those areas is due to our racist society.
To bring up race when discussing this issue is to distract from the actual issues and to imply that the issue is something inherent to the race.
My comment has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with trying to identify the actual problem.