Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

thepiratebay.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#131

Post by stinkytaco »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #110
stinkytaco wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering all anyone has done is make assertations with no proof, I will take the view of the many traffic engineers I work with over your so called "trivial to find" examples, none of which you or anyone else has been able to provide or prove. I'm sure your expert driving skills keep you very safe, but I will count myself lucky that the 17 year old that cruises down my street at 45 MPH despite his percieved abilit…

Incidentally, do you propose that "too fast for conditions" be the law? It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you. You need to consult your state's driver's handbook, rather than asking some random guy on HN. Chances are it uses almost the same phrasing you're asking about. Failing that, have a look at the Michigan State Police's site: http://www.…

>It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

Yes I know it's the law. I should have been more clear:

Do you propose it be the exclusive law.

And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#132

Post by stinkytaco »

nitrogen wrote: post #129
stinkytaco wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an argument about freeway speed limits, but about speed limits in general and in principle. I don't know where "freeway" was introduced as a limiter.

Different roads have such widely differing conditions that it's not possible to discuss speed limits in general and come to any meaningful conclusion. Since the implicit point of an argument is to come to a meaningful conclusion, it can be assumed that arguments which do not terminate in a meaningful conclusion are excluded. "In principle" is also not an argument that will fly with a lot of hackers who reject deontol…

That still doesn't change a simple fact: no one said "highway speed limits". That was introduced when things started to look bad. "Speed limits are an artificial government limit designed to make people criminals" was the contention. You can't change the scope of the argument when it suits you. If you believe that speed limits are ok in pedestrian areas, you are not categorically opposed to speed limits. You may be opposed to speed limits on the highway, but that changes the scope of the discussion.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#133

Post by stinkytaco »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #84
icebraining wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controlling the supply of money.

Think it through a bit farther. How exactly do they "control the supply of money?" Hint: try printing your own, and see how that goes.

This is purely pedantic, but making printing money illegal is controlling the supply of currency, which is different than controlling the money supply.

The money supply is elastic and can't strictly be controlled by anyone. The government will artifically increase it by printing currency or loaning money, however, which has essentially the same effect.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#134

Post by neutronicus »

T-hawk wrote: post #56
anonymous wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate? I'm not a driver myself, so I haven't had to experience speed limits first hand. What's the problem with just driving under the posted speed limit?

1. Speed limits are slow and people are impatient. 55 MPH on a highway feels quite pokey in clear conditions when 75 MPH is easily possible with no appreciable loss in safety. And 30 MPH on surface streets is positively crawling. They are designed low knowing that the average user will exceed them, similar to the MPAA's tax on blank recording media where the expectation of violating is built into the product. 2. Blen…

Try cruise-controlling at 55, even when everybody else is going 75. You'll get 4/3 the fuel economy, and it's so much less stressful, dirty looks or no.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#135

Post by nitrogen »

stinkytaco wrote: post #132
nitrogen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different roads have such widely differing conditions that it's not possible to discuss speed limits in general and come to any meaningful conclusion. Since the implicit point of an argument is to come to a meaningful conclusion, it can be assumed that arguments which do not terminate in a meaningful conclusion are excluded. "In principle" is also not an argument that will fly with a lot of hackers who reject deontol…

That still doesn't change a simple fact: no one said "highway speed limits". That was introduced when things started to look bad. "Speed limits are an artificial government limit designed to make people criminals" was the contention. You can't change the scope of the argument when it suits you. If you believe that speed limits are ok in pedestrian areas, you are not categorically opposed to speed limits. You may be o…

There is implicit context in every argument, which I made explicit in my previous comment. Arguing over the scope of the discussion instead of the substance is counterproductive to arriving at a meaningful conclusion. I bet you were loads of fun in your high school debate class.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#136

Post by klrr »

smithzvk wrote: post #128
klrr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Free Software movement and Open asource movement is completely seperated from eachother. Different names results in different ideas.

Going back and reading the initial comment, I think I see where you are coming from. The poster says "FOSS projects like GNU..." and that is off base if he was implying that GNU has anything to do with OSS. You are right, no one should be talking about a GNU as a FOSS project due to their outright rejection of the OSS ideology. But just so we're clear, it is possible to talk about FOSS itself (the software) in a mean…

As I said before, different names results in different ideas. I haven't seen any software stating it's a FOSS software, I've only seen people who don't know the difference between Free Software and Open Software use the term. I don't think you are one of those but many are and that's why I hate the term "FOSS".

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#137

Post by tptacek »

jsilence wrote: post #114
carbocation wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers talk about malum in se (bad, in itself) and malum prohibitum (bad, because we have prohibited it). I think these are useful concepts, even if we choose not to use the terms. Mala in se I (tautologically, perhaps?) don't support. For mala prohibita , it really depends on context.

Interresting distinction. Raises the question why we are prohibiting things that are not malum in se.

Because they are the rules we've adopted to make society, the markets, contested access to scarce resources, drug safety, or what- have- you work. Sometimes there's more than one set of workable rules, but we have to pick one.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#138

Post by CamperBob2 »

stinkytaco wrote: post #131
CamperBob2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, do you propose that "too fast for conditions" be the law? It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you. You need to consult your state's driver's handbook, rather than asking some random guy on HN. Chances are it uses almost the same phrasing you're asking about. Failing that, have a look at the Michigan State Police's site: http://www.…

>It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Yes I know it's the law. I should have been more clear: Do you propose it be the exclusive law. And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

Do you propose it be the exclusive law.

I don't know. I'm not a traffic engineer, and that's the sort of question they would be best equipped to hash out. It certainly needs to be a component of the law, or a policeman would have no legal way to stop some lunatic who drives at the posted 75 MPH limit in a foggy blizzard.

I do know that "reasonable and prudent" was the exclusive rule on Montana's highways prior to the 55 MPH Federal NMSL law in the 1970s, and that they tried returning to it for a time after the NMSL was repealed. For whatever reason, it didn't work for them, and they went back to setting specific limits.

And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

Sorry, I'm not a librarian either. I'm satisfied that my position is correct and I have the same right (or lack thereof) to state it here that you do.

As far as our disagreement is concerned, it might help if we could drill down and find out exactly where our opinions diverge. Here are the premises I'm working from:

1) To optimize safe and efficient traffic flow, speed limits should be set by traffic engineers, and not by mayors, police chiefs, legislators, or soccer moms. (My main concern is highway speed limits, as I almost never find myself exceeding posted limits in populated areas, but I assert that this is true in all cases.)

2) However, not all speed limits are set by traffic engineers. It's indisputable that some are set for political reasons, and no, I am not going to "provide citations" for something this obvious. Subjectively, as my initial post in the thread stated, I'd go so far as to say that most limits are politically influenced. An organization such as www.motorists.org would be a better place to look for cases and statistics.

3) People who have the political authority to set or influence speed limits, and who are not qualified traffic engineers, almost always want lower limits than the engineers would advise setting for the conditions at hand.

From these I conclude that it cannot be the case that speed limits are always set at the optimal point for safe and efficient traffic flow. Experience as a driver suggests that speed limits are not commonly set at artificially high values. That leaves only one conclusion: that at least some speed limits are set artificially low.

Which specific assertion(s) do you disagree with, and why? I'd invite you to show this reply to your friends in traffic engineering as well, so we could see what areas they would agree/disagree with.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#139

Post by stinkytaco »

nitrogen wrote: post #135
stinkytaco wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still doesn't change a simple fact: no one said "highway speed limits". That was introduced when things started to look bad. "Speed limits are an artificial government limit designed to make people criminals" was the contention. You can't change the scope of the argument when it suits you. If you believe that speed limits are ok in pedestrian areas, you are not categorically opposed to speed limits. You may be o…

There is implicit context in every argument, which I made explicit in my previous comment. Arguing over the scope of the discussion instead of the substance is counterproductive to arriving at a meaningful conclusion. I bet you were loads of fun in your high school debate class.

You said, in this reply (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4528076):

>Example 2: a small town declares with pride that all streets controlled by the city finally have limits of 35MPH or slower, even though there are several roads capable of much higher speeds.

Other relevat comments that set the discussion:

>Or so simple as speeding when you drive? There are many laws which do not function as they should.

and

>By itself, speeding is a victimless crime: if you hit something or someone with your car, you were doing something wrong besides just speeding. The main idea behind speed limits is to "make criminals," in Rand's words. They are a tool that gives law enforcement a valid reason to pull over virtually anybody and everybody on the road. At the end of the day, the result is less respect for traffic laws and police in general, but more revenue for police departments, municipalities, and insurance companies.

So yes, it sounds to me like we're not limiting this to highways, but rather to the governments right to set things like speed limits and whether those limits are effective. Now, if you think that there should be a right to set speed limits in town but not on highways, we need to establish that.

You, yourself, included non-highways in this discussion. I respect your decision to exclude them but clearly you are limiting the scope of the discussion from what you personally set it at.

And of course the scope matter, the relevant facts change(i.e. the politically influenced decision to lower speed limits to 55 MPH) when you change the scope. This isn't a matter substance, it's a matter of deciding what we are all talking about. If you want to just talk about highways, you should do that, but clearly not everyone else feels we are talking exclusivly about highways or they wouldn't have brought it into the discussion.

Re: The Pirate Bay - 9 years and still bloody runnin

#140

Post by westicle »

aba_sababa wrote: post #124
CamperBob2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, posting an Ayn Rand quote on the Internet is a good way to start a flame war. But there's one quote in particular that few intelligent people will disagree with, and that even fewer will be able to dispute. “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be…

My God, this is entirely, entirely, wrong. When you speed, you're JUST as culpable of killing someone whether you actually kill them or not. This is an old ethics issue: you can imagine two scenarios, both of which you do exactly the same actions: speeding down a road. The difference is that in one of them, a pedestrian doesn't see you bearing down on him, and you kill him. The pedestrian may or may not be there, but…

I think you missed the entire point of the discussion.

Where speed limits are set arbitrarily or cannot be set at a consistently appropriate level, there is no moral consequence of exceeding them.

Thought experiment: A geriatric, possible senile driver runs his car into a traffic barrier at 5mph on a busy road. In my infinite wisdom I declare that 5mph is clearly too fast for geriatric, possible senile old men and set the speed limit to 3mph. Is it then immoral for you to exceed 3mph on this road?

How about 4mph? 5? Etc. up to arbitrary speed limit.

You're conflating driving at a certain speed with driving at a speed which is unsafe, which is purely a question of degree. 10mph may be marginally more dangerous than 5, but that doesn't make it immoral to drive at 10mph.

Therefore, if you drive at a speed which is unsafe and likely to result in your scenario above, you are morally responsible for your actions. But there is nothing immoral per se about an expert driver, in clear conditions, exceeding a speed limit while maintaining control of the vehicle and being aware of their surroundings.

Post reply on HN