Slashdot Mirror
Woman Tells State Judiciary Committee, "DoD Implanted A Microchip Inside Me"
The Georgia House Judiciary Committee took up a bill that would "prohibit requiring a person to be implanted with a microchip," and would make violating the ban a misdemeanor. Things started to get weird at the hearing when a woman who described herself as a resident of DeKalb County told the committee, "I'm also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip." Not sure of what she was trying to say, she was allowed to continue and added, "Microchips are like little beepers. Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city. All done without your permission." Further prodding revealed that the woman's co-workers would torture her by activating the chips with their cell phones and that the chips were implanted by "researchers with the federal government." The committee thanked the woman for her input, and later approved the bill.
Well, if you drive drunk you're likely to kill someone. As for the wrong plant, I totally agree.
Have you seen the way some people drive? Lowest common denominator, here... any imparement puts you well into the 'likely' zone :P
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Ok, let me clarify.
Two 12-oz. American (5%) beers isn’t drunk.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The truth of that statement also depends on the size & physiology of the person drinking them, and how quickly the beer was consumed.
Citation needed for being stoned on weed making you a worse driver, please.
It was a drunk driver that fucked me over, and now I smoke pot all day just to be able to get up, walk, and take my ass to the car to get groceries from the store (thank you, California.) I still drive better than 99% of the population, and I've never had an accident in my decade of motor vehicle operation.
Hell the current strongest medical-quality bud barely gives me a buzz.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Drinking two beers does not make one drunk. Maybe if you're a 100lb asian woman who chugged 2 beers on an empty stomach. Maybe.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
While I would agree with the assessment you made about drunk driving, I think it's at least worth pointing out that one is a passive activity and the other is active.
In other words, it's entirely possible that every single person in america has driven "over the limit" at least once in their life (I'm not saying they HAVE, just that it's possible), and a small fraction have gone on to crash and injure someone.
In fact, hasn't it been shown that driving whilst tired, or while staring at a phone, or while reading, are equally dangerous activities and (in most states) aren't regulated at all.
In fact, having anger control issues is probably a greater risk for accident than speeding in most cases. Driving a car with crap-ass suspension (while totally legal) is much more dangerous than a "california stop" at a stop sign with clear visibility of no other cars in the intersection (which is not legal) and being hopped up on "Rockstar" energy drinks must have at least as much effect as a 0.04 alcohol level toward being a danger toward others.
When does the small chance of killing someone warrant a steep punishment? After all, simply being a "bad driver" is apt to cause injury or death in some rare cases. Simply looking at the outcome of a single drunk driving accident yeilds an emotional response of "OH MY GOD THIS MUST BE STOPPED", but does it warrant what people do as a result?
Devils advocate. :-)
Depends on the alcohol content of the beer, how fast it was consumed, the person doing the consuming, and a host of other factors - you cannot correctly make this claim without a host of additional stipulations. What's more, the OP stated that "driving home after two beers is a worse crime" - it's only a crime if you're legally drunk. So we can reasonably assume that the OP was talking about a situation where two beers is enough to get you drunk, which is to say - at least here in the US - that you have a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. If two beers is not enough to put you to that limit, then you have committed no crime, and your case is not covered by his claim that "driving home after two beers" is a crime.
Unless you'd care to argue that alertness, coordination, concentration and depth perception are not required to operate a vehicle safely, it makes plenty of sense to tell people that they may not operate a vehicle when they're impaired, and to set up harsh consequences to dissuade them from doing so. Operating a vehicle with those faculties impaired makes you "more likely" to kill or severely injure yourself and others, and also increases the risk that you will do significant property damage as well.
And of course the local definition of drunk, which varies state by state and may not match the individuals definition of drunk.
Then "drinking two beers and driving home" is not a crime at all, and the GP is just talking out his ass.
You may disagree that 2 beers makes you drunk, but if you have a BAC of 0.08%, you are legally drunk, and you are demonstrably impaired.
And I know plenty of people who would (and some who HAVE) claim "I only had 2 beers!" to police no matter how long they were at the bar and how much they drank.
Two 12-oz. Dogfish Head (Milton, DE) 120 Minute IPAs (~21% abv) IS seriously drunk.