That and police and state troopers can't be trusted. They have enough people to pull over and make revenue off of, but they also fabricate situations. The judges claim it's your word against the cop's unless you have proof. What the hell kind of proof are you going to keep track of on a daily basis just in case you get targeted unjustly.
This is why there's antagonism. But I like your idea. The point IS reckless driving, not artificial speed traps.
Because sometimes prolonging menial tasks gets frustrating, especially if you have a destination.
There's enough road rage out there, increase that stress by forcing yourself to go slower than what is natural only increases that stress.
It's like walking, you have a nice steady gait. If you were suddenly forced to walk half that gait, pulling your feet back as you take a step, pause after each step, or lumber about offsetting your balance with unnatural movement. It's very awkward. Not to mention you look moronic.
The less time it takes you from get to point A to point B, the less time it leaves you in a bad situation, IE being in a car.
Also, the faster you get to your destination, you're taking yourself off the road, hence reducing traffic congestion by 1 person. If everyone moved more steadily, traffic would flow slightly better.
1. UK doesn't not represent Europeans. I think UK is one of the worst in terms of liberty in Europe. 2. US and European are not the only ones in the World.
Europeans laughing; that America is not the freest country in the world, does not infer that they feel Europe is the freest "country/continent" in the world. That would be an interpretation of the statement.
Not that I condone what Sony did, it is a dick move.
But I don't recall Sony ever advertising that the PS3 has the feature of Linux install. I might have missed it, it's possible, I don't care for the PS3. People saw the possibility, modded it, spread the news. But as far as I know, it wasn't advertised and sold as a Linux machine.
It's like saying, a semi-automatic gun could be modded to full automatic. People spread the news and bought it as such. And then the gun manufacturing, for whatever reason, decide to fix future bullets not to work in the modded machines, and only work in the original guns, because they had no intention of making fully automatic guns. It's a stretch, in reality the gun manufacturing fixed the semi-gun itself not to be modded again.
I know it's funny but they don't go straight to court. They send a bill/threat saying, pay this off and we won't hit you with more for the time being. Only if you decline their "generous" offer, do they then sue you for astronomical amounts.
Set sufficient amount of obstacles and dangle a goal, and they teach themselves a useful skill, one that can even turn into a career someday. If nothing else some basic skills.
Uhm...what else is there? The LOVE of learning or the LOVE of doing something? Not everyone has that.
We bribe people with money, food, sex, pleasures, enjoyment. We threaten them with horror, stories, pain, or other fears. We promise them better future, more money, women, material possession, or other hopes. We use social norms to control people's behavior.
We do that from the day people are born to the day they die, and even then sometimes after there.
This is just talking about being more efficient.
I can't think of a single thing in this world that people truly do without some sort of "motivation" Just like I don't believe there is any truly unselfish act, a la Phoebe from Friends:)
1. I was driving in a 2 lane highway, suddenly I noticed I was closing up on the cars in front of me too fast and their brake lights suddenly went on, I tapped my brakes and then steadily slowed down. Turns out it was an accident up front and everyone was slamming on their brakes. Actually happens quite a bit, people stopping suddenly on highway is quite common in the Northeast.
2. Similar to 1, but in that split second I didn't think I had enough time to stop in time even if I slammed on my brakes in a risky manner. I slowed down and pulled off into the brakedown lane, slamming the brakes once I was in the ridged part that helps control my sudden brake without sliding. I ended up stopping next to the guy in front of me. The guy behind me stopped right behind the guy that was in front of me.
3. I was on the highway when a semi next to me started moving into my lane without care that I was literally next to him. After blaring my horn a few times and him still moving into my lane and I was already already partially in the brake down lane. My tires hit the wet grass and I spun out of control, after counter steering a few times, I ended up spinning in a circle but was relatively safe. I was amused when I saw that in the Pixar movie "Cars" later on.
4. My car's transmission died (or I believe it was the transmission), I was able to coast to a stop. Although 5 minutes later a semi ran right through me, despite the fact my emergency lights were on. He went in through me on the brakedown lane side, so thankfully I was still sitting in my car assessing the situation.
5. I was going down a steep hill in what was obviously too much snow. My brakes must have been packed with snow because I was inching my way down. I switched to neutral, pulled my emergency brake, and tilted my steering wheel towards the curb. The nose hit the curb and my rear slide forward so I was in the opposite direction, like a swinging door. Smell of rubber but I didn't run through into traffic.
6. My alternator busted and my battery drained (i didn't realize what the light meant, I thought it meant my battery was bad), my car idles on the highway and I slowly pulled off into the brake down lane.
So yeah I typed the first post in the comforts of my home. But those type of actions SHOULD be the same thoughts that happen when you're in an accident. The fact that people don't get the same thoughts, means they're unprepared. I know that's what I would do because even without "Toyota's great flaw", it's still something to be mindful of. And I've already been in similar situations and I know for a fact those are the thoughts that should occur.
Some say, well you're an unusual case, most people wouldn't be thinking that. "That" exactly is the problem. People SHOULD be thinking in those terms. I should not be an aberrant case, I should be the average. In another post, I said the same thing about intelligence, we lowered the bar too low in everything.
Course I still drive, those things haven't phased me. Life goes on, and crap happens.
I was under the impression, neutral was a similar effect to the clutch? I haven't driven a manual since I first learned to drive. After that, I rather preferred automatic because it requires near "no" thinking.
I do own a Toyota Camry and I love it, and thought all that sensationalism was total BS.
I was asked, well if your car suddenly accelerated out of control, what will you do!
I answered, well the first thing I would do is push my gear shift forward from D to N. I don't know if it's a safety feature, but D to N doesn't require pressing the release button on the side, just pushing it with enough force.
Then I'd tap my breaks and start slowing down as if there was bumper to bumper traffic suddenly showing up in front of me. I'd try to coast to breakdown lane if I could, even in neutral you have some momentum left. I know, my engine in a Ford Taurus and Pontiac Grand Pris cut out on me twice on the highway, leaving me with sluggish steering wheel.
My other options once I'm in neutral is yanking on my emergency brake and using my emergency blinker, because that's what they're there for, but emergency brakes aren't safe at high speeds.
Slamming on my breaks or panicing doesn't do me any good. And if I get rear ended in that situation, well the person behind me wasn't paying enough attention since I tapped my breaks as a warning before slowing down. If I ram the person in front of me, than I was tailgating them and that's my own god damn fault and not my cars.
The problem is that we dumbed down America so much, the driving skills are so abhorrent and a god damn given "right" that even the worst and dumbest of drivers can pass, and the thinking and rational skills of people are nearly non-existent. There may be a flaw in a car design that strikes 1 in millions, hundreds of millions, who knows under what conditions. That IS generally an acceptable margin of error in design because NOTHING is perfect, and to believe so would be hubris.
No, I would call the 9/11 attacks a desperate attempt at liberty from the incursion of the Western Countries. Yeah they're extreme and excessive, but they can't fight for their freedom head to head so they fight back any way they can.
Killing innocent civilians? Hrm. Bombing public infrastructure? Hrm. Assassinations and snipers? Hrm. Guerilla warfare and Green Berets?
When the US does it, they're liberating the country. When the others fight back, it's considered terrorism.
Now you jest, but targeting the World Trade Center has its rationale. It represents the core evil of the Western world. Capitalism. Greed. Money. Stock Market. Those Con artists who pump and dump. There were financial people who were stalked and killed in other countries after they were found to have manipulated and destroyed the economies of smaller countries for their own profit, but the courts couldn't touch them because EVIL and GREEDY isn't illegal in America, it's actually encouraged.
Then it's democracy. Americans think it's such a great amazing concept but it's not accepted by the rest of the world and they don't like having it shoved down their throats.
Religion. Christianity is a festering corrupt institution. They don't want it in theirs.
Cultural changes. They have had their way of doing things for thousands of years. They don't want some upstart country who is young to come in and tell them to change things. Or worst, have American representatives blatantly flaunt their ways. I think of female military in women oppressed countries who think it's their OBLIGATION to flaunt.
If America and the other Western countries left the Eastern countries alone, perhaps they would have left them alone. But it's too late. There's no more forgiveness. There's no more let bygones be bygones. There's no more opportunity for trust. There's only a pleasant uneasy skirmishes back and forth until the stronger side simply obliterates all traces of the weaker side to crush any spark of resistance from that particular source in the future.
I was also thinking about Tom Cruise, LARPers, Medieval Faires, Civil War Recreation People, Mimes, Certain breed of Fanboys in Sports, Anime, Fantasy, and SciFi, Creationists, the list goes on and on....
I had another one that's not PC, so I'll be nice and leave it off, though I'm sure anyone can make the connection with of Mice and Men.
I find it horrible at the general lack of outrage to this that we see responding to the Great Firewall of China. There's some lukewarm outrage, but where's the demanding ISP's stop working with the government, and for all the people to pull from government support, and admonish any company working with the government on this?
I guess it's not a farcry from the current NSA activity. Slowly apply control rather than an efficient total strict control and opening up freedom as you go along.
Makes me think of our database, my predecessor made set the security open and everyone had full rights, while they slowly disable what they could think about and then scramble when someone stumbled on something they shouldn't have. I on the other hand, flipped it over, made the security closed, and only gave rights to those who needed it. Which do you think is the proper way to manage a secured system?
While I agree texting is over the line, and most people I see with a cell in their hands are dipshits who can't seem to drive straight or keep a steady speed. And the person putting on make up while looking into a mirror.
Removing distractions like conversation is a ridiculous attempt. If it's not one thing, it's another. The screaming kid is one of my argument, but what about the radio? Going to ban that next? Talking with someone with you in the car? The people singing along with the radio and you see their heads shaking from side to side and their hands drumming the steering wheel.
How about something more intellectual like talk shows. Not the mindless shock jockeys but actual intelligent things that make you think. Maybe books on tape? The object of which IS to pay attention and retain information?
Or how about just plan daydreaming or not paying attention? Listening to a tv show or movie in the background on the car? You ever multi-task sitting at a desk with that in the background and your mind wanders? Should they ban installing video displays in vehicles too?
Or just multi-tasking thinking? Solve a problem? Making a to do list? Making a shopping list? Thinking about someone? Wondering if you locked the door or shut off the gas for the OCD's, hell maybe OCDs should never drive?
Anything as mundane and uninteresting as driving a slow speed limit of 65 in an area capable of handling 95 or a boring ass job, your mind will always SEEK diversions.
You think regular driving is mundane? Try driving 6 hours straight, in the middle of the night, with little sleep, and see if you wouldn't LOVE the distraction of someone talking or a radio blaring. Course in that case you have the luxury of cruise control and only keeping yourself straight and few cars around you. Same applies for shorter distance still at night with cars around.
Or maybe bumper to bumper traffic? You're not going fast enough you can't react but diversion would help keep road rage down a bit.
By entertaining the possibility that preferred traits can be genetically determined and in turn reproduced in controlled manner, you are opening the possibility of creating genetically superior humans, and that is a situation parts of society won't tolerate.
Sci Fi have always entertained that notion and society's rejection of it. Star Trek DS9 had Dr. Bashir. Enterprise had those augments. Brave New World had a horrid extremist view of genetic superiority. Harrison Bergeron had a society who stifled superiority.
So no, I don't think the uproar is about a possible scientific fact. I think the uproar is about the implications of that possible fact.
Bush spent part of his power stifling the education in America, removing those who would excel, and lowering the bar. Average SAT score has been 1500 out of 2400 for too many years even before Bush (1000 out of 1600), that's 62.5%. That is horrendous.
I would rather have the average raised closer to my score, and have my status lowered to closer to merely average. Then I would have better hopes for the future of humanity.
Name calling? When did I name call, or Troll. Parts of Georgia trying to succeed and Russia encouraging them and the US led Western trying to stop it really did happen in recent years.
The difference here is US did not assert their rule over CND in the beginning, so they forgo claim by now, they were happy with their own independence.
China however assert their rule over Taiwan and Tibet, and aren't willing to let either succeed from the country.
When parts of Georgia tried to succeed (and seek friendly relation with Russia) the Western world stepped in and tried to stop them from succeeding. There's a double standard here and it boils down to the irrational fear of Communism.
If the Native American community want their land back, and want the US to stop bothering them, do you think the US should then be obliged to obey?
If the South wants to succeed from the North (which I think they should with such drastic differing dogmas) don't you think they should?
You can't think other countries breaking up into smaller countries is good, but the US should retain their large empire. I'm sure the non-American native Hawaii would love to become independent, they're not even close to the US.
It's hardly rebels holding onto the country at this point, they ARE the country.
The unseated government in Taiwan is just that, a failed experiment, a change in CEO, unwanted people who cling to some sort of entitlement.
It's like if Obama isn't re-elected in the next election and his party cries foul and that they are the true legit and refuse to move, but the people's will is otherwise. Doesn't make the people rebellious, they just want something different, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And no, here are some differences between cults and religions. These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, and each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers. This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, and helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.
If you mean most commonly accepted religions now ARE cults, I agree.
Otherwise, how is that different from.... Christianity's new Testatment focus on the teachings of Jesus? Buddhism's focus on the teachings of Buddha? Muslim's focus on the teachings of Mohammad? Scientology's focus on the teachings of Hubbard? Church of Latter Day Saint's focus on the teachings of Smith and Young?
The difference between modern religion and cults is that modern religions are old, outlived it's originator by generations, survived persecution and state of resistance. The generations is a good test to exclude the momentum set by the originator.
Unlike most cults, Scientology garnered support from wealthy people and famous, looking for tax shelters. The Church of Latter Day Saints took the same approach and garnered wealthy people by forcing their young girls to marry, often times multiple girls to a guy or just plain sex.
Popular cults GIVE something to their followers in return for their obedience, while unpopular cults only TAKE.
Though I agree with the concept of social obligation, I work in non-profit and I know someone who works in Canadian housing social services as well. The mentality of deserving and obligated charity is ridiculous.
Sure it's just a small subset that abuses the system, but the system created these ridiculous limits to allow it to be abused. And I don't see why I should live frugally and within my means and pay for even one person to live more extravagantly than I can afford reasonably.
Helping a poor individual with $50 a month for food is charity. A max of $200 a month for a single person is a luxury. We had a single woman who was interviewed who spent $150 a month in food stamps and complained it wasn't enough and the state needed to raise it. Grain, basic fruits and veggies, and low cost meat for 30 days shouldn't cost more than $100 a person, a month.
Heating People are spending $300 - $400 a month on heating to be comfortable and then cry for free handouts. That's poor managing of money when you can't afford to be comfortable you should settle for above tolerable. When I was a poor college student alone in an apartment, I lowered my winter heating to 55F - 60F and wore more clothing to save money.
Electricity People using air conditioner when they can't afford it. AC should be a luxury, not a right. I do my best not to use AC to save on electric costs, humans are adaptable and 80F-90F won't harm a reasonably healthy person.
Cable TV I actually overheard the audacity of a caller requesting help for money, otherwise they couldn't pay their cable TV with premium channels.
Housing Wasting tax money getting small amounts of individual families into "houses" is ridiculous when you can use the same amount of money to get much more needy people into "subsidized apts". Why am I paying for someone else to own a house? Shelters are too impersonal but there is middle ground like dormitories.
Though as a society we should care for our unfortunate brethren with their basic needs, it irks me when democrats use tax money to raise the basic quality for life into luxuries where I shouldn't indulge in.
I agree with you regarding other wastes like the wars. It's like children, they have no regard for the value of money when it's not their own money they're spending and they can just simply ask for more. The government raises taxes, the wasteful asks for more handouts, the greedy corporation cry too big to fail and reward their exec with huge bonuses and disgusting salaries.
> The run into somebody and kill them. Just like they do when being chased at high speed.
Have you ever had your electrical system and engine shut off on you while on the highway? I have, twice. Sure the steering wheel is sluggish, but it's more like locking you in the straight direction rather than erratic movement, though with some decent elbow grease you can still turn your car and roll off the road safely. And unless you're on a steep slope, gravity and friction will slow your car to a stop rather fast or at least a relatively low speed that you can jump out of the car.
On high-speed chases, they also try and clear the way as well, wouldn't be hard to get a nice 1 min clear area to zap them.
What's the alternative? Blow out the tires? THAT will cause erratic movement and collision.
China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?
America and UK has been bashing China for this and that, while they slowly do it themselves, China with it's long history just happened to be more efficient and arrived at a goal sooner while UK police state follows and America being slow to adopt trails behind. Why doesn't the Western world and their citizens lead by example first, demolish their State control, and after that worry about other countries.
During the hippie age, the US Gov put tons of people under surveillance for no good reason except being anti-establishment. During this technology age, the State wiretap and snoop at will, in the guise of national security. Search and Seizures at the border. Who knows how deep this goes. Didn't the FBI and NSA have warrantless wiretapping of American citizens? Didn't the CIA operate on domestic soil against it's mandate? Didn't past and current president excuse the outting of a loyal CIA operative and put life and career at risk for political reasons?
Sure all the US is doing is "watching and breaking privacy" and waiting for people to do something that gives the Gov an excuse to do away with them. China's not just watching and waiting with a big stick, but actively discouraging behavior that would bring upon the big stick. Don't people everywhere do the same thing with children? Set rules and boundaries. Those fences to keep children cordon in an area. Make up stories like the Stork, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, because they aren't ready for the truth?
The Western world create rules of what's considered appropriate and inappropriate as does China, China is just more extreme. The Western world keep an eye on anti-establishment and keep anyone they feel are threats under control. The Western world erase any lines of rights when dealing with those who they consider terrorist, an affront to their safety and control. Only instead of waiting for problems to come up, China assumes their entire populace is a threat to be kept under control.
Again who's to say who's right and who's wrong? And if China's wrong, why is the Western world following suit as their own technology and ability rises, if it's not jealousy. That and China's great firewall has been disclosed. What does the US have hidden?
Slashdot Mirror
That and police and state troopers can't be trusted. They have enough people to pull over and make revenue off of, but they also fabricate situations. The judges claim it's your word against the cop's unless you have proof. What the hell kind of proof are you going to keep track of on a daily basis just in case you get targeted unjustly.
This is why there's antagonism. But I like your idea. The point IS reckless driving, not artificial speed traps.
Because sometimes prolonging menial tasks gets frustrating, especially if you have a destination.
There's enough road rage out there, increase that stress by forcing yourself to go slower than what is natural only increases that stress.
It's like walking, you have a nice steady gait. If you were suddenly forced to walk half that gait, pulling your feet back as you take a step, pause after each step, or lumber about offsetting your balance with unnatural movement. It's very awkward. Not to mention you look moronic.
The less time it takes you from get to point A to point B, the less time it leaves you in a bad situation, IE being in a car.
Also, the faster you get to your destination, you're taking yourself off the road, hence reducing traffic congestion by 1 person. If everyone moved more steadily, traffic would flow slightly better.
Perhaps this will allow humans to artificially create genetic diversity.
Somehow remove the detrimental effects of inbreeding, especially in royalty.
1. UK doesn't not represent Europeans. I think UK is one of the worst in terms of liberty in Europe.
2. US and European are not the only ones in the World.
Europeans laughing; that America is not the freest country in the world, does not infer that they feel Europe is the freest "country/continent" in the world. That would be an interpretation of the statement.
Not that I condone what Sony did, it is a dick move.
But I don't recall Sony ever advertising that the PS3 has the feature of Linux install. I might have missed it, it's possible, I don't care for the PS3. People saw the possibility, modded it, spread the news. But as far as I know, it wasn't advertised and sold as a Linux machine.
It's like saying, a semi-automatic gun could be modded to full automatic. People spread the news and bought it as such. And then the gun manufacturing, for whatever reason, decide to fix future bullets not to work in the modded machines, and only work in the original guns, because they had no intention of making fully automatic guns. It's a stretch, in reality the gun manufacturing fixed the semi-gun itself not to be modded again.
I know it's funny but they don't go straight to court. They send a bill/threat saying, pay this off and we won't hit you with more for the time being. Only if you decline their "generous" offer, do they then sue you for astronomical amounts.
I know you meant to be funny but, by god, quicktime support is nothing to joke about. It is a horrendous format with horrendous player.
Maybe this is a good thing?
Set sufficient amount of obstacles and dangle a goal, and they teach themselves a useful skill, one that can even turn into a career someday. If nothing else some basic skills.
Uhm...what else is there? The LOVE of learning or the LOVE of doing something? Not everyone has that.
We bribe people with money, food, sex, pleasures, enjoyment.
We threaten them with horror, stories, pain, or other fears.
We promise them better future, more money, women, material possession, or other hopes.
We use social norms to control people's behavior.
We do that from the day people are born to the day they die, and even then sometimes after there.
This is just talking about being more efficient.
I can't think of a single thing in this world that people truly do without some sort of "motivation" :)
Just like I don't believe there is any truly unselfish act, a la Phoebe from Friends
1. I was driving in a 2 lane highway, suddenly I noticed I was closing up on the cars in front of me too fast and their brake lights suddenly went on, I tapped my brakes and then steadily slowed down. Turns out it was an accident up front and everyone was slamming on their brakes. Actually happens quite a bit, people stopping suddenly on highway is quite common in the Northeast.
2. Similar to 1, but in that split second I didn't think I had enough time to stop in time even if I slammed on my brakes in a risky manner. I slowed down and pulled off into the brakedown lane, slamming the brakes once I was in the ridged part that helps control my sudden brake without sliding. I ended up stopping next to the guy in front of me. The guy behind me stopped right behind the guy that was in front of me.
3. I was on the highway when a semi next to me started moving into my lane without care that I was literally next to him. After blaring my horn a few times and him still moving into my lane and I was already already partially in the brake down lane. My tires hit the wet grass and I spun out of control, after counter steering a few times, I ended up spinning in a circle but was relatively safe. I was amused when I saw that in the Pixar movie "Cars" later on.
4. My car's transmission died (or I believe it was the transmission), I was able to coast to a stop. Although 5 minutes later a semi ran right through me, despite the fact my emergency lights were on. He went in through me on the brakedown lane side, so thankfully I was still sitting in my car assessing the situation.
5. I was going down a steep hill in what was obviously too much snow. My brakes must have been packed with snow because I was inching my way down. I switched to neutral, pulled my emergency brake, and tilted my steering wheel towards the curb. The nose hit the curb and my rear slide forward so I was in the opposite direction, like a swinging door. Smell of rubber but I didn't run through into traffic.
6. My alternator busted and my battery drained (i didn't realize what the light meant, I thought it meant my battery was bad), my car idles on the highway and I slowly pulled off into the brake down lane.
So yeah I typed the first post in the comforts of my home. But those type of actions SHOULD be the same thoughts that happen when you're in an accident. The fact that people don't get the same thoughts, means they're unprepared. I know that's what I would do because even without "Toyota's great flaw", it's still something to be mindful of. And I've already been in similar situations and I know for a fact those are the thoughts that should occur.
Some say, well you're an unusual case, most people wouldn't be thinking that. "That" exactly is the problem. People SHOULD be thinking in those terms. I should not be an aberrant case, I should be the average. In another post, I said the same thing about intelligence, we lowered the bar too low in everything.
Course I still drive, those things haven't phased me. Life goes on, and crap happens.
I was under the impression, neutral was a similar effect to the clutch? I haven't driven a manual since I first learned to drive. After that, I rather preferred automatic because it requires near "no" thinking.
I would also like to add correcting issues, even as minor as contact info or erroneous history is a freaking pain in the ass.
I do own a Toyota Camry and I love it, and thought all that sensationalism was total BS.
I was asked, well if your car suddenly accelerated out of control, what will you do!
I answered, well the first thing I would do is push my gear shift forward from D to N. I don't know if it's a safety feature, but D to N doesn't require pressing the release button on the side, just pushing it with enough force.
Then I'd tap my breaks and start slowing down as if there was bumper to bumper traffic suddenly showing up in front of me. I'd try to coast to breakdown lane if I could, even in neutral you have some momentum left. I know, my engine in a Ford Taurus and Pontiac Grand Pris cut out on me twice on the highway, leaving me with sluggish steering wheel.
My other options once I'm in neutral is yanking on my emergency brake and using my emergency blinker, because that's what they're there for, but emergency brakes aren't safe at high speeds.
Slamming on my breaks or panicing doesn't do me any good. And if I get rear ended in that situation, well the person behind me wasn't paying enough attention since I tapped my breaks as a warning before slowing down. If I ram the person in front of me, than I was tailgating them and that's my own god damn fault and not my cars.
The problem is that we dumbed down America so much, the driving skills are so abhorrent and a god damn given "right" that even the worst and dumbest of drivers can pass, and the thinking and rational skills of people are nearly non-existent. There may be a flaw in a car design that strikes 1 in millions, hundreds of millions, who knows under what conditions. That IS generally an acceptable margin of error in design because NOTHING is perfect, and to believe so would be hubris.
No, I would call the 9/11 attacks a desperate attempt at liberty from the incursion of the Western Countries. Yeah they're extreme and excessive, but they can't fight for their freedom head to head so they fight back any way they can.
Killing innocent civilians? Hrm. Bombing public infrastructure? Hrm. Assassinations and snipers? Hrm. Guerilla warfare and Green Berets?
When the US does it, they're liberating the country. When the others fight back, it's considered terrorism.
Now you jest, but targeting the World Trade Center has its rationale. It represents the core evil of the Western world. Capitalism. Greed. Money. Stock Market. Those Con artists who pump and dump. There were financial people who were stalked and killed in other countries after they were found to have manipulated and destroyed the economies of smaller countries for their own profit, but the courts couldn't touch them because EVIL and GREEDY isn't illegal in America, it's actually encouraged.
Then it's democracy. Americans think it's such a great amazing concept but it's not accepted by the rest of the world and they don't like having it shoved down their throats.
Religion. Christianity is a festering corrupt institution. They don't want it in theirs.
Cultural changes. They have had their way of doing things for thousands of years. They don't want some upstart country who is young to come in and tell them to change things. Or worst, have American representatives blatantly flaunt their ways. I think of female military in women oppressed countries who think it's their OBLIGATION to flaunt.
If America and the other Western countries left the Eastern countries alone, perhaps they would have left them alone. But it's too late. There's no more forgiveness. There's no more let bygones be bygones. There's no more opportunity for trust. There's only a pleasant uneasy skirmishes back and forth until the stronger side simply obliterates all traces of the weaker side to crush any spark of resistance from that particular source in the future.
Uhm....I shall rebut your theory with one name.
Jack. Thompson.
I was also thinking about Tom Cruise, LARPers, Medieval Faires, Civil War Recreation People, Mimes, Certain breed of Fanboys in Sports, Anime, Fantasy, and SciFi, Creationists, the list goes on and on....
I had another one that's not PC, so I'll be nice and leave it off, though I'm sure anyone can make the connection with of Mice and Men.
I find it horrible at the general lack of outrage to this that we see responding to the Great Firewall of China. There's some lukewarm outrage, but where's the demanding ISP's stop working with the government, and for all the people to pull from government support, and admonish any company working with the government on this?
I guess it's not a farcry from the current NSA activity. Slowly apply control rather than an efficient total strict control and opening up freedom as you go along.
Makes me think of our database, my predecessor made set the security open and everyone had full rights, while they slowly disable what they could think about and then scramble when someone stumbled on something they shouldn't have. I on the other hand, flipped it over, made the security closed, and only gave rights to those who needed it. Which do you think is the proper way to manage a secured system?
While I agree texting is over the line, and most people I see with a cell in their hands are dipshits who can't seem to drive straight or keep a steady speed. And the person putting on make up while looking into a mirror.
Removing distractions like conversation is a ridiculous attempt. If it's not one thing, it's another. The screaming kid is one of my argument, but what about the radio? Going to ban that next? Talking with someone with you in the car? The people singing along with the radio and you see their heads shaking from side to side and their hands drumming the steering wheel.
How about something more intellectual like talk shows. Not the mindless shock jockeys but actual intelligent things that make you think. Maybe books on tape? The object of which IS to pay attention and retain information?
Or how about just plan daydreaming or not paying attention? Listening to a tv show or movie in the background on the car? You ever multi-task sitting at a desk with that in the background and your mind wanders? Should they ban installing video displays in vehicles too?
Or just multi-tasking thinking? Solve a problem? Making a to do list? Making a shopping list? Thinking about someone? Wondering if you locked the door or shut off the gas for the OCD's, hell maybe OCDs should never drive?
Anything as mundane and uninteresting as driving a slow speed limit of 65 in an area capable of handling 95 or a boring ass job, your mind will always SEEK diversions.
You think regular driving is mundane? Try driving 6 hours straight, in the middle of the night, with little sleep, and see if you wouldn't LOVE the distraction of someone talking or a radio blaring. Course in that case you have the luxury of cruise control and only keeping yourself straight and few cars around you. Same applies for shorter distance still at night with cars around.
Or maybe bumper to bumper traffic? You're not going fast enough you can't react but diversion would help keep road rage down a bit.
By entertaining the possibility that preferred traits can be genetically determined and in turn reproduced in controlled manner, you are opening the possibility of creating genetically superior humans, and that is a situation parts of society won't tolerate.
Sci Fi have always entertained that notion and society's rejection of it. Star Trek DS9 had Dr. Bashir. Enterprise had those augments. Brave New World had a horrid extremist view of genetic superiority. Harrison Bergeron had a society who stifled superiority.
So no, I don't think the uproar is about a possible scientific fact. I think the uproar is about the implications of that possible fact.
Bush spent part of his power stifling the education in America, removing those who would excel, and lowering the bar. Average SAT score has been 1500 out of 2400 for too many years even before Bush (1000 out of 1600), that's 62.5%. That is horrendous.
I would rather have the average raised closer to my score, and have my status lowered to closer to merely average. Then I would have better hopes for the future of humanity.
Uhm, I live in Massachusetts, Mister 5 Mao? Huh?
Name calling? When did I name call, or Troll. Parts of Georgia trying to succeed and Russia encouraging them and the US led Western trying to stop it really did happen in recent years.
The difference here is US did not assert their rule over CND in the beginning, so they forgo claim by now, they were happy with their own independence.
China however assert their rule over Taiwan and Tibet, and aren't willing to let either succeed from the country.
When parts of Georgia tried to succeed (and seek friendly relation with Russia) the Western world stepped in and tried to stop them from succeeding. There's a double standard here and it boils down to the irrational fear of Communism.
If the Native American community want their land back, and want the US to stop bothering them, do you think the US should then be obliged to obey?
If the South wants to succeed from the North (which I think they should with such drastic differing dogmas) don't you think they should?
You can't think other countries breaking up into smaller countries is good, but the US should retain their large empire. I'm sure the non-American native Hawaii would love to become independent, they're not even close to the US.
It's hardly rebels holding onto the country at this point, they ARE the country.
The unseated government in Taiwan is just that, a failed experiment, a change in CEO, unwanted people who cling to some sort of entitlement.
It's like if Obama isn't re-elected in the next election and his party cries foul and that they are the true legit and refuse to move, but the people's will is otherwise. Doesn't make the people rebellious, they just want something different, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And no, here are some differences between cults and religions. These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, and each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers. This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, and helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.
If you mean most commonly accepted religions now ARE cults, I agree.
Otherwise, how is that different from.... Christianity's new Testatment focus on the teachings of Jesus? Buddhism's focus on the teachings of Buddha? Muslim's focus on the teachings of Mohammad? Scientology's focus on the teachings of Hubbard? Church of Latter Day Saint's focus on the teachings of Smith and Young?
The difference between modern religion and cults is that modern religions are old, outlived it's originator by generations, survived persecution and state of resistance. The generations is a good test to exclude the momentum set by the originator.
Unlike most cults, Scientology garnered support from wealthy people and famous, looking for tax shelters. The Church of Latter Day Saints took the same approach and garnered wealthy people by forcing their young girls to marry, often times multiple girls to a guy or just plain sex.
Popular cults GIVE something to their followers in return for their obedience, while unpopular cults only TAKE.
Though I agree with the concept of social obligation, I work in non-profit and I know someone who works in Canadian housing social services as well. The mentality of deserving and obligated charity is ridiculous.
Sure it's just a small subset that abuses the system, but the system created these ridiculous limits to allow it to be abused. And I don't see why I should live frugally and within my means and pay for even one person to live more extravagantly than I can afford reasonably.
Take food stamps for example
http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=12&pageID=3%20&subpages=yes&dynamicID=310
Helping a poor individual with $50 a month for food is charity. A max of $200 a month for a single person is a luxury. We had a single woman who was interviewed who spent $150 a month in food stamps and complained it wasn't enough and the state needed to raise it. Grain, basic fruits and veggies, and low cost meat for 30 days shouldn't cost more than $100 a person, a month.
Heating
People are spending $300 - $400 a month on heating to be comfortable and then cry for free handouts. That's poor managing of money when you can't afford to be comfortable you should settle for above tolerable. When I was a poor college student alone in an apartment, I lowered my winter heating to 55F - 60F and wore more clothing to save money.
Electricity
People using air conditioner when they can't afford it. AC should be a luxury, not a right. I do my best not to use AC to save on electric costs, humans are adaptable and 80F-90F won't harm a reasonably healthy person.
Cable TV
I actually overheard the audacity of a caller requesting help for money, otherwise they couldn't pay their cable TV with premium channels.
Housing
Wasting tax money getting small amounts of individual families into "houses" is ridiculous when you can use the same amount of money to get much more needy people into "subsidized apts". Why am I paying for someone else to own a house? Shelters are too impersonal but there is middle ground like dormitories.
Though as a society we should care for our unfortunate brethren with their basic needs, it irks me when democrats use tax money to raise the basic quality for life into luxuries where I shouldn't indulge in.
I agree with you regarding other wastes like the wars. It's like children, they have no regard for the value of money when it's not their own money they're spending and they can just simply ask for more. The government raises taxes, the wasteful asks for more handouts, the greedy corporation cry too big to fail and reward their exec with huge bonuses and disgusting salaries.
> The run into somebody and kill them. Just like they do when being chased at high speed.
Have you ever had your electrical system and engine shut off on you while on the highway? I have, twice. Sure the steering wheel is sluggish, but it's more like locking you in the straight direction rather than erratic movement, though with some decent elbow grease you can still turn your car and roll off the road safely. And unless you're on a steep slope, gravity and friction will slow your car to a stop rather fast or at least a relatively low speed that you can jump out of the car.
On high-speed chases, they also try and clear the way as well, wouldn't be hard to get a nice 1 min clear area to zap them.
What's the alternative? Blow out the tires? THAT will cause erratic movement and collision.
China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?
America and UK has been bashing China for this and that, while they slowly do it themselves, China with it's long history just happened to be more efficient and arrived at a goal sooner while UK police state follows and America being slow to adopt trails behind. Why doesn't the Western world and their citizens lead by example first, demolish their State control, and after that worry about other countries.
During the hippie age, the US Gov put tons of people under surveillance for no good reason except being anti-establishment. During this technology age, the State wiretap and snoop at will, in the guise of national security. Search and Seizures at the border. Who knows how deep this goes. Didn't the FBI and NSA have warrantless wiretapping of American citizens? Didn't the CIA operate on domestic soil against it's mandate? Didn't past and current president excuse the outting of a loyal CIA operative and put life and career at risk for political reasons?
Sure all the US is doing is "watching and breaking privacy" and waiting for people to do something that gives the Gov an excuse to do away with them. China's not just watching and waiting with a big stick, but actively discouraging behavior that would bring upon the big stick. Don't people everywhere do the same thing with children? Set rules and boundaries. Those fences to keep children cordon in an area. Make up stories like the Stork, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, because they aren't ready for the truth?
The Western world create rules of what's considered appropriate and inappropriate as does China, China is just more extreme. The Western world keep an eye on anti-establishment and keep anyone they feel are threats under control. The Western world erase any lines of rights when dealing with those who they consider terrorist, an affront to their safety and control. Only instead of waiting for problems to come up, China assumes their entire populace is a threat to be kept under control.
Again who's to say who's right and who's wrong? And if China's wrong, why is the Western world following suit as their own technology and ability rises, if it's not jealousy. That and China's great firewall has been disclosed. What does the US have hidden?