The Glade 4.0

Yea, I was gonna try and fix them.... but I can't tell where one is supposed to start and the other end...

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's because the Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of the people. In nowhere in it do you read anything saying that "The people" have the right to do this or that. There's no such thing as a "logical" extreme. Logic is binary in concept. You are talking about an interpretative extreme.

No one has said the right to drive exists. At least not on public roads. I'm arguing that paying taxes to be distributed to State DoT's is not within the Constitution. But that is based on using public roads, not necessarily driving. For example, though uncommon, you can be cited for not walking or operating a bicycle on a public road if not IAW local law or ordinance.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Please don't try to correct me. It's insulting. I meant exactly what I wrote there. Logic isn't necessarily binary. Logic can be binary. Logic can involve coming to many different conclusions, not just a binary option. Otherwise, fields like statistics, multivariable calculus, etc. wouldn't exist. Logic is about coming to reasonable conclusion(s) based on data, theorems, etc.

I meant logical extreme in this sense: If the 9th Amendment is read as covering all rights not enumerated in the Constitution, logically, anyone can claim any right not in the Bill of Rights. It cannot be that way, as people don't have rights to everything. Therefore, the 9th Amendment must be read in a limited sense. You can refer to that as interpretative extreme as well in this case, but I used logical purposefully.


So if a court decided there was a right to a million dollars, you would accept that? You have a tendency to pick and choose what you like in the Constitution or the precedent the courts establish. Rights aren't created by the Constitution, but it does establish those rights legally within our country's framework. As I said earlier, the 9th Amendment can be abused, which is why you need to read it in a very limited sense.

And it's high enough that if you're at 0.08 in the morning after a sleep, you're still **** drunk.

Seriously, one drink doesn't get me anywhere near 0.08, and I'm a bleeding featherweight pixie. One beer in an hour puts someone my weight around 0.02-0.03. Two beers puts me at 0.06. Three beers in an hour and I'm over the legal limit to drive (although two beers and I won't get behind the wheel)--but if I have three beers in an hour, I'm wrecked. It's not a matter of metabolism initially, although metabolism does help you process alchohol over time. The human metabolism varies greatly, and can reduce your blood alchohol content by between 0.01 and 0.04 per hour, depending on the person. That means for the person with the slowest rate of metabolizing alchohol, you would need to start at a BAC of 0.16 to still be at 0.08 after 8 hours of sleep.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Identity theft is A) not an error and B) is not something someone causes to another person just by being on the internet and making an error while using it. Traffic accidents, on the other hand, often occur due to simple errors while driving. Intentional malfeasence is not the reason we issue driver's licenses, and examples of it are not reasons we should issue them on the internet just to be "consistent".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is not complicated. A person operating a motor vehicle endangers other people, as well as just themself,w hen they make an error while driving. A sperson who makes an error on the internet, even in the case you cited, endangers only themself. If driving were only a matter of one's own safety we wouldn't bother with licenses, but it is net.[/quote]



An exploit is an intentional act, is it not?



Neither really matters for the example. Both are examples of negligence, but they only result in harm to others through someone's malfeasence. Someone still has to intentionally exploit the weakness to cause harm. This is like if you fail to lock your door or if someone sells you a defective lock; there was definitely negligence, but that doesn't chaange the fact that if someone hadn't intentionally burglarized your house there still would have been no harm done. People don't hack computers by accident nor do they burglarize houses by accident.

This is not the same as a traffic accident. In a traffic accident, someone commits an error, with no intent to do anything harmful to anyone, and causes harm to someone else's person or property. That's why we issue licenses; to try to ensure people are competant to drive and reduce accidents liek this. They aren't there to stop people from committing vehicular assault. Vehicular assault is intentional, like hacking a computer or burglary. In fact, the police will not fill out an accident report form in such cases.

[/quote]

When any of this is a result of an accident, I'll consider it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree that driver's licenses are often ineffective but that is because of poor implementation and low standards, not because of a flaw in the concept.



As to instrument inaccuracies, there are none that are so inaccurate, if the user is properly trained. There is a cosign error, for example, but that always results in a lower speed than actual because a cosign can never have a value greater than 1. Radar can very easily measure speed with great accuracy through doppler shift. Radar has been capable of accurately directing long-range gunfire against moving targets since WWII (see the engagement agains the Japanese Southern Force at the Battle of Leyete Gulf for a good example of fire control radar in action) and modern radar has been able to be used to take photorealistic images. Making a radar unit with the ability to accurately measure speed to 1 mph or less is hardly difficult.

As to strict enforcement, quite frankly there are not enough cops to enforce speed limits more strictly than they are now and still accomplish everything else. Ultimately, police resources are limited. Yes, there are plenty of times where the police are (or appear to be) doing nothing else, but if the polcie were not patrolling and moving around and were on large numbers of traffic stops, criminals would realize that and take advantage of it. In general, strict traffic enforcement helps lower crime because criminals are also likely to be poor drivers, but if you overdo it, they'll figure out you're paying attention to nothing but speeders.



I didn't say anything to that effect at all. What I said was that when a person DOES leave themselves a margin, like sleeping for 5 or 6 hours, wakes up, and thinks they're sober, that it is dishonest to claim that they exerceised the same poor judgement as someone who leaves the bar with the same general level of impairment and gets straight in the car. Legally, yes, they are the same and should be; it's your own responsisbility to ensure you're sober.

However, we consider every case individually in our justice system, and treating a person who makes an attempt to do the right thing, but fails the same as one who doesn't even try is not in the interest of fairness. It is, however, very much in the interest of people who try to create a never-ending DUI problem to ignore these sorts of differences.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I would include under the heading "instrument inaccuracies" to include the typical variations in speedometers as well, where a 1-3 MPH variation is considered within the acceptable range.

A speedometer (which is a tachometer) is an instrument, and oftentimes highly inaccurate, though they tend to be calibrated to be "optimistic". I'm not talking about the consine error based on the relative angle where the signal or IR source is originating from. If a person obeys the speed limit, he needs indication as to what his speed is. That is the point of the margin.

I understand the logistics of having the resources to enforce the speed limit, but it's done with hardly any consistency. This is because people know they can speed and get away with it. If people are consistently issued speeding citations, the speed limits might actually mean something. As it is, they are too low, evident by the great number of people who disobey them. Thus, it is very likely someone can be driving in a safe manner (at the speed of traffic, not the speed of the speed limit) and still be issued a citation for speeding, the point of which, is to make sure we are safe while driving.

As for the honesty or dishonesty. If someone is still above the threshold, they obviously didn't leave themself enough margin. It's not dishonest to say they should have waited longer or not been in that situation to begin with. That is what I am intending to say.



Yet all those conclusions are derivatives of binary logic. If something passes or fails a convergence test, for example. Just because a system or theorization can be based on multiple binary questions doesn't mean it's somehow fundamentally not binary.

The Ninth Amendment is intended exactly to ensure the rights enumerated in The Consitution are not a limit. You are right people don't have a right to anything, but they do have a right to everything that doesn't violate the rights of others. That is the reason the Constitution was written as it was.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I do not think that safety concerns are the primary reason for a license. I note that you require a license for a spouse, for example. As to who is endangered by making mistakes on the internet, a compromised machine does not affect solely a single individual.

On the part of one party, yes. On the part of a second party, doubtful. The potential for an exploit is oftentimes unintentional on the part of the coder.

The damage caused by the first internet worm was accidental. But be that as it may, I am not arguing that there are not valid reasons to license a motor vehicle and/or the operator of such. I am simply saying that computers are not harmless, nor is the internet harmless and there exist equally valid reasons to require licensing. If you do not wish to consider that there are reasons to back up these claims, or that these claims don't meet your criteria, that is fine.

_________________

As I've said rights are not established by anyone. The court could state that people have a rightto a million dollars but that would not create a right as rights cannot be created. What they would create is the privelege to have a million dollars regardless of their incorrect wording.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's a good point; I forgot about speedometers.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Fair enough on the speedometer.



Unless you can solve the resource problem, that's going to be the case regardless. You could raise the speed limits, but a great many people will just speed up to a new, higher speed.



I understand that. However, it is dishonest to lump them in with the guy who doesn't even try and groups like MADD tend to do that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They are for a driver's license. Spousal licenses are somewhat of an anachronism and were for safety - that of the female, to ensure it wasn't a forced marriage and to rpevent inbreeding and birth defects. As for a compromised machine affecting a single individual, you cannot assume that a compromised machine will affect more than one. The default assumption is one person. In any case it still doesn't change the fact that somewhere in the chain of events leading to the compromise, someoen did something like create a virus, on purpose. In a traffic accident, any purposeful event leading to it renders it not an accident and therefore not something the driver's license is designed to prevent.



We're not talking about the potential for an exploit; that's just vulnerability. Vulnerability means nothing without a malfeasent act.



I'm not trying to claimt hat the internet is utterly harmless; I'm claiming the type of harm and the reason it happens are not a valid analogy to motor vehicles. I haven't seen anything to the contrary. As for the first internet worm being accidental, that one incident isn't really much of a counter to the general rule that internet harm results from malfeasence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

History indicates you are incorrect. The states of Missouri and Massachusetts were the first to establish license requirements in 1903. The requirement for testing did not, for Massachusetts, occur until 1920 for the general operator, although commercial chauffeurs were required to pass a test starting in 1907. Missouri did not require driver examination until 1952. Kansas instituted a licensing requirement in 1931, but no testing requirement until 1949. Georgia began licensing in 1937, but did not issue examinations until 1939. The state of Washington began a licensing program in 1921, no testing until 1937.

This, too, seems not to be the case. Historically, it seems that the requirement for a marriage license was to ensure that both parties were eligible. Later, other reasonings were given, including protection from disease, accuracy of records, and to provide both parties a chance to reconsider. Protection from forced marriage or inbreeding does not seem to have factored in.

Indeed it is not. Speaking as the expert on this particular subject, you are mistaken.

Apparently, motor vehicles are not a valid analogy to motor vehicles.

_________________

Since we're talking about the purpose now, yes it does, and in any case the lack of testing requirements doesn't meant they weren't for safety purposes. Having to have a license that can be revoked is a motivation to avoid accident in and of itself.



Uh, yes it does. Both parties being eligable would preclude either being forced.



It doesn't matter that you are the expert on the subject. Any computer in direct use by people is in use by at least one person. It may or may not, however, be in use by more. A vehicle is similar. It is always driven by at least one person and may or may not have more riders. The negligence of the driver or operator of a computer may harm other people but it will not necessarily be the case, therefore the default assumption is that it is one person.



Since something can't be an analogy of itself and you haven't attempted to create one, we'll write this off as irrelevant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree, and to be fair, I don't have a solution. I just think that speed limits serve a purpose, but the reason most people get cited for speeding has little or nothing to do with the intent of speed limits. While most police try to use their best judgment, unfortunately, they are only human. They cannot robotically make a mathematically based decision, only their best instinct.



I agree. But I don't feel any sympathy for them, either.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I would like to hear some expansion on the topic of justifying that driver's licenses are primarily for the purpose of safety. Also, I find no indication that threat of revocation was in place for driver's licenses prior to the institution of mandatory testing.

The absence of duress does not appear to be amongst the criteria for eligibility.

While the default assumption that negligent usage of a motor vehicle results in harm to >1 person?

There exists on a daily basis accidental harm to computer systems by negligent users. You may have heard it referred to as the Slashdot Effect.

_________________

Why exactly would you find a specific indication that there was a threat of revocation? That goes along with the issuing of a license in the first place. If it can't be revoked for poor behavior there's no point. In any case, you're appealing to history. Whether safety was the primary consideration at the inception of licensing does not preclude it from being a major reason now.



You do understand that in the legal proceedings of this country, duress is always a disqualifier? I know of no legal process that can occur legitimately when a party is under duress. No, actions involving convicts, minors, and the otherwise incompetant do not count since their incompetance means they are not a party.



As long as we're discussing accidents with more than one cehicle, that is necessarily the case. I'm sure you will counter that while all accidents involve at least one vehicle they don't necessarily involve more than one, but the fact that they can involve another's vehicle is one of the main reasons that we have licensing at all. Then there's the fact that an accident can involve someone else's stationary property.



I have not heard of any such effect, but so far all the examples have in some way involved some kind fo malicious software.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My take on DL's is that they are meant to demonstrate that the driver can operate a vehicle. You have a driving test to show you know the various controls (Steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator, turn signals, etc) and a written test to show that you know the laws of the road. Safety would be part of why you are required to have a DL to drive, but just part of it.

Other than safety, why would it be important to demonstrate you can operate a vehicle... safely? That's what the test is demonstrating.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This may be so, but I think anyone who's taken the test knows that a rudimentary knowledge of safe operation is all that's required. It's pretty straightforward, otherwise and doesn't prove anything about the ability to operate the vehicle safely in all manner of conditions that actually are required if owning a vehicle.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

For instance, documented cases of licenses being revoked. If the point of a license is simply to extract $SOME_MONEY from a person and document their name and address, it does not matter if revocation processes are in place or planned. I am not appealing to history, I am neither claiming that because testing was not originally a requirement for licensing that it is not now, nor that it should become that way again. For the refutation that safety is a primary concern of a driver's license, I compare against other licenses. For instance, a pilot's license, which is much more comprehensive than a driver's license.

After the fact, and if proved, it may nullify a license. Until such time, however, that issuance is valid.

Accidents involving >1 vehicle is a subset of all accidents, yes. Accidents involving a single vehicle and property are a subset of all accidents, too. Would you classify the intersection of a vehicle and a small woodland creature as an accident? What about a vehicle and a large woodland creature? If your reason for licensing of a motor vehicle is that the potential is present for impact to more than the owner/operator of said vehicle, why do you reject that same potential as insufficient reasoning for licensing of computers?

The Slashdot Effect is real, present, requires no malice, and inflicts harm. Simply because you haven't heard of it does not negate that.

_________________

Comparing to other licenses doesn't really estblish much of anything. There's no reason different licenses couldn't have different purposes. In fact, your paragraph here is rambling and very difficult to comprehend. Ok, licenses do cost money and that is a purpose of issuing one, but I see nothing to indicate it's the main one. Pilot's licenses? Yes; they're more difficult to qualify for than a driver's license because aircraft are more difficult to operate than ground vehicles and the potential damage in an accident is much greater because much greater potential speeds and mass are involved.

I really can't tell where you're going with the above paragraph. You may want to proofread it and restate it in a more clear and to-the-point manner.



If it's known that duress involved at the time of execution, the legal process will not be completed. Moreover, although people may proceed as if its valid until the duress is discovered, it is quite possible to void anything that happened under that process retroactively if it is discovered that the process would not have been valid had the facts been known at the time. In any case, theis really isn't relevant to anything we're discussin.



If it causes damage to the property of or injury to any person, it is an accident. No damage + no injury = no accident; the polcie will take no report and no claim may be filed as there is no damage to be remedied. In general, small creatures will not cause damage so most of the time that would not be an accident, while a large creature like a dear, often will. Are you trying to suggest that various woodland critters have some sort of legal standing as traffic accident victims?

As for computers, I explained this already. Computer accidents are few, far between, and have little propensity ot cause harm to persons or their property. It was countered that there are numerous ways people can use computers in malfeasent acts both directly and indirectly to cause harm. I have pointed out that while that is true, licensing does not concern itself with preventing malfeasant acts as these are already regulated by other laws; they concern themselves with competance to avoid accidental harm. As neither the nature nor the severity nor the frequency of computer accidents is similar to that of vehicles, nor is the internet freely publicly accessible as the street is (one must generally pay for the service of internet access to a private company) nor is it equally practicable to issue such licenses, there is no good reason that computers should have licensing requirements similar to vehicles.



Perhaps it would be helpful then, if you explained this and gave some sources rather than simply asserting it. No, I am not going to go look it up on my own; you're using it to support some argument; you show how it does.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Similar licenses for similar usages should be similarly rigorous. If they are not, then perhaps they fail a similarity check. If we posit that the main reason for both a driver's license and a pilot's license is to validate the capacity for safe operation, then both of these licenses should be tested similarly. A pilot's license requires much more in the way of proof of competence than a driver's license. The hours of flight observed by a certified instructor, takeoff and landing in daytime and nighttime conditions, instrumentation flight, etc., all indicate that the criteria for a pilot's license is in place to test the competence of a pilot for safe flight. A driver's license, meanwhile, does not test for generally prevalent road conditions. There is no requirement for nighttime driving, highway driving, gridlock driving, etc. I seem to recall from stories told to me by pilots in the past that recovering a stall was something they had to learn. I do not recall any practice on recovering a skid for driving. The most common plane in the air is the Cessna 172. It has a max takeoff weight of 2,450 lbs. The most common vehicle on the road through mid-2008 was the full-size pickup. The curb weight of a Ford F-series, as an example, is 4,743 lbs. The max payload is higher. Since mid-2008, the most common vehicle on the road is the Toyota Camry, with a curb weight of 3,373 lbs. Your claim that flying is more intrinsically difficult than driving would need some corroboration. The motor skills involved are similar. Basically, there is a control yoke, throttle, and some instrumentation in both cases. Further, from a plane, it is much more likely to crash where nothing is, than where something is.

Also, I do not intend to target my writing to the lowest common denominator. If this causes you a problem, there are worse things that can happen to you than needing to refer to a dictionary.

So if an accident is only that which causes damage to one or more people, what is the ratio of reported accidents causing damage to 1 person vs. multiple people? And are your accident numbers from police reports or insurance claims?

And your knowledge of computer accidents comes from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect
What it boils down to is that there are many sites on the internet that are knocked offline or seriously degraded by a sudden influx of traffic resulting from a popular site directing traffic to it. This traffic direction is unforeseen by the owners of the target site, because much like you they have no idea that the Slashdot Effect exists. This influx can cause financial harm, for instance when the site is relying on sales through it, or perhaps when the service provider bills at increased rates for the traffic.

_________________