I think by about the 15th time people get a ticket for running the same light at 15th and constitution, the behavior will be curbed. All you accomplish by using visible cop cars is causing people to desist while the cop is around.
We have tons of cop cars running around, its just not effective at permenantly stopping the behavior. A serious crackdown would either A) solve the problem or B) simultaneously fund the police and take the bad drivers off the road. Honestly? I really dont care which way it goes.
For the record Id also be cool with it if the second time a metrobus was caught blocking an intersection if the driver were immediately canned and had their private and commercial license revoked, but thats probably dreaming.
Not carrying proof of insurance is actually kind of a problem if you get into an accident. Do you really want to hear someone say "ill call you with my insurance details"?
you've really never heard of inaccurate speed cameras or insufficient training in how to use them?
it happens [smh.com.au]
Its also quite rare, and 99% of the time people complaining about undercover cops / cameras have ulterior motives for doing so.
There may indeed be privacy or abuse issues; but its not the problems with these measures that makes people complain, its that theyre actually effective.
I just claimed that the "stealth" cars serve little purpose other than writing traffic tickets, and so outing them isn't going to somehow result in a rash of major crime.
Maybe you dont live in a place where causing gridlock (sitting in intersections on red), or red-light running is rampant. I do; every single time I pass the 15th and constitution intersection I see about 5 cars run the left-turn red light because they think its their turn.
Honestly, I think we need fleets of undercover cops, so that maybe we could curb some of the worst of the "road belongs to me" behavior. Ive even seen metro busses blocking intersections, I dont think youre aware of how bad it can be.
Parent claimed you don't get pulled over for 5 over, but in fact you certainly can where I live.
Certainly you can, but it is very rare and there IS a viable defense for that if you can show your spedometer is 5mph off-- because certainly you ARE allowed to drive with that degree of error and AFAIK you cannot be ticketed for such an error.
Additionally, due to inaccuracies in speedometers and poor reaction times (e.g. to changing slopes of hills), it's impossible to drive at or under 60 without having your speedo sitting more like 53-55
What, is your reaction time like 10 seconds? You cant see the hills coming? Your car does not just abruptly jump up 5 mph on a downhill unless it is a very severe grade, and even then if youre engine braking / riding the brake you should be able to hold one or two under the limit very easily.
I do it all the time with and without cruise control, claiming its impossible is absurd.
I am in fact putting myself and those around me in more danger by driving at 60 if everyone around me is going 75 than by driving 75 with them.
Some states have laws allowing that. Some do not. Ultimately, being part of society means you agree that society makes the rules, rather than you deciding which rules feel right for you.
since the sight of a cop car is a powerful deterrent
Bull. People regularly slow down at the sight of cop cars or traffic cameras, but speed right back up again once they know theyre past them. It doesnt deter anything, it just postpones it.
which serve no purpose other than to try to catch people for traffic violations
Oh the horror, cops going after folks for violating the law.
Frankly, I like police vehicles to be visible so that I can find them in the event of an emergency if I need help
...Im pretty sure there is a phone number you can dial to have a cop on the scene in around 5-10 minutes. Im pretty sure the chances of just "happening" to see a cop in that time are pretty low, at least based on my experience in and around DC (where one MIGHT see a cop in 10-20 minutes of driving around the capital and RFK stadium).
The problem is, yes, people can boycott personally. But when IT folks go to work, it would generally be way out of place for an employee to place his personal boycott preferences above the customer's requirements. Intel delivers the best performance-per-socket and performance-per-watt, so that is what people tend to buy.
AMD is still competitive in some small areas, for instance if you needed AES or virtualization acceleration but didnt want to pay for the upgrade to the i5 line (since all AMD procs AFAIK have all features enabled, even their budget ones). AMD is also competitive if you need core count above all other considerations-- as I understand it, if you were to try to achieve high consolidation ratios in VMWare, you're better off going with lots of cores than lots of performance per core due to the way things are done (one thread per vcpu). Im not 100% why that would matter, but Im guessing some kind of penalty for switching between threads on a physical core vs having twice as many cores running half as fast and no switching penalty; Im not however sure if the switching penalty is sufficient to make AMD or Intel the better prospect.
Ive seen some nasty things coming from both sides on other sites comments sections , but the majority that I have seen on slashdot has been from the left.
Miranda rights are there to protect you from self incrimination to the police. Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.
Whether you are more needy than all the other people who also want something of a limited resource
If that were true, then everyone should STFU about jobs being outsourced, because people in India and China need those jobs a heck of a lot more than some recently unemployed yuppie in the Occupy movement.
But as is usual, I rather suspect it is not altruism, but selfishness (as evidenced by the outrage about outsourcing) that drives people to want to tax the rich. At least Francis Hollande is honest about why hes taxing the rich.
Myself, Id rather the government just kept its opinions on how much money I need to itself, and let me be charitable in the way that I choose.
I never said "supporting it doesnt count", but as the argument isnt "should the state recognize marriage", but rather "what should quality, its hardly a big government issue. That you chose to phrase it as a "war on fags" is kind of a turn off and is what makes me think the discussion isnt one worth having.
If youre going to post ridiculous things, at least log in and do so. There is little incentive otherwise to start a discussion with an AC that is almost certainly going to end up going down the toilet.
Actually Peacefire IS a mark in his favor - free speech (which includes the right to seek and obtain information) is so fundamental that it trumps the right on those who happen to 'own' the media through which this happens.
Lets say I have filtering software on my computer. If a friend and his child come over, and I permit the child on my computer, are you saying he has a right to start mucking around with the OS to remove the filtering on MY computer?
Because lets be clear, the school computers do NOT belong to the child. If he has a problem with that, he can get his own computer.
Even assuming for the moment that there is some "fundamental right to information" (odd how every day a new fundamental right is created), why does that HAVE to come thru computers? Is there now a "fundamental right to the internet"? Does this fundamental right completely trump property rights?
The parents may have a right to use filtering but the child still has an even more fundamental right to seek and receive information.
Problem: Its not the child's computer. There is no fundamental right to use / own a computer.
I also disagree more generally with your notion of fundamental rights, but we can just stick with the whole "you have no right to anything on someone elses computer".
His focus is on getting minors around filtering software. That is quite certainly different than fighting national internet filters; the one is a government censorship issue, the other is a "go buy your own internet kiosk" issue.
I believe the precise explaination they give is "you dont need it". Im pretty certain Obama actually used those words ("they dont need it", in the context of taxation on the rich), and certainly ive seen that here on slashdot.
Who, precisely, was elected to determine how much I need, I still havent heard.
Slashdot Mirror
I think by about the 15th time people get a ticket for running the same light at 15th and constitution, the behavior will be curbed. All you accomplish by using visible cop cars is causing people to desist while the cop is around.
We have tons of cop cars running around, its just not effective at permenantly stopping the behavior. A serious crackdown would either A) solve the problem or B) simultaneously fund the police and take the bad drivers off the road. Honestly? I really dont care which way it goes.
For the record Id also be cool with it if the second time a metrobus was caught blocking an intersection if the driver were immediately canned and had their private and commercial license revoked, but thats probably dreaming.
If you dont get their details and are unable to find out who their provider is, at least around here it impacts your rates.
Not getting their details on the scene changes it from "their problem" to "your problem".
Then show your car is inaccurate by that degree and get the ticket thrown out.
Not carrying proof of insurance is actually kind of a problem if you get into an accident. Do you really want to hear someone say "ill call you with my insurance details"?
you've really never heard of inaccurate speed cameras or insufficient training in how to use them?
it happens [smh.com.au]
Its also quite rare, and 99% of the time people complaining about undercover cops / cameras have ulterior motives for doing so.
There may indeed be privacy or abuse issues; but its not the problems with these measures that makes people complain, its that theyre actually effective.
I just claimed that the "stealth" cars serve little purpose other than writing traffic tickets, and so outing them isn't going to somehow result in a rash of major crime.
Maybe you dont live in a place where causing gridlock (sitting in intersections on red), or red-light running is rampant. I do; every single time I pass the 15th and constitution intersection I see about 5 cars run the left-turn red light because they think its their turn.
Honestly, I think we need fleets of undercover cops, so that maybe we could curb some of the worst of the "road belongs to me" behavior. Ive even seen metro busses blocking intersections, I dont think youre aware of how bad it can be.
Parent claimed you don't get pulled over for 5 over, but in fact you certainly can where I live.
Certainly you can, but it is very rare and there IS a viable defense for that if you can show your spedometer is 5mph off-- because certainly you ARE allowed to drive with that degree of error and AFAIK you cannot be ticketed for such an error.
Additionally, due to inaccuracies in speedometers and poor reaction times (e.g. to changing slopes of hills), it's impossible to drive at or under 60 without having your speedo sitting more like 53-55
What, is your reaction time like 10 seconds? You cant see the hills coming? Your car does not just abruptly jump up 5 mph on a downhill unless it is a very severe grade, and even then if youre engine braking / riding the brake you should be able to hold one or two under the limit very easily.
I do it all the time with and without cruise control, claiming its impossible is absurd.
I am in fact putting myself and those around me in more danger by driving at 60 if everyone around me is going 75 than by driving 75 with them.
Some states have laws allowing that. Some do not. Ultimately, being part of society means you agree that society makes the rules, rather than you deciding which rules feel right for you.
since the sight of a cop car is a powerful deterrent
Bull. People regularly slow down at the sight of cop cars or traffic cameras, but speed right back up again once they know theyre past them. It doesnt deter anything, it just postpones it.
which serve no purpose other than to try to catch people for traffic violations
Oh the horror, cops going after folks for violating the law.
Frankly, I like police vehicles to be visible so that I can find them in the event of an emergency if I need help
...Im pretty sure there is a phone number you can dial to have a cop on the scene in around 5-10 minutes. Im pretty sure the chances of just "happening" to see a cop in that time are pretty low, at least based on my experience in and around DC (where one MIGHT see a cop in 10-20 minutes of driving around the capital and RFK stadium).
The problem is, yes, people can boycott personally. But when IT folks go to work, it would generally be way out of place for an employee to place his personal boycott preferences above the customer's requirements. Intel delivers the best performance-per-socket and performance-per-watt, so that is what people tend to buy.
AMD is still competitive in some small areas, for instance if you needed AES or virtualization acceleration but didnt want to pay for the upgrade to the i5 line (since all AMD procs AFAIK have all features enabled, even their budget ones). AMD is also competitive if you need core count above all other considerations-- as I understand it, if you were to try to achieve high consolidation ratios in VMWare, you're better off going with lots of cores than lots of performance per core due to the way things are done (one thread per vcpu). Im not 100% why that would matter, but Im guessing some kind of penalty for switching between threads on a physical core vs having twice as many cores running half as fast and no switching penalty; Im not however sure if the switching penalty is sufficient to make AMD or Intel the better prospect.
Ive seen some nasty things coming from both sides on other sites comments sections , but the majority that I have seen on slashdot has been from the left.
Miranda rights are there to protect you from self incrimination to the police. Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.
Whether you are more needy than all the other people who also want something of a limited resource
If that were true, then everyone should STFU about jobs being outsourced, because people in India and China need those jobs a heck of a lot more than some recently unemployed yuppie in the Occupy movement.
But as is usual, I rather suspect it is not altruism, but selfishness (as evidenced by the outrage about outsourcing) that drives people to want to tax the rich. At least Francis Hollande is honest about why hes taxing the rich.
Myself, Id rather the government just kept its opinions on how much money I need to itself, and let me be charitable in the way that I choose.
Pretty sure the tea party wasnt around when the war on drugs started. But seriously, you demonstrate my point exactly with your childish name calling.
There are also the wonderful Zalgo characters which can hit posts above you, as well as below.
Whats really amazing is that, despite the claims that the right is the party of hate, it always seems to be the left calling us names.
Stay classy slashdot.
I never said "supporting it doesnt count", but as the argument isnt "should the state recognize marriage", but rather "what should quality, its hardly a big government issue. That you chose to phrase it as a "war on fags" is kind of a turn off and is what makes me think the discussion isnt one worth having.
If youre going to post ridiculous things, at least log in and do so. There is little incentive otherwise to start a discussion with an AC that is almost certainly going to end up going down the toilet.
The state already defines marriage. Unless I am mistaken, the fight is to maintain the current definition rather than expanding it.
I am not aware of an official Tea Party position on drugs, but once again we already have drug laws.
Actually Peacefire IS a mark in his favor - free speech (which includes the right to seek and obtain information) is so fundamental that it trumps the right on those who happen to 'own' the media through which this happens.
Lets say I have filtering software on my computer. If a friend and his child come over, and I permit the child on my computer, are you saying he has a right to start mucking around with the OS to remove the filtering on MY computer?
Because lets be clear, the school computers do NOT belong to the child. If he has a problem with that, he can get his own computer.
Even assuming for the moment that there is some "fundamental right to information" (odd how every day a new fundamental right is created), why does that HAVE to come thru computers? Is there now a "fundamental right to the internet"? Does this fundamental right completely trump property rights?
The parents may have a right to use filtering but the child still has an even more fundamental right to seek and receive information.
Problem: Its not the child's computer. There is no fundamental right to use / own a computer.
I also disagree more generally with your notion of fundamental rights, but we can just stick with the whole "you have no right to anything on someone elses computer".
His focus is on getting minors around filtering software. That is quite certainly different than fighting national internet filters; the one is a government censorship issue, the other is a "go buy your own internet kiosk" issue.
Pretty sure you can do whatever you want with a RIM phone, if you have a BES. You have proof to the contrary? Be rather interested to see it.
while the Tea Partiers believe in a big government morality police
Thats an absolutely fascinating theory. Im just struggling to find its connection to reality.
I believe the precise explaination they give is "you dont need it". Im pretty certain Obama actually used those words ("they dont need it", in the context of taxation on the rich), and certainly ive seen that here on slashdot.
Who, precisely, was elected to determine how much I need, I still havent heard.
Well, I think that adequately sums up the various positions we're going to see in this thread. Good work everyone!