As a fellow rider, I feel for you, bud. Sorry to hear about this - especially the part where the woman got only a ticket and a new SUV. Surely you took her ass to court, right?
On the contrary: look at all the stuff they're able to pull off - in broad daylight - with impunity. Let's see some non-Ivy Leaguer try that: we'd end up in jail.
I've had to call them once or twice, a few years ago, for an ISDN hookup, and I don't recall it being a traumatic experience. They're not exactly quick to call if they're having a special on a service for which I'm a customer, but that's hardly surprising.
Other than that, I pay my bills, they provide a service, and we're both somewhat happy.
If by "Indians" you mean "Native Americans," I can tell you, from first-hand experience, that it's not a free ride. I wouldn't still be paying off credit card debt, if it were.
I don't see where it says it's limited to residents of Montana. I like Montana - the western portion of it, anyway - but I know what you mean. I don't know why we couldn't have let the Indians keep it. Every time I've driven through it, it seems like we're not using it.
Well, put it this way: if there are no terrorists left, because they're dead or buried in rubble, who's going to fight a civil war over there? As we've seen, this piecemeal battle strategy will not work. It's like one guy trying to herd cats. Actually, using that analogy, if I really wanted to herd cats, I'd use a "carrot" approach, rather than a stick. Catnip, some food - whatever catches their interest. But, Mr. Bush has decided the stick is better and brought in the military.
Would innocent people die in a carpet bombing approach? Certainly, and that's a tragedy. Am I advocating carpet bombing? Not necessarily. Even if I were, what good would it do? I'm not in any position of authority. It's just my opinion that, if we really wanted to get this conflict over quickly, now that we're this far in, the fastest way to do it is to remove all active and potential insurgents.
I agree with your sentiments re: irony. I think we've seen, in plenty of cases - Panama and Vietnam come quickly to mind - that whenever we try to prop up a "friend of the country," it ends up doing more harm than good.
And my sig, which is the basis for another false assumption on your part, might be more of an expression for freedom of speech, rather than drug use. But, if you were an American, you might, someday, fill a seat on the Supreme Court, since they couldn't distinguish between free speech and drug promotion either.
I'm 40. I am an American. I last toked up as a sophomore in high school. If any of my friends still get high now and then, they certainly don't share it with me. It would be nice if marijauna were legal - in fact, it is legal in my state to possess one joint, but, curiously, you can't buy it; catch-22, anyone? - but I don't feel like I'm missing out. I think, so far, your batting average is pretty bad.
At the time I had these kids in the car, I was early 20's, I think. The kids in question are my neices and nephews. "Beef" is common slang, nowadays, to refer to "an issue." This other guy knew my brother - they were contemporaries in school - and, in one of those weird twists, the other guy knew me, but I didn't know him. Again, he walked up to my car and threatened me with a gun simply because I was my brother's brother. Whatever happened between those two - and I never really found out - it wasn't my issue. I learned of the other guy's name when I mentioned the incident to my family and my brother said that he'd also been recently threatened by this guy. Does that dispel any of your skepticism? If not, too bad.
Did I deserve the inspection ticket? Yeah, sure. Did he have to write it? No. While that cop was "serving and protecting" the public by ticketing my motorcycle - and this was close to 15 or more years ago - how many other, more serious matters was he ignoring? Well, I won't grudge him the $10 he generated for the town, if it makes him feel like he's done an honest day's work.
Case #2: it's a small town. That particular night, I was driving home along a street that might see 6 cars in an hour. We used to play street football on this street all the time as kids - that's how little traffic it gets. Road rage is a ridiculous thought in the entire town, and this part, in particular. In fact, I have a pretty good idea who the punks were. Like I said, it's a small town, and there's only so many kids that would do something like that. But, way to jump on a false assumption and run with it.
Oh, and even though I recently walked up to an NYPD officer and said thanks to him for the job he was doing, it doesn't change the fact that I think that the majority of cops are just out to screw "their citizens" over. Nothing you say will change that.
You, obviously, have not spent a lot of time around kids, nowadays. Anecdote time: I subbed as a teacher for a little while - a lot of fun, really, but the pay kind of sucks - and, in explaining to one class that if they treat me with respect, I'd do likewise, I said, "As it says in the Bible, 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap.'" I had one kid, a girl, raise her hand and ask to be dismissed from the class. When I asked, skeptically, why, she said she was opposed to religious teaching in the classroom. This, from a sixth or seventh grader. Of course, I said no, but it fairly shocked me for a second.
Another one: some kid, again about sixth or seventh grade, during an otherwise uneventful study hall, walked up behind me and took a swipe at the back of my head - I'm bald, so I could feel the breeze from his hand. I immediately stood up, grabbed him by the arm and marched him down to the principal's office to let them deal with him. Later in the day, I got called down to the office to talk with the kid's mom. Guess who got in trouble: the student? Nah, of course not. Yep, me, because I "laid hands on a student inappropriately." I should've called a "code yellow," though that's not something they taught us to do as substitutes. What the hell's a code yellow? In my day - and I hate to say that - seriously, I'd have been on my ass, waiting for the ambulance to come pick me up, and my parents would get their shots on the way home from the hospital, after which, I'd be in trouble with the police, and probably suspended from school. I didn't get fired from the job - the principal, in fact, said I was one of their best substitutes - but I realized pretty quick that I was in a no-win situation with these kids, so I didn't bother coming back for any subsequent calls.
I'm telling you, you're living in an alternate reality if you think kids today are actually better mannered and better behaved because of the lack of corporal punishment. I'm not saying we should bring it back with a vengeance, but I think teachers should have _some_ latitude. Teachers shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap because parents can't do their jobs.
In truth, my kid, now in his 20's, was quite a good kid, in spite of the fact - or maybe because of - that I last swatted him on the butt when he was two, and still in diapers. And we're not talking about parenting practices, really, but more the use of physical discomfort - a la "pain" - as a conditioning tool. Stuck your fingers in a power socket, lately? Why not? Because you _know_ it's going to be ouchy. I didn't _have_ to hit him, but my kid knew that if he pushed his luck that far, I would - and that it would be painful.
Getting back to my original premise, seriously, if I just slug the guy back, it'll probably escalate into a fight, which solves nothing. I wholeheartedly understand that, and I've seen it in practice - I coached a wrestling team for some years; you see kids get into fisticuffs now and then. Most times, if you don't let them work it out, it just festers, and will likely flare up after they leave practice, which could be worse because no one's around to make sure it doesn't get too out of hand.
What I'm saying is, if you hit them back hard enough to convince them that, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to hit me in the first place, isn't that, in the long run, better for both of us?
Global scale: if we bombed the snot out of Iraq, to the point where insurgents and everyone else said, "Ok, we give!" wouldn't we get this whole conflict over sooner? I'm not advocating that, necessarily. But, look at Japan in WWII. Say what you will about the inevitability of their surrender, but those 2 bombs brought about an immediate and long-lasting effect, didn't they? Japan attacked us - Pearl Harbor - (wrong #1), we hit 'em back harder - Nagasaki & Hiroshima - (wrong #2 -- ? )and it brought about the end of the war, and, ever since, we've been prosperous business partners. How is that bad?
I grok the rest of your argument, but I'm not sure about the "two wrongs != right" sentiment. Let's say, for instance, that, out of the blue, Joe slugs me a good one. That's one wrong. If I slug him back - another wrong - hard enough to convince him not to hit me again, couldn't you consider that a "right"? I mean, I've thus taught him that it's not wise to hit me, and we're both, I'd hope, happy with that outcome. Or, changing the whole question around, is it not wrong, but right to hit him back? In fact, would it be wrong _not_ to hit him back because he'd learn that, effectively, I won't do anything when he slugs me? Speaking pragmatically, "timeouts" and "stern talking tos" are oh-so effective, as we've seen with this crop of youth.
My low estimation of the police is born of experience.
I've reported a number of incidents to the police, over a period of years, and not once have they followed up with even a report.
Couple of examples:
1. I had five or six little kids in a car - we'd gone to the video store to rent a movie - and this punk walked up before we drove off and threatened to pull a gun on me because I was the brother of some kid with whom he had beef. I'd never seen this kid before. I reported it, bringing along one of the kids with me as a witness. Nothing. Gave them the punk's name, etc. - couldn't be bothered.
2. Someone else nearly ran me off the road, and then, thinking it was great sport, they went around the block to come up behind me and did it again. I followed them until I could get their plate and immediately reported it to the police. Made the effort to go down to the station to report it in person. Nothing. Not even a write-up to file in the circular file.
I did once park my motorcyle outside a state police barracks when it was too bloody cold and I couldn't ride any further. When I went back the next day to pick it up, the police, being the nice sort they are, had left a ticket for non-inspection. Yep, serving and protecting, alright...
Don't forget the power-tripping. I talked with a recent HS graduate who said he wanted to get into police work. Surprised, I asked why. Basically, it boiled down to the ability to stick it to people. Yeah, comforting thought, having this kid on the police force.
And, yes, we call on them first, but, really, what else are we supposed to do? Against all better judgement, we can hold out the hope that, just maybe, the cops will bother to help us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Besides, I can't just pick up my six-shooter and start blasting the people about whom I'm calling.
I'm not sure if I should pity your kids. You make it sound like home is a gulag. Ya know, you're free to run your household the way you want, but if you think stifling and "protecting" your kids is actually helping them, wait until they head off to college or life on their own, and celebrate their "freedom" by over-indulging in those things they weren't allowed to do at home. Oh, and then there's the strong likelihood that they'll spend much more time at Johnny's because his parents aren't so "lame." Then how do you police them?
In my case, I let my kid see anything he wanted - so long as he didn't mess up the PC. Kind of takes away the "edge" of looking for things you're "not supposed to see." After the initial curiosity wore off, it wasn't a problem. His attitude quickly became, "Meh, big deal. It's a pair of boobies."
This is America. Here, our corporate overlords tell us that, if someone's gotta get elected, then some huge corporation has to make money off of it. And, if they can skew a vote here and there to help out their friends, then that's just gravy.
I almost feel bad for those folks in countries that aren't run like this. You don't know what you're missing...
Slashdot Mirror
As a fellow rider, I feel for you, bud. Sorry to hear about this - especially the part where the woman got only a ticket and a new SUV. Surely you took her ass to court, right?
Oh, heck, yeah. If you bomb them enough so no one's left alive to fight back, problem solved.
Axl's using it to help him write his "Chinese Democracy" album - due out any day now...
Just a quick note, but we're not _all_ assholes. At least not to the degree you've seen.
Sorry about the crap you've had to endure.
Would this be the equivalent of "winning" the Darwin Awards in the legal field?
I didn't think AMD had reached a level where they could pull MS or Intel-type crap like this. Or are they getting too big for their britches?
Simple solution: If you're not interested in the topic, DON'T READ IT.
On the contrary: look at all the stuff they're able to pull off - in broad daylight - with impunity. Let's see some non-Ivy Leaguer try that: we'd end up in jail.
One word: sheeple.
I've had to call them once or twice, a few years ago, for an ISDN hookup, and I don't recall it being a traumatic experience. They're not exactly quick to call if they're having a special on a service for which I'm a customer, but that's hardly surprising.
Other than that, I pay my bills, they provide a service, and we're both somewhat happy.
If by "Indians" you mean "Native Americans," I can tell you, from first-hand experience, that it's not a free ride. I wouldn't still be paying off credit card debt, if it were.
I don't see where it says it's limited to residents of Montana. I like Montana - the western portion of it, anyway - but I know what you mean. I don't know why we couldn't have let the Indians keep it. Every time I've driven through it, it seems like we're not using it.
Well, put it this way: if there are no terrorists left, because they're dead or buried in rubble, who's going to fight a civil war over there? As we've seen, this piecemeal battle strategy will not work. It's like one guy trying to herd cats. Actually, using that analogy, if I really wanted to herd cats, I'd use a "carrot" approach, rather than a stick. Catnip, some food - whatever catches their interest. But, Mr. Bush has decided the stick is better and brought in the military.
Would innocent people die in a carpet bombing approach? Certainly, and that's a tragedy. Am I advocating carpet bombing? Not necessarily. Even if I were, what good would it do? I'm not in any position of authority. It's just my opinion that, if we really wanted to get this conflict over quickly, now that we're this far in, the fastest way to do it is to remove all active and potential insurgents.
I agree with your sentiments re: irony. I think we've seen, in plenty of cases - Panama and Vietnam come quickly to mind - that whenever we try to prop up a "friend of the country," it ends up doing more harm than good.
And my sig, which is the basis for another false assumption on your part, might be more of an expression for freedom of speech, rather than drug use. But, if you were an American, you might, someday, fill a seat on the Supreme Court, since they couldn't distinguish between free speech and drug promotion either.
M'kay... Against my better judgement, I'll bite.
I'm 40. I am an American. I last toked up as a sophomore in high school. If any of my friends still get high now and then, they certainly don't share it with me. It would be nice if marijauna were legal - in fact, it is legal in my state to possess one joint, but, curiously, you can't buy it; catch-22, anyone? - but I don't feel like I'm missing out. I think, so far, your batting average is pretty bad.
At the time I had these kids in the car, I was early 20's, I think. The kids in question are my neices and nephews. "Beef" is common slang, nowadays, to refer to "an issue." This other guy knew my brother - they were contemporaries in school - and, in one of those weird twists, the other guy knew me, but I didn't know him. Again, he walked up to my car and threatened me with a gun simply because I was my brother's brother. Whatever happened between those two - and I never really found out - it wasn't my issue. I learned of the other guy's name when I mentioned the incident to my family and my brother said that he'd also been recently threatened by this guy. Does that dispel any of your skepticism? If not, too bad.
Did I deserve the inspection ticket? Yeah, sure. Did he have to write it? No. While that cop was "serving and protecting" the public by ticketing my motorcycle - and this was close to 15 or more years ago - how many other, more serious matters was he ignoring? Well, I won't grudge him the $10 he generated for the town, if it makes him feel like he's done an honest day's work.
Case #2: it's a small town. That particular night, I was driving home along a street that might see 6 cars in an hour. We used to play street football on this street all the time as kids - that's how little traffic it gets. Road rage is a ridiculous thought in the entire town, and this part, in particular. In fact, I have a pretty good idea who the punks were. Like I said, it's a small town, and there's only so many kids that would do something like that. But, way to jump on a false assumption and run with it.
Oh, and even though I recently walked up to an NYPD officer and said thanks to him for the job he was doing, it doesn't change the fact that I think that the majority of cops are just out to screw "their citizens" over. Nothing you say will change that.
You, obviously, have not spent a lot of time around kids, nowadays. Anecdote time: I subbed as a teacher for a little while - a lot of fun, really, but the pay kind of sucks - and, in explaining to one class that if they treat me with respect, I'd do likewise, I said, "As it says in the Bible, 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap.'" I had one kid, a girl, raise her hand and ask to be dismissed from the class. When I asked, skeptically, why, she said she was opposed to religious teaching in the classroom. This, from a sixth or seventh grader. Of course, I said no, but it fairly shocked me for a second.
Another one: some kid, again about sixth or seventh grade, during an otherwise uneventful study hall, walked up behind me and took a swipe at the back of my head - I'm bald, so I could feel the breeze from his hand. I immediately stood up, grabbed him by the arm and marched him down to the principal's office to let them deal with him. Later in the day, I got called down to the office to talk with the kid's mom. Guess who got in trouble: the student? Nah, of course not. Yep, me, because I "laid hands on a student inappropriately." I should've called a "code yellow," though that's not something they taught us to do as substitutes. What the hell's a code yellow? In my day - and I hate to say that - seriously, I'd have been on my ass, waiting for the ambulance to come pick me up, and my parents would get their shots on the way home from the hospital, after which, I'd be in trouble with the police, and probably suspended from school. I didn't get fired from the job - the principal, in fact, said I was one of their best substitutes - but I realized pretty quick that I was in a no-win situation with these kids, so I didn't bother coming back for any subsequent calls.
I'm telling you, you're living in an alternate reality if you think kids today are actually better mannered and better behaved because of the lack of corporal punishment. I'm not saying we should bring it back with a vengeance, but I think teachers should have _some_ latitude. Teachers shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap because parents can't do their jobs.
In truth, my kid, now in his 20's, was quite a good kid, in spite of the fact - or maybe because of - that I last swatted him on the butt when he was two, and still in diapers. And we're not talking about parenting practices, really, but more the use of physical discomfort - a la "pain" - as a conditioning tool. Stuck your fingers in a power socket, lately? Why not? Because you _know_ it's going to be ouchy. I didn't _have_ to hit him, but my kid knew that if he pushed his luck that far, I would - and that it would be painful.
Getting back to my original premise, seriously, if I just slug the guy back, it'll probably escalate into a fight, which solves nothing. I wholeheartedly understand that, and I've seen it in practice - I coached a wrestling team for some years; you see kids get into fisticuffs now and then. Most times, if you don't let them work it out, it just festers, and will likely flare up after they leave practice, which could be worse because no one's around to make sure it doesn't get too out of hand.
What I'm saying is, if you hit them back hard enough to convince them that, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to hit me in the first place, isn't that, in the long run, better for both of us?
Global scale: if we bombed the snot out of Iraq, to the point where insurgents and everyone else said, "Ok, we give!" wouldn't we get this whole conflict over sooner? I'm not advocating that, necessarily. But, look at Japan in WWII. Say what you will about the inevitability of their surrender, but those 2 bombs brought about an immediate and long-lasting effect, didn't they? Japan attacked us - Pearl Harbor - (wrong #1), we hit 'em back harder - Nagasaki & Hiroshima - (wrong #2 -- ? )and it brought about the end of the war, and, ever since, we've been prosperous business partners. How is that bad?
Just a small nit, but if he "perfected" the use of wedge issues, wouldn't the Republicans still hold Congress?
I grok the rest of your argument, but I'm not sure about the "two wrongs != right" sentiment. Let's say, for instance, that, out of the blue, Joe slugs me a good one. That's one wrong. If I slug him back - another wrong - hard enough to convince him not to hit me again, couldn't you consider that a "right"? I mean, I've thus taught him that it's not wise to hit me, and we're both, I'd hope, happy with that outcome. Or, changing the whole question around, is it not wrong, but right to hit him back? In fact, would it be wrong _not_ to hit him back because he'd learn that, effectively, I won't do anything when he slugs me? Speaking pragmatically, "timeouts" and "stern talking tos" are oh-so effective, as we've seen with this crop of youth.
Pshaw - we have that already. It's called Visa/Mastercard. Got one, myself.
My low estimation of the police is born of experience.
I've reported a number of incidents to the police, over a period of years, and not once have they followed up with even a report.
Couple of examples:
1. I had five or six little kids in a car - we'd gone to the video store to rent a movie - and this punk walked up before we drove off and threatened to pull a gun on me because I was the brother of some kid with whom he had beef. I'd never seen this kid before. I reported it, bringing along one of the kids with me as a witness. Nothing. Gave them the punk's name, etc. - couldn't be bothered.
2. Someone else nearly ran me off the road, and then, thinking it was great sport, they went around the block to come up behind me and did it again. I followed them until I could get their plate and immediately reported it to the police. Made the effort to go down to the station to report it in person. Nothing. Not even a write-up to file in the circular file.
I did once park my motorcyle outside a state police barracks when it was too bloody cold and I couldn't ride any further. When I went back the next day to pick it up, the police, being the nice sort they are, had left a ticket for non-inspection. Yep, serving and protecting, alright...
Don't forget the power-tripping. I talked with a recent HS graduate who said he wanted to get into police work. Surprised, I asked why. Basically, it boiled down to the ability to stick it to people. Yeah, comforting thought, having this kid on the police force.
And, yes, we call on them first, but, really, what else are we supposed to do? Against all better judgement, we can hold out the hope that, just maybe, the cops will bother to help us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Besides, I can't just pick up my six-shooter and start blasting the people about whom I'm calling.
I'm not sure if I should pity your kids. You make it sound like home is a gulag. Ya know, you're free to run your household the way you want, but if you think stifling and "protecting" your kids is actually helping them, wait until they head off to college or life on their own, and celebrate their "freedom" by over-indulging in those things they weren't allowed to do at home. Oh, and then there's the strong likelihood that they'll spend much more time at Johnny's because his parents aren't so "lame." Then how do you police them?
In my case, I let my kid see anything he wanted - so long as he didn't mess up the PC. Kind of takes away the "edge" of looking for things you're "not supposed to see." After the initial curiosity wore off, it wasn't a problem. His attitude quickly became, "Meh, big deal. It's a pair of boobies."
I posted something along this line as an Ask Slashdot question some time ago:
Time for the "Slashdot Party"? Thursday June 21, @10:11AM Pending
Looks like our Supreme Benevolent Taco Overlord (or is that Taco Supreme?) is really thinking hard about this one...
This is America. Here, our corporate overlords tell us that, if someone's gotta get elected, then some huge corporation has to make money off of it. And, if they can skew a vote here and there to help out their friends, then that's just gravy.
I almost feel bad for those folks in countries that aren't run like this. You don't know what you're missing...
Holy fudge! What kind of take-off angle is that? How did they _not_ stall that plane?
Cool pic, though. Thing of beauty.