Vaccines make the human species as a whole healthier. They shouldn't be optional unless there are legitimate medical reasons signed off by a real doctor.
Not optional? Or else what, you'll shoot me? Strap me to a table and try and stick me with a needle? Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying?
The problem with your viewpoint is you ignore the "or else what" part...
And I demand the right to cure my children by torturing their bodies until the demons possessing them flee back to Hell. Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying to stop me?
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way. They could read history, you know, like the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and frame the argument correctly. The people must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, hence we must maintain the right to bear arms.
Libertarians understand the historical logic for the second amendment and further understand risk and responsibility. Meanwhile the progressives feverishly attempt to convince everyone that the nanny state is the only way to save humanity and that humans are incapable of making decisions or understanding risk.
Liberals are logical my ass, they like to play make believe. History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
and yet, second amendmenters do nothing except rant continuously about how our government has become a tyranny. i venture to say if "the people" didn't use the right to bear arms to oppose internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, let alone states defying federal orders to allow black kids to attend schools, the government allowing Pinkertons to massacre the unarmed families of striking miners, the National Guard shooting college kids who were not threatening them, local government's tacit approval of lynching of blacks and civil rights workers, the Trail of Tears, etc etc etc, there's pretty much nothing that they will rise up to oppose, with the possible exception of having to register as firearm owners. But, as you demonstrate, the Walter Mittys among them can't help but "play make believe" that they are all that stands between us and Obama's savage Negro army implementing sharia; plus, as a bonus, they keep criminals at bay.
we demand that the government intervene to require companies to devote equal time and effort to publicizing the conservative point of view that the government has no right to intervene to require companies to do things they don't want to do.
it should never be possible for a car to automatically crash into a large stationary object
tesla fucked up
A Tesla may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A Tesla must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A Tesla must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. That's where he screwed up, his Second Law overruled the Third Law.
"Officer, he was weaving all over the road, starting and stopping and varying speed unpredictably, ignoring other traffic and signs and lights" "We stopped him and he passed the sobriety tests for all known substances" "Ok then I guess, let him proceed on his way"
That's the current system. What's wrong with it? Oh yeah, everything.
Indeed. If he's a danger, then I don't care what the root cause is. And if he's not, I don't care what his biochemistry is.
Canada is legalizing it next year - this is confirmed and not just wishful thinking. They're in the process of drafting the legislation which has a metric ton of support.
also legalizing assisted euthanasia. clearly both in response to anticipated demand from visiting Americans if Trump gets elected.
Citation needed, if you would. Injecting 10mL of any oil into your bloodstream is probably not a good idea, but the LD50 studies I've read put the level somewhere north of 130 mg/kg of pure THC (citing Rosencrantz 1983). Hash oil is potent, but it's unlikely to be better than 60% THC at best, and the higher the potency, the less suitable it would be for injection, since THC is basically a resin. As far as I have been able to determine, hash oil has a density about the same as water, so all told the average person would probably have to shoot up ~14 mL of very pure oil, and even then most of the effects would be due to physical effects of the oil rather than the neurological effects of the drug.
I can definitely see someone dying from injecting oil into their veins. However, as long as you're willing to argue fine technical points, is it still a death from cannabis if the cannabis was immaterial to the cause of death?
Sure; imagine, a guy shoots up some weed, then gets the munchies, so he goes to the store, and he doesn't see the truck coming through the intersection, but it doesn't hit him, and when he gets to the store he steps into the path of a bus, but the bus stops and honks at him, so he goes into the store, and somebody with a gun is holding up the store and shoots at him, but he misses, so he goes to another store, and he buys a bunch of candy, and later on he gets diabetes and he dies; another avoidable cannabis related death.
OTOH, you either are or are not fit to drive. The reason you're unfit to drive hardly matters. If that's not important enough to put in place, why not just go all the way and drop DUI laws?
If you fear the AARP, set the levels so they can pass them.
When I was back there in undergrad school, one of the engineering classes' project was to throw together a little reflex tester that you could build into a dashboard and would give you a five second test that would reliably refuse to start the car if you shouldn't be driving, whether inebriated, intoxicated, sleepy, having a stroke, whatever reason. decades later, we have the technology to actually do this on the fly by monitoring your driving. Certainly somewhere in there is a sweet spot between reliability of hardware and accuracy of diagnosis. What do you think are the odds that the driving public would accept such a gadget being mandated for automobiles? Although the argument would center on people wrongly being locked out of driving, secretly most of them would be aware that from time to time they might want to drive home after a few too many when the machine would be quite correct in shutting them down, and they don't want that.
Silly acrobatic tests or tongue twisters do not test for that either. How much alcohol is in the blood is as close as we can currently get.
it wasn't drunk driving laws that reduced drunk driving deaths, it was the realization by the public that driving drunk is not funny any more
Having a law against it and the associated social stigma is probably the major cause of that attitude shift.
As a society, we approve of consumption of alcoholic beverages as recreation and entertainment; and condone a certain degree of impairment as a result, the amount varying by individual. Also, as a society, we take it as normal that almost all travel for purposes of entertainment be by automobile.
what could possibly go wrong?
The legislature can't make something legal to consume being in your blood illegal to drive unless they can demonstrate that it impairs your ability to drive.
I don't see why not. They can make up any rules they want for the privilege of driving...
Have to pass tests with arbitrary questions about laws, not driving skill (what does that color curb mean?)
Have to be a certain age (why not a year lower, or higher)
Have to have your papers in order
etc.
If it is not based on sex, race, creed, etc... it is not protected.
At the risk of looking like one of those guys who hijacks threads, it's funny that in most places you can buy a firearm and ammunition while drunk, but get arrested if you try to drive it home. because, second amendment and all.
Yeah well, I wish they would practice on their side of the road.
That no good if you're too drunk. I mean - there's no telling how many lines you're actually seeing. So, don't try to stay between the lines - just pick one and stick to it.
"Officer I was trying to stay between the lines" "That's not how the double lines in the middle of the highway work"
Not to mention the perhaps biggest danger: impatient people, who think shaving a minute off wherever they're going is more important than safety and traffic rules.
Huh, I'm halfway down the page and so far nobody has mentioned DWP: Driving While Phoning. At least in percentage of drivers, that's got to beat all other sources of impaired driving combined. of course, that's probably why we now have the option of buying cars which will stop themselves if the driver is otherwise occupied, buzz the steering wheel if the driver is about to change lanes without signalling or if there is a car in the way, etc. etc.
I try to be nice and let people in. If traffic is moving at 75 and you are stuck in the right lane and you see someone on the ramp, yes I think you should slow down to the posted speed or so (usually 65-70mph) maybe even 10mph below the posted rate to let them in.
They should also show some courtesy by attempting to reach a speed as near to what traffic is doing at which they can still panic stop on the should if they must. I don't expect them to redline it, but I should not have to warp my break rotors either just so they can merge when *I* have the right of way.
Driving past ridiculously backed up highway entrances with stop signs leading into no or inadequate entrance lanes every day, I can say I've never seen an accident where a vehicle already on the highway has hit one entering; but every week I see at least one accident where somebody has started to merge, then stopped, and the guy behind him rear ends him.
Look, I smoked my fair share. And either you haven't, or you've smoked so much you're blind to its effects.
THC can cause hallucinations. Tracers. It'll literally put you to sleep (kinda like passing out on alcohol.) It'll also make you think you are doing something you're not. (ie moving when you're not, or not moving when you are.)
Like someone drinking a small amount of beer, we're not worried about someone who hasn't consumed enough to not be impaired. We are concerned with drunk drivers, and seriously baked drivers.
With alcohol, when the papers report a car accident where alcohol is involved, it's never that the guy had a.081 or similarly barely illegal. It's always something enormous like.24. My one attempt at calibrating myself with a (cheap) over the counter package of breath tests ended up with me passed out at.05, so I don't see how these guys can even walk; i assume tolerance develops over time. Of course, there's also the possibility that they don't bother testing anybody who isn't visibly impaired.
Lane discipline (or a lack thereof) is responsible for most accidents, which is why law enforcement's obsession with speeding is so obnoxious. The fact that police would rather be sitting on the side of the road clocking for speeders (because it's easy and hard to contest in court) and ignoring all of the inattentive drivers changing lanes without looking or signaling, failing to yield the passing lane and encouraging passing on the right, and so on is a damn shame.
Indeed. And where do they watch for speeders? In the places where it's least dangerous; because more drivers speed where it's safer to do so, and because it's safer to chase down speeders in said places. In contrast, where the highway is congested and visibility is bad and speeding really is dangerous, you never find a speed trap.
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe.
But doing so would make AARP and voters mad, and we all know stoners don't bother to vote, so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
"Officer, he was weaving all over the road, starting and stopping and varying speed unpredictably, ignoring other traffic and signs and lights"
"We stopped him and he passed the sobriety tests for all known substances"
"Ok then I guess, let him proceed on his way"
I thought these things had all sorts of avoidance built in?
It has conventional parking sensors, but thats not good enough.
This incident shows a clear design fault:
- normal parking sensors are low down, because their job is to detect things he driver cannot see.
- this Tesla ran into a high trailer with its windscreen.
CLEARLY- any sort of autonomous driving like this needs a camera or other sensors for the full front of the car, not just ones designed to supplement human vision.
Surely its not that hard?
The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle
Actually... that's not the rear of the trailer. When I saw the still frame in the linked article I couldn't help but wonder where the underride guard (aka Mansfield bar) was, as they're extremely common these days. After watching the video I realized why - that was just the trailer (well, technically two in tandem) without the tractor out front. The Tesla crashed into the front of the trailer, not the back. When they slide the camera in under the trailer you can clearly see the nose plate and kingpin for a fifth-wheel setup. That's why there's no underride guard or anything low enough that the Tesla would see as an obstacle.
Then I thought maybe the trailer was parked backwards, but it's clearly on the right hand side of the road, with a vehicle parked behind it in the same orientation.
So now my question is - why did this goofball park his car on the wrong side of the road?
Alternately, why doesn't Tesla's forward facing sensors react to something low hanging enough to decapitate the driver?
Slashdot Mirror
Vaccines make the human species as a whole healthier. They shouldn't be optional unless there are legitimate medical reasons signed off by a real doctor.
Not optional? Or else what, you'll shoot me? Strap me to a table and try and stick me with a needle? Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying?
The problem with your viewpoint is you ignore the "or else what" part...
And I demand the right to cure my children by torturing their bodies until the demons possessing them flee back to Hell. Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying to stop me?
are doomed to repeat it.
And public health, also.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way. They could read history, you know, like the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and frame the argument correctly. The people must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, hence we must maintain the right to bear arms.
Libertarians understand the historical logic for the second amendment and further understand risk and responsibility. Meanwhile the progressives feverishly attempt to convince everyone that the nanny state is the only way to save humanity and that humans are incapable of making decisions or understanding risk.
Liberals are logical my ass, they like to play make believe. History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
and yet, second amendmenters do nothing except rant continuously about how our government has become a tyranny. i venture to say if "the people" didn't use the right to bear arms to oppose internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, let alone states defying federal orders to allow black kids to attend schools, the government allowing Pinkertons to massacre the unarmed families of striking miners, the National Guard shooting college kids who were not threatening them, local government's tacit approval of lynching of blacks and civil rights workers, the Trail of Tears, etc etc etc, there's pretty much nothing that they will rise up to oppose, with the possible exception of having to register as firearm owners.
But, as you demonstrate, the Walter Mittys among them can't help but "play make believe" that they are all that stands between us and Obama's savage Negro army implementing sharia; plus, as a bonus, they keep criminals at bay.
we demand that the government intervene to require companies to devote equal time and effort to publicizing the conservative point of view that the government has no right to intervene to require companies to do things they don't want to do.
it should never be possible for a car to automatically crash into a large stationary object
tesla fucked up
A Tesla may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A Tesla must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A Tesla must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
That's where he screwed up, his Second Law overruled the Third Law.
Even in summon mode, it'd still need to be summoned.
burn the witch! burn the witch!
"Officer, he was weaving all over the road, starting and stopping and varying speed unpredictably, ignoring other traffic and signs and lights" "We stopped him and he passed the sobriety tests for all known substances" "Ok then I guess, let him proceed on his way"
That's the current system. What's wrong with it? Oh yeah, everything.
Indeed. If he's a danger, then I don't care what the root cause is. And if he's not, I don't care what his biochemistry is.
Here we have definitive proof of how slow pot smokers move.
Tai chi is just kung fu for pot smokers.
Canada is legalizing it next year - this is confirmed and not just wishful thinking. They're in the process of drafting the legislation which has a metric ton of support.
also legalizing assisted euthanasia. clearly both in response to anticipated demand from visiting Americans if Trump gets elected.
Citation needed, if you would. Injecting 10mL of any oil into your bloodstream is probably not a good idea, but the LD50 studies I've read put the level somewhere north of 130 mg/kg of pure THC (citing Rosencrantz 1983). Hash oil is potent, but it's unlikely to be better than 60% THC at best, and the higher the potency, the less suitable it would be for injection, since THC is basically a resin. As far as I have been able to determine, hash oil has a density about the same as water, so all told the average person would probably have to shoot up ~14 mL of very pure oil, and even then most of the effects would be due to physical effects of the oil rather than the neurological effects of the drug.
I can definitely see someone dying from injecting oil into their veins. However, as long as you're willing to argue fine technical points, is it still a death from cannabis if the cannabis was immaterial to the cause of death?
Sure; imagine, a guy shoots up some weed, then gets the munchies, so he goes to the store, and he doesn't see the truck coming through the intersection, but it doesn't hit him, and when he gets to the store he steps into the path of a bus, but the bus stops and honks at him, so he goes into the store, and somebody with a gun is holding up the store and shoots at him, but he misses, so he goes to another store, and he buys a bunch of candy, and later on he gets diabetes and he dies; another avoidable cannabis related death.
OTOH, you either are or are not fit to drive. The reason you're unfit to drive hardly matters. If that's not important enough to put in place, why not just go all the way and drop DUI laws?
If you fear the AARP, set the levels so they can pass them.
When I was back there in undergrad school, one of the engineering classes' project was to throw together a little reflex tester that you could build into a dashboard and would give you a five second test that would reliably refuse to start the car if you shouldn't be driving, whether inebriated, intoxicated, sleepy, having a stroke, whatever reason. decades later, we have the technology to actually do this on the fly by monitoring your driving. Certainly somewhere in there is a sweet spot between reliability of hardware and accuracy of diagnosis. What do you think are the odds that the driving public would accept such a gadget being mandated for automobiles? Although the argument would center on people wrongly being locked out of driving, secretly most of them would be aware that from time to time they might want to drive home after a few too many when the machine would be quite correct in shutting them down, and they don't want that.
From the Ars article:
"55.5 percent of drug-free people passed the walk-and-turn test perfectly"
Only 55% of the sober people passed the test? That's the scary part.
And the rest wore Trump 2016 badges. (feel free to replace candidate name as you choose)
I used to very successfully know when my friends were stoned by their pupils.
One of the perks of being a teacher.
Silly acrobatic tests or tongue twisters do not test for that either. How much alcohol is in the blood is as close as we can currently get.
Having a law against it and the associated social stigma is probably the major cause of that attitude shift.
As a society, we approve of consumption of alcoholic beverages as recreation and entertainment; and condone a certain degree of impairment as a result, the amount varying by individual. Also, as a society, we take it as normal that almost all travel for purposes of entertainment be by automobile.
what could possibly go wrong?
The legislature can't make something legal to consume being in your blood illegal to drive unless they can demonstrate that it impairs your ability to drive. I don't see why not. They can make up any rules they want for the privilege of driving... Have to pass tests with arbitrary questions about laws, not driving skill (what does that color curb mean?) Have to be a certain age (why not a year lower, or higher) Have to have your papers in order etc. If it is not based on sex, race, creed, etc... it is not protected.
At the risk of looking like one of those guys who hijacks threads, it's funny that in most places you can buy a firearm and ammunition while drunk, but get arrested if you try to drive it home. because, second amendment and all.
Yeah well, I wish they would practice on their side of the road.
That no good if you're too drunk. I mean - there's no telling how many lines you're actually seeing. So, don't try to stay between the lines - just pick one and stick to it.
"Officer I was trying to stay between the lines"
"That's not how the double lines in the middle of the highway work"
Not to mention the perhaps biggest danger: impatient people, who think shaving a minute off wherever they're going is more important than safety and traffic rules.
Huh, I'm halfway down the page and so far nobody has mentioned DWP: Driving While Phoning. At least in percentage of drivers, that's got to beat all other sources of impaired driving combined.
of course, that's probably why we now have the option of buying cars which will stop themselves if the driver is otherwise occupied, buzz the steering wheel if the driver is about to change lanes without signalling or if there is a car in the way, etc. etc.
I try to be nice and let people in. If traffic is moving at 75 and you are stuck in the right lane and you see someone on the ramp, yes I think you should slow down to the posted speed or so (usually 65-70mph) maybe even 10mph below the posted rate to let them in.
They should also show some courtesy by attempting to reach a speed as near to what traffic is doing at which they can still panic stop on the should if they must. I don't expect them to redline it, but I should not have to warp my break rotors either just so they can merge when *I* have the right of way.
Driving past ridiculously backed up highway entrances with stop signs leading into no or inadequate entrance lanes every day, I can say I've never seen an accident where a vehicle already on the highway has hit one entering; but every week I see at least one accident where somebody has started to merge, then stopped, and the guy behind him rear ends him.
LOL
Look, I smoked my fair share. And either you haven't, or you've smoked so much you're blind to its effects.
THC can cause hallucinations. Tracers. It'll literally put you to sleep (kinda like passing out on alcohol.) It'll also make you think you are doing something you're not. (ie moving when you're not, or not moving when you are.)
Like someone drinking a small amount of beer, we're not worried about someone who hasn't consumed enough to not be impaired. We are concerned with drunk drivers, and seriously baked drivers.
With alcohol, when the papers report a car accident where alcohol is involved, it's never that the guy had a .081 or similarly barely illegal. It's always something enormous like .24. My one attempt at calibrating myself with a (cheap) over the counter package of breath tests ended up with me passed out at .05, so I don't see how these guys can even walk; i assume tolerance develops over time. Of course, there's also the possibility that they don't bother testing anybody who isn't visibly impaired.
The biggest danger of speeding is that it makes it harder to avoid colliding with the person who is driving dangerously.
Lane discipline (or a lack thereof) is responsible for most accidents, which is why law enforcement's obsession with speeding is so obnoxious. The fact that police would rather be sitting on the side of the road clocking for speeders (because it's easy and hard to contest in court) and ignoring all of the inattentive drivers changing lanes without looking or signaling, failing to yield the passing lane and encouraging passing on the right, and so on is a damn shame.
Indeed. And where do they watch for speeders? In the places where it's least dangerous; because more drivers speed where it's safer to do so, and because it's safer to chase down speeders in said places. In contrast, where the highway is congested and visibility is bad and speeding really is dangerous, you never find a speed trap.
But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe. But doing so would make AARP and voters mad, and we all know stoners don't bother to vote, so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
"Officer, he was weaving all over the road, starting and stopping and varying speed unpredictably, ignoring other traffic and signs and lights" "We stopped him and he passed the sobriety tests for all known substances" "Ok then I guess, let him proceed on his way"
I thought these things had all sorts of avoidance built in?
It has conventional parking sensors, but thats not good enough. This incident shows a clear design fault: - normal parking sensors are low down, because their job is to detect things he driver cannot see. - this Tesla ran into a high trailer with its windscreen.
CLEARLY- any sort of autonomous driving like this needs a camera or other sensors for the full front of the car, not just ones designed to supplement human vision. Surely its not that hard?
what wise guy put the code for the Limbo in?
In most countries it is illegal to park facing oncoming traffic as there is no safe way to drive off later.
When you come right down to it, there's no way to park facing oncoming traffic without driving on the wrong side of the road to get in and get out.
The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle
Actually... that's not the rear of the trailer. When I saw the still frame in the linked article I couldn't help but wonder where the underride guard (aka Mansfield bar) was, as they're extremely common these days. After watching the video I realized why - that was just the trailer (well, technically two in tandem) without the tractor out front. The Tesla crashed into the front of the trailer, not the back. When they slide the camera in under the trailer you can clearly see the nose plate and kingpin for a fifth-wheel setup. That's why there's no underride guard or anything low enough that the Tesla would see as an obstacle. Then I thought maybe the trailer was parked backwards, but it's clearly on the right hand side of the road, with a vehicle parked behind it in the same orientation.
So now my question is - why did this goofball park his car on the wrong side of the road?
Alternately, why doesn't Tesla's forward facing sensors react to something low hanging enough to decapitate the driver?