Different jurisdictions, different rules. Most jurisdictions have at least some exemptions for police officers while on duty. Whatever exemptions there are most departments have a policy of wearing seatbelts unless a specific situation dictates against it. For example on a call to an armed robbery most officers will wear their seatbelt until they are close to their destination at which time they remove them. That being said Michigan law appears to have zero exemptions for police officers on duty or otherwise.

>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.
And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.
Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.
What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?
And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.
And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.


I will admit that a species that has absolutely no comparable experience with us would be a problem. There's a mad, wonderful chapter in Greg Egans Diaspora that discusses the idea of complex creatures that have evolved in multi-dimensional space. I don't recall the exact maths, but they essentially live "rotated" into extra dimensions. I'll grant they will pose a challenge.

But it's not unreasonable to assume that some life forms would have evolved on a similar ecosystem to ours. We're already comfortable in working outside base 10, and there are some smart people who are working out establishing common symbol patterns based on fundamental mathematical principles. I don't care if you can interchange your head with your elbow, or you reproduce by thought, 1+1 =2. That does not change. Same for Pythagoras' theorem, prime numbers and so on.

My overall point is that something that is smart enough to figure out all the problems of going out into space will figure out how to communicate with us.

Or more likely, simply harvest the planet for resources. They're bound to be low on food and fuel by then

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Much as I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I feel he's wrong on this. I've said it before, but I think our ability to understand abstract concepts such as math should mark us as sufficiently different from the other species on our planet.


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.

And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.

Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.

What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?

And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.

And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.

"The latest disaster for the solar system is that the United States has decided to go to Mars. And, of course, later we intend to colonize deep space with our Salad Shooters and Snot Candy and microwave hot dogs. But let me ask you this: What are we going to tell the Intergalactic Council the first time one of our young women throws her newborn baby out of a seventh-story window? And how do we explain to the Near-Stellar Trade Confederation that our representative was late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold, and he had to spend thirty minutes beating the shit out of his wife?

Do you think the elders of the Universal Board of Wisdom will understand that it’s simply because of quaint local customs that over 80 million of our women have had their clitorises and labia cut off and their vulvas sewn shut in order to make them more marriageable and unable to derive pleasure from sex and thus never be a threat to stray from their husbands’ beds?

Can’t you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?"

- George Carlin

different countries, different rules :-) over here the emergency vehicles don't use the hard shoulder which is only used for breakdowns. instead they go between the two lanes, respectively between the two leftmost lanes if there are more than two. of course that means that you have (i.e. are legally bound) to make room when in a traffic jam. a concept which - just as the idiots in this clip - not all folks seem to be able to wrap their heads around, therefore knowingly endagering others lifes.

You are misinterpreting my beliefs, @marbles.

My rights (life, liberty and protection of property) are granted to me by a social contract, which has been assembled earlier in the lifetime of the society I live in - it's not a distinct group of individuals that have power over me, it's everyone that's a part of the society I live in, including myself.

I, along with many others, have appointed people to keep the piece (the law, police and lawmakers) and they do so on behalf of me and the rest of society. Together we have decided that each citizen have certain inalienable rights within our society. This does not mean that they naturally occur - these "rules" are entirely man-made. Within that society, the group agrees which rights we all want in interacting with each other. Inside the society, we have agreed to have degrees of liberty, while limiting other liberties.

The liberty that's defined in the video above, is just a different rule-set. It's no more valid than the one we use, just because some people want it to be. In older societies, individuals would have to carve out their own rules. We've grown since then. We have liberty within our own societies.

So, no, I don't believe that anyone else should be able to decide whether I should live or die - HOWEVER I do subscribe to the laws of my society, such that I do not go out and kill anyone else, because then someone else would be justified in ending my life too.

I think it's more interesting when we see societies with different rule-sets collide, like the muslim world and our idea of freedom of speech (my avatar is a response to that).

You can't have a society, without mutually agreed upon rules. We accept the rules that our appointed politicians have agreed upon, since we don't want to do all negotiating individually, because it's a waste of time, or at least uses a lot of time.

It's intensely simple to see that rights aren't natural, when you look at earlier societies, where life was taken wantonly by priests, kings and anyone else in power or not. Still, we see it today with wars against terror and other ideas, which is just silly. In the states we see it clearly in Gitmo, where all rules are suspended (which many, many are against). Their reasoning is that they are not a part of the society, so no rules are applied to them. I'm against this, since I think that the rules of my society should apply to everyone, but there you go.

@dannym3141

"I'd just like to mention that i've read somewhere that the reason the teacher was suspended is because he disciplined (perhaps removed from the room?) a kid for saying that he didn't support gay people.Agree or disagree, that's his right, and if that is true, the teacher is in the wrong. Next, we discipline kids for saying they don't support what... christianity, judaism, atheism? Touchy subject, but the laws of most civilised countries allow people to say "i don't support gay people." It doesn't incite hate, it doesn't preach to others, it's just his opinion, as shit as that opinion may be. If it's true. Source is not verified. well, that's the rub of free speech isn't it? If he'd been against the wall for saying "i don't support black people", then does he really have free speech? In this case, people who are anti-gay will be fuelled by what's happened and ask, "why is the gay guy allowed to express himself freely and i'm not?" I didn't even think that it was illegal to express personal xenophobic opinions in a matter of fact and calm manner.Like i said, touchy subject. I'm sure i'll be chastised before the comments go much further even though i've not even stated my opinion yet,"

^no opinions contained within

And much like the point you're arguing, (if you haven't caught on yet) I'm just pointing out that you can't say something then try to skip out on any associated responsibility associated with what you said. The kid made a remark disparaging an entire sexual orientation of people. I think the teacher was in the right to remove him from class because in spite of my strong support of free speech I dont think his was violated in any way.

The student can have those opinions but students, generally speaking, are part of a captive audience (they have to be there) and different rules apply. If these two kids were out in public the people who strongly disagreed could simply walk away. But being forced to sit through someone else talking about how your lifestyle isn't "right" and how they don't agree with it is not something another person should be forced to do. So in this instance yes, the teacher was in the right IMHO.

As far as you're idiotic bullshit: You can't ramble on and then when people respond to what you're saying, reply with "Well I haven't even stated my opinion yet!!!" If that was practical, how could you ever take what another person said at face value if they could simply follow up with "Well I haven't even stated my opinion yet!!!"

Well wait, I take that back, you CAN do that of course (free speech and all right?) but of course, you'll have to take the consequences of those statements. One being, that I've formed an opinion about the content of your character *slaps danny in the face with a large trout* you sir are a pretentious jackass.

>> ^blankfist:

Anyhow, I'm not sure what you mean by privately owned public spaces. That sounds like a lot of doublespeak. Sure, you have to pay property taxes so there's the argument that you never truly own your land, but if you purchase land to build a company on it, it's not technically public. It's private. Like your home.


But it's not private like my home. My home is in a residential area, and is clearly a living space, not a space meant for conducting business. Even if my door wasn't locked, it would be highly irregular for someone to just walk in my front door unannounced without my explicit permission, and started looking through my belongings.

If I owned a store, it would be in a commercial area, and clearly labeled as a store. The door would be unlocked, and it would be fully expected that people would be permitted to walk in the front door without waiting for my explicit permission, and they would be free to peruse the wares on display.

Those are two totally different situations, with completely different rules of etiquette, and with largely different laws.

This is not even getting into the idea that there are so many fundamental services that we rely on that are (rightfully) provided by private businesses, and should be made available to everyone regardless of race, group, or class...like food.

>> ^blankfist:
If some racist asshole wants to buy land and open a racist grocery store, then so be it. I doubt you'd fine many people visiting that shop, because this isn't 1950s Alabama.
It's his property, he can do with it as he pleases pretty much. If he wants to open a "blacks only" grocery store, it wouldn't be fair for the white guy next door to stop him. You're wrong if you think you have a right to dictate what goes on in private spaces when no one is being aggressed against.

How about a "No Muslims" sign? How about a "No latinos" sign? How about a "No gays" sign? This might not be 1950's Alabama, but the US of 2010 isn't a paragon of virtue either.

Personally, I think it's totally fair to stop people from doing this. The object of these signs are being "aggressed against", they're having their freedom constrained, not because of something they've done wrong, or even had any choice about, but because of who they are.

I'm all for the right to "discriminate" on the basis of individual behavior and merit, but prejudice like that is morally wrong.

they must have different Rules as to what Constitutes as Safety Orange, because that sure is not a high vis vest.

^ I can see your point.

Playing by the rules, yes, I think things would have been worse.

But if we would have played by different rules, e.g. treat the banks and the bankers as we would treat anybody who was delinquent on their loans--repossessing their toys, to start with, and kicking them out of the system--that would have helped, too.

Had we punished them and relieved the debts of the people that they suckered into ARM loans, and then went around giving money to the little people instead of handing it over by the boatload to the one's who were already rich and who, coincidentally, were responsible for the problem to begin with....

Yeah, I see your point.

Inconvenienced, no...I was one of "them". And when I lived in San Diego I never went north of Carlsbad, so I didn't have to go through the San Clemente checkpoint. You are right on reaching for the camera, not cool.

There are some different rules regarding searches at the border, but this is obviously a checkpoint not at the border so there are enhanced requirements. Quick article on border searches.

If this guy (or anyone - hint, hint) wants to do some good, go out and collect signatures and get the thing de-funded and/or closed down.

I have a feeling Nader didn't have all the facts. Only an idiot would hand over a drug without patenting the formula. I know at least that academic scientists and universities, at least, always patent their drug formulas, and they're the ones that do the majority of research by a landslide. I don't know about the Taxol situation, but it's more likely an exception if it is even that. I've got a couple collegues with drug patents and if I asked them if they would have been willing to give up the formulas and trial data to a company with no benefit to themselves, they'd laugh.
However, if that research he's referring to was done AT the NIH or another purely gov't research center, than I don't know. They might have different rules. I'll ask around.

@chilaxe

Studies are showing that the healthiest and longest-lived people in the world do some daily manual labor their whole life. There's nothing tedious about accomplishing something with your own sweat and two hands: in fact there's nothing more rewarding.

@rougy, @BansheeX

BansheeX's argument makes sense on principle, but there are recent examples of the dangers of corporatism, and some old examples that we like to forget (sweat shops, factory conditions in the 1800s). The ideal is a capitalist system with strong regulation and oversight from a magically uncorruptable democratic government. Corrupt oversight and regulation is worse than none at all; but responsible oversight is absolutely necessary.

It's interesting that Chicken of the Sea didn't even relocate to a new country with different rules. They simply invested in robotics when manual labor became too expensive. Samoa was very poor before, but it's even poorer now that Chicken of the Sea is gone. They will need aid from the government but it has to be used properly to build their infrastructure and provide better jobs that are stable in the long-term.

>> ^reiwan:
He's left footed, so a curve to the left wouldnt be that hard. Now if he was right footed and did that, I'd be amazed. Otherwise, its just a pretty good kick.


Is that not reverse curve? Maybe different rules apply to footballs than they do rugby balls, but I would have expected a left footed kick from there to actually swing away from the posts (left to right on the screen).

When you see free kicks taken in football, a right footer normally pushes the ball out to the right and it swings to the left. For a left footer, the converse is true. Here, a left footed kick results in the swing I would expect from a right footed one. My conclusion would be that either I suck at figuring this stuff out, he has a foot made from some alien artifact, or there's a hefty breeze.

The commentator does mention that he's currently 0 from 2, so perhaps the heavy wind had something to do with this. Then again, it doesn't seem to be that windy... Hmmmm.....

>> ^quantumushroom:
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.


It depends on the province and the circumstance. There isn't a universal Canadian health care, it's run by the provinces and territories. The only thing the Federal gov't really does is keep pumping money into it. Every province has different rules. I know in Ontario, if it were desperate enough, they would. Eg. It needs to come out, or you've been in a car accident etc. If it's someone in the US who came to Canada to get treated, they would either charge them, or not admit them. It depends on the situation. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is famous for taking in families with kids in dire need, and charging OHIP for it, which no one seems to mind.

I admit I don't get sports a lot of the time.. whenever I see baseball, when the base person catches the ball the runner just sort of slinks off without them ever tagging them with the ball.. Are there different rules for different kinds of baseball where you have to touch the runner with the ball or not?

(shh, gwiz)