Normally I would just turn the key off. I don't know why people ever freak out about a stuck throttle. This isn't the movie speed, just turn the key off and stop the car with the brake peddle.
I'm just saying that the Polanski case is a good example of leniency in plea bargaining. It wasn't statutory rape (sex with someone too young to give legal consent), but "rape rape" (to borrow Whoopie's term). He probably portrayed it as statutory rape to those around him, hence their weird "defense" of Polanski.
This is the part that really blows my mind. Someone that graduated from my high school just got charged with 3 felonies after trying to meet with a 15 year old supposedly to have sex. He is 19. (Btw, 16 is the age of consent here)
The 3 felonies are:
1. Conspiracy to commit a felony (statutory rape)
2. Using an electronic device to commit a crime (texting)
3. Communicating with someone to commit a crime (this one blew my mind that it is actually a separate felony charge).
So a 19 year old, who arguably was truly making a "youthful" mistake (and never actually had any sexual contact with this girl), will get strung up, while a disgusting rapist has a celebrity signed petition. This country makes me fucking sick.
Wait, are you really using people who only turn left as the basis for your counterargument? Have you seen how often they lose control?
I don't necessarily agree with the gp's use of nascar as an example. But I also get tired of people who simplify this racing as easy. Keep in mind they are driving ~3500lb cars at the absolute brink. Any racecar driver is pushing that car to the limit, the amount of skill and confidence needed to push a heavy car like that is beyond the average person.
If you ever get a chance to see any professional race driver take laps in a street car, or anything with 4 wheels it is incredible what they can do.
And unfortunately your kids will probably drive just like you, adding to the hammerhead population that refuses to drive in the right lane.
You obviously don't live in an area that has A.) Gravel roads B.) High deer populations C.) Idiot pedestrians who walk/run at 11pm with dark clothing on. I can see an oncoming car from a mile away, but a deer darting out from overgrowth that sometimes is only a few feet from the edge of the road... not so much
what if you have a heart attack while driving because you're an out of shape slob? If you don't get in shape BEFORE you drive again, you'll be arrested.
Interesting that you bring this up. In my home town recently (few years back) an elderly woman had a stroke while driving and crossed the double yellow line and hit another vehicle head on. Lucky for the other vehicle, it was a loaded gravel hauler and the driver wasn't hurt a bit. (the women was killed, but they suspect the massive stroke may/would have killed her anyway)
but you have the right to your day in court for ANY ticket.
...and you also have the right to pay all the legal fees that incurs, and - if you lose - face the possibility of a higher fine...
I still don't think that part is true (still referring to the U.S. here). If you fight a speeding ticket and lose, then you pay the ticket in its original form. The judge doesn't say "Oh? You wanna fight huh? Reckless Driving!" You cannot be punished for defending your innocence.
After reading what I wrote I appear to contradict myself. I should have said against *heavy* government regulation... but against corps and monopolies as well, which implies the need for some regulation.
Many libertarians think that Adam Smith was a dogmatic laissez-faire capitalist. My point was (meant to be anyway) that he is not.
I think self proclaimed libertarians forget when they are arguing their pure-capitalism ideals, is that their ideology based on Adam Smith's philosophy isn't only against a government regulatory power... he was against ANY entity with too much power (big corporations).
If anything FOSS should fit perfectly with libertarian, social liberal, and even free market ideology.
You're right, it won't destroy the sanctity of their marriage... but there is probably plenty who think that their tax breaks are God given rights that come with marriage too. Remember... They are the foundation of society...
I agree with your logical response. But, keep in mind that we're not dealing with logic here (obviously).
I liked where you were heading with the first part of your comment until I reached this.
gays are allowed to marry. They just aren't (in most states) allowed to marry someone of the same sex, but then neither are straights.
This is a common argument, and one I've used myself while playing devil's advocate. However, it doesn't work. If the roles were reversed and someone told you that "You can marry anyone you want, as long as it is someone of the same sex" I doubt you would have the same opinion.
Whether you agree with it or not you have to understand that opposing gay marriage is fruitless at best. It does nothing to preserve "traditional marriage" and it does nothing but drive rifts through our society. Get over it and go fuck your wife (just make sure it's not from behind... because you'll go to hell for that).
eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work.
You can't do that. One of the major arguments coming from the religious groups is that gay marriage is going to destroy their marriage, and subsequently America! This would certainly 'prove' them right. So this will only become an option long after we've legalized marriage for everyone.
One thing I want to point out: Natural fossilization is very rare. The circumstances have to be perfect, then the fossil has to survive conditions until we actually find it. Those who point to our lack of fossil evidence are not pointing out a flaw in the other side's argument, they are pointing to an unfortunate fact of life on this planet. Assuming these species which may not have been prosperous for very long (before adapting into something we have found, or is still alive today) would all be fossilized is naive at best.
I am interested to know (but too lazy to look) are their extensive fossil records of the animal species we see today? Or are we also assuming the earth is a 'young' earth? Either way, if their isn't extensive fossil records for all the species we see today, as we see them today. Then I think you see my point.
Hmmm... let's see... you used "underfunded" and "government" in the same sentence.
We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job, throwing money at it hasn't done a thing to fix it, except create a monstrous debt.
Yea... that would be the one; note the thinly veiled sarcasm.
I'm sorry, I just don't think Al Gore's "work" on climate change is deserving of an internationally recognized award for peace. I'm not a "global warming denier" but I hardly think Al Gore is an expert, and I definitely don't think that compiling a bunch of evidence and drawing conclusions from it is worth a Nobel Peace Prize. Especially considering the political (agenda) weight behind the issue.
I think he means that we need to start looking at crimes at a case by case basis, and use some common sense. A policeman beating someone for verbally attacking him is far worse then a fellow citizen responding with violence. Just like a rich person, or corporation committing crimes is far worse then someone who breaks the law out of necessity.
However, as is commonly observed, our system seems to operate in a backwards fashion. Those that should be held to a higher standard are often given extra slack, while those needing some slack are made examples of.
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
I don't see how he could even be a consideration. I think Obama has peace intentions (although an ongoing war doesn't lend itself to that) but in no way has it impacted the world enough. The only way this could be a worse choice is if they gave one to Al Gore. (Fuck!)
I used to have an enormous respect and admiration for the Nobel Foundation, but like anything with good intentions in this world, it has fallen to disgusting political prostitution.
I meant rehab for dangerous people, if that means providing them with an environment they can live their lives in without being a threat to us... then that is rehab enough for me.
I never said we don't punish people who cheat, steal, or vandalize. Punish them with damages.
Also I said 23 hours because max security prisons often have 23 hours of confinement, with 1 hour a day to move around. That adds up to 24 hours total, which equals 1 day. Maybe I should have elaborated.
So it's like patenting the act of surgery, but not scalpels.
Either way it keeps other researchers, and companies from advancing or innovating where they left off. So for the duration of this patent they will have complete control over how we use this technology but more importantly how much we pay for it.
Going back to my first statement. Think of the negative impact on medical advances if someone, years ago, were able to patent "physical modification of human organs using a blade." Obviously it sounds absurd... and that is the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally I would just turn the key off. I don't know why people ever freak out about a stuck throttle. This isn't the movie speed, just turn the key off and stop the car with the brake peddle.
I'm just saying that the Polanski case is a good example of leniency in plea bargaining. It wasn't statutory rape (sex with someone too young to give legal consent), but "rape rape" (to borrow Whoopie's term). He probably portrayed it as statutory rape to those around him, hence their weird "defense" of Polanski.
This is the part that really blows my mind. Someone that graduated from my high school just got charged with 3 felonies after trying to meet with a 15 year old supposedly to have sex. He is 19. (Btw, 16 is the age of consent here)
The 3 felonies are:
1. Conspiracy to commit a felony (statutory rape)
2. Using an electronic device to commit a crime (texting)
3. Communicating with someone to commit a crime (this one blew my mind that it is actually a separate felony charge).
So a 19 year old, who arguably was truly making a "youthful" mistake (and never actually had any sexual contact with this girl), will get strung up, while a disgusting rapist has a celebrity signed petition. This country makes me fucking sick.
Lets just hope it doesn't get really windy one day for something like this to happen.
Asian-American, please.
Wait, are you really using people who only turn left as the basis for your counterargument? Have you seen how often they lose control?
I don't necessarily agree with the gp's use of nascar as an example. But I also get tired of people who simplify this racing as easy. Keep in mind they are driving ~3500lb cars at the absolute brink. Any racecar driver is pushing that car to the limit, the amount of skill and confidence needed to push a heavy car like that is beyond the average person.
If you ever get a chance to see any professional race driver take laps in a street car, or anything with 4 wheels it is incredible what they can do.
And unfortunately your kids will probably drive just like you, adding to the hammerhead population that refuses to drive in the right lane.
You obviously don't live in an area that has A.) Gravel roads B.) High deer populations C.) Idiot pedestrians who walk/run at 11pm with dark clothing on. I can see an oncoming car from a mile away, but a deer darting out from overgrowth that sometimes is only a few feet from the edge of the road... not so much
what if you have a heart attack while driving because you're an out of shape slob? If you don't get in shape BEFORE you drive again, you'll be arrested.
Interesting that you bring this up. In my home town recently (few years back) an elderly woman had a stroke while driving and crossed the double yellow line and hit another vehicle head on. Lucky for the other vehicle, it was a loaded gravel hauler and the driver wasn't hurt a bit. (the women was killed, but they suspect the massive stroke may/would have killed her anyway)
but you have the right to your day in court for ANY ticket.
...and you also have the right to pay all the legal fees that incurs, and - if you lose - face the possibility of a higher fine...
I still don't think that part is true (still referring to the U.S. here). If you fight a speeding ticket and lose, then you pay the ticket in its original form. The judge doesn't say "Oh? You wanna fight huh? Reckless Driving!" You cannot be punished for defending your innocence.
I should have capitalized "hopefully." Your scenario is more realistic.
not be able to use it ... without licensing.
Which will hopefully reduce the incentive to include the advertising.
Pissing your customers off + License fees >(hopefully) The advertising revenue.
I apologize.
After reading what I wrote I appear to contradict myself. I should have said against *heavy* government regulation... but against corps and monopolies as well, which implies the need for some regulation.
Many libertarians think that Adam Smith was a dogmatic laissez-faire capitalist. My point was (meant to be anyway) that he is not.
I think self proclaimed libertarians forget when they are arguing their pure-capitalism ideals, is that their ideology based on Adam Smith's philosophy isn't only against a government regulatory power... he was against ANY entity with too much power (big corporations).
If anything FOSS should fit perfectly with libertarian, social liberal, and even free market ideology.
You're right, it won't destroy the sanctity of their marriage... but there is probably plenty who think that their tax breaks are God given rights that come with marriage too. Remember... They are the foundation of society...
I agree with your logical response. But, keep in mind that we're not dealing with logic here (obviously).
What they really need is an "investment brain."
This is a common argument, and one I've used myself while playing devil's advocate. However, it doesn't work. If the roles were reversed and someone told you that "You can marry anyone you want, as long as it is someone of the same sex" I doubt you would have the same opinion.
Whether you agree with it or not you have to understand that opposing gay marriage is fruitless at best. It does nothing to preserve "traditional marriage" and it does nothing but drive rifts through our society. Get over it and go fuck your wife (just make sure it's not from behind... because you'll go to hell for that).
You can't do that. One of the major arguments coming from the religious groups is that gay marriage is going to destroy their marriage, and subsequently America! This would certainly 'prove' them right. So this will only become an option long after we've legalized marriage for everyone.
One thing I want to point out: Natural fossilization is very rare. The circumstances have to be perfect, then the fossil has to survive conditions until we actually find it. Those who point to our lack of fossil evidence are not pointing out a flaw in the other side's argument, they are pointing to an unfortunate fact of life on this planet. Assuming these species which may not have been prosperous for very long (before adapting into something we have found, or is still alive today) would all be fossilized is naive at best.
I am interested to know (but too lazy to look) are their extensive fossil records of the animal species we see today? Or are we also assuming the earth is a 'young' earth? Either way, if their isn't extensive fossil records for all the species we see today, as we see them today. Then I think you see my point.
"Who wants a piece of the gray bush?"
Hmmm... let's see... you used "underfunded" and "government" in the same sentence.
We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job, throwing money at it hasn't done a thing to fix it, except create a monstrous debt.
Yea... that would be the one; note the thinly veiled sarcasm.
I'm sorry, I just don't think Al Gore's "work" on climate change is deserving of an internationally recognized award for peace. I'm not a "global warming denier" but I hardly think Al Gore is an expert, and I definitely don't think that compiling a bunch of evidence and drawing conclusions from it is worth a Nobel Peace Prize. Especially considering the political (agenda) weight behind the issue.
I think you're reading far too much into that.
I think he means that we need to start looking at crimes at a case by case basis, and use some common sense. A policeman beating someone for verbally attacking him is far worse then a fellow citizen responding with violence. Just like a rich person, or corporation committing crimes is far worse then someone who breaks the law out of necessity.
However, as is commonly observed, our system seems to operate in a backwards fashion. Those that should be held to a higher standard are often given extra slack, while those needing some slack are made examples of.
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
I don't see how he could even be a consideration. I think Obama has peace intentions (although an ongoing war doesn't lend itself to that) but in no way has it impacted the world enough. The only way this could be a worse choice is if they gave one to Al Gore. (Fuck!)
I used to have an enormous respect and admiration for the Nobel Foundation, but like anything with good intentions in this world, it has fallen to disgusting political prostitution.
The real question is, will Bruce Willis still be alive and fit enough for an emergency space mission?
Born: March 19, 1955. That will put him at 81 years old... We better freeze him now, so we can thaw him out in case of an impending asteroid strike.
I guess I should have clarified.
I meant rehab for dangerous people, if that means providing them with an environment they can live their lives in without being a threat to us... then that is rehab enough for me.
I never said we don't punish people who cheat, steal, or vandalize. Punish them with damages.
Also I said 23 hours because max security prisons often have 23 hours of confinement, with 1 hour a day to move around. That adds up to 24 hours total, which equals 1 day. Maybe I should have elaborated.
So it's like patenting the act of surgery, but not scalpels.
Either way it keeps other researchers, and companies from advancing or innovating where they left off. So for the duration of this patent they will have complete control over how we use this technology but more importantly how much we pay for it.
Going back to my first statement. Think of the negative impact on medical advances if someone, years ago, were able to patent "physical modification of human organs using a blade." Obviously it sounds absurd... and that is the point.