Slashdot Mirror

Amazon should instead give out Nutraloaf. It provides most of a person's nutritional needs and no local businesses will complain as few, if any, sell it (although some government agencies also give it away to selected individuals so Amazon might face some competition there if they are not careful when selecting their distribution channels).

Because goodness knows, nobody's been assaulted by a licensed taxi driver.

Already happened.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

However it happens with Taxi drivers also.

http://www.wcax.com/story/2457...

Sorry no complete security in any system. However with Uber the driver that shows up has a reputation one can review... with a taxi company you have no control over that. I would prefer Uber. IMHO.

I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!

In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.

And you somehow think that measuring fatalities is the metric?

That would imply that any unsafe act would result in only fatalities, no simple accidents, no injuries or property damage only accidents.

before we go on too far, not everything is declining. 2012 saw an increase in teen vehicle fatalities. Even so, there is an improper fixation on only fatalities.

http://ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/spotlights/spotlight_teens12.pdf

A friends daughter has been involved in 2 TWD accidents. First time she clipped a mailbox, the second time a street sign. In the first accident, damage was minor. In th esecond, she totaled the car. She was not injured in either accident, in the second, the airbags deployed.

Using the fatality metric, her texting was not a bad thing. Using an injury metric, it was not a bad thing. Property damage? well, maybe. But she thankfully wasn't killed, so TWD is safe in some people's eyes.

But replace the mail box and the street sign with pedestrians, and they would have almost certainly been dead. Would that make her texting a bad thing? Then again, those pedestrians weren't driving, so texting and driving is still safe. Not so much for the pedestrians who were hit.

For further entertainment

http://www.missouricaraccident.com/blog/cell-phone-texting-issues/distracted-driver-hits-pedestrians-i-70/

http://www.wcax.com/story/15251324/police-driver-who-hit-colchester-pedestrian-was-texting

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=168456&fm=newsmain%2Cnarts

Cops certainly can be sued personally. It happens all the time.

http://www.wcax.com/story/14953981/embattled-s-burlington-police-officer-sued-again

I see that now.. When I first read it, I inserted some of the crap that the law required in my state

Anyways, the law gives the AZ police the ability to stop or detain people only when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime that has, is or is about to occur. That's only the foot in the door, they ask for identity, Juan refuses to give them anything but his name- now what would give them the right to ask for or question his immigration status based on that much interaction? Remember, the law says they may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

So what happens is that the cops run the name through the computer and find either no record of the name at all, or more likely, they find multiple records of the name from several different states and perhaps another country. So the cop asks Juan to verify who he is because that name is so common, there are 40 different people or aliases in the system with it and 5 of them matching similar descriptions have warrants for parole violations or other felonies. Now, even though Juan doesn't have to say any more, his detention and potential arrest is solely on him at this point in time as the cop can't reasonable distinguish between the guy standing in front of him and half of the names that returned on the computer. The courts have already said that mistaken identity in arrests isn't a violation of a right when reasonable attempts to properly identify the person have been taken and it still fails. (yea, I know, it's still ohio but the exception liability is implied from a federal level known as color of law).

Juan says nothing but his name so the cop goes before a magistrate and asks for a 3905 order and the judge allows them to take finger prints. Or the cop could simply arrest the guy as one of the people with an outstanding warrant, do the normal finger printing process, find out he isn't the same guy, then release him without penalty.

It appears his idea of "expanding" free speech was to eliminate campaign reform: http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=5736114&nav =4QcS

So Geneva Convention BAD, big business buying votes GOOD.

Also in the Globe story, it implies that there were many changes discussed as far as free speech, and the Geneva convention only one of them. If the Internet speech restrictions weren't reported, I bet the reason is because the reporter did not understand them because of the technical nature.

At the age of 13-14 you should be smart enough to figure out basic things. Like say do not meet a stranger who has send you naked movies of himself (this is from the police press release) in a park.

If the kid had been asaulted while just playing in the park he would have had my sympathy but this 13-14 yr old male went on a date with an adult male who had been sending him naked movies of himself. Exactly at what point do you suggest people need to get a sense of responsibilty?

This kid was not abducted, he was not assaulted. if you read the police report what happened was that the boy meets man on date in park, man touches boy, boy objects, man stops, boy goes home, mom finds out and calls the cops.

The man obviously had pedo tendencies but this can barely be called assault let alone rape. The police report and official complaint do not in fact call it that.

No compared to real victims like in the case I linked to above this boy gets no sympathy from me.

/. is a harsh place. If you want crying people watch Oprah. Here we only have sympathy for people who can't help their misfortune.