This is amazing. The first thing that comes to mind is the 1987 movie, Robocop. I have to wonder what drama will be left for movies in a couple decades from now if imagination is becoming a reality.
Statistics show that texting while driving causes more accidents than driving under the influence of alcohol. It's my personal belief that this law should apply to everyone. I am a multi tasker and previously had a job in which it was necessary to type on my in-car MDT and/or talk on a cell phone or radio among other things while driving. With that said, I find it very distracting if I try to text while driving.
I agree with you that, "not stopping should still mean a ticket." However, I think the cameras should only be ticketing more serious violations, like going through an intersection at a red light, speeding, etc. A right turn on red is legal, but I'm not sure that I would rely on a camera to decide if I came to a complete stop. Let the uniformed officers decide that.
In my humble opinion, the cameras should not be citing a violation for right turns at red lights. The cameras don't do this where I live. They are taking it too far.
Well, there has to be a better solution than jail, depending on the seriousness. But, you're right, this problem is getting worse. Just look on Craigslist and job sites. There are more scams than real jobs. Something has to be done to stop it.
For the fun of it, I googled "vegetable state" and here's what I found:
"The research suggests that some of these patients may be misdiagnosed as being unconscious, when, in fact, they are aware of their surroundings but trapped in their immobile bodies."
Here's the link: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/10/breaking_through_to_.html
To date, no company has been about to develop a good watch with GPS tracking capabilities. A company called Wherefy tried it and failed. There are too many challenges with battery life and size.
Article says, "his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used." If they are being "lied about," that's different from what you are saying. There's not a lot he can do about that part of it if there are no threats involved. I believe this Slashdot article is accurate.
The way I see it is that police don't have anyone looking over their shoulder. Online comments may keep him in check. He must be a real idiot to stir this pot, which will only bring him more criticism.
I definitely agree. This system will probably work well for people who are trained in it on a regular basis, such as, airport staff. However, I seriously doubt the average citizen will remember what each color means.
Law enforcement use a similar color code system. Officers must always maintain the "always alert" (on guard) awareness level of vigilance. The only reason to have codes below this is for training and discipline purposes. If an officer lets their guard down and drops below the "always alert" level, the safety of the officer and/or citizens can be jeopardized. So, on a public spectrum, I agree with the change that the public only need to know our code awareness level from "Guarded" on up.
Good points, and I think you helped prove what I'm saying on the subject of search and seizure. For search, all that's needed is probable cause. Assuming the same probable cause exists, but instead of entering and seizing property without a warrant, they attach a tracking device to the outside of the vehicle. So, I propose this question: Which is more intrusive without a warrant - surveillance or entry?
How is it that a police officer can enter your vehicle or home without a warrant if he or she believes a crime has been, is being, or will be committed?
How is it that a police officer can run 24/7 surveillance of video and audio without a warrant when he or she is investigating a suspected crime?
How is it that a police officer can tow a vehicle, search a vehicle, or even confiscate a vehicle whithout a warrant when he or she believes it has been used in the commission of a crime?
But, they can't track a vehicle without a warrant???
I think it would be reasonable to make the jury sign a stipulation to prevent them from researching information from outside sources. I say this because there are too many people in the media that are trying to get their story on top by misleading the public with misinformation.
If the court wanted to fully guard the jury from all outside sources, a simple sequester would not be enough. They would have to lock them in a room with constant surveillance which is unrealistic and unnecessary. Obviously, there is a good chance that jury members are exposed to some outside influences, at least by family members. However, there is a big difference between "researching" it (regardless of the means) and being "exposed" to it.
So, where do you draw the line?
I think most people know that the real facts of the case are going to come out in court; not the media. It's the investigation that holds the evidence; not the reporters. In general, the only evidence that is sometimes held back in the courtroom, is criminal history or a juvenile record that has been sealed. However, in all fairness, it is the current case the jury is to consider and not a person's history. So, although outside exposure may be unpreventable, I believe research should only be done in the courtroom based on the facts of the case presented by both sides.
Quite a few states have emissions testing every year or every other year. Make them get a sticker that also has the mileage. The next year, you figure out the difference. Pay the tax. Odometer fails it's the same as if ODB readiness fails.
How often are these RFID checkpoints going to fail? Devices fall off cars, etc.
Let me guess, there's a GPS tracking company in someones district.
No, I don't think it's the last point you mentioned. I know of one GPS tracking company that's against it and they have written articles showing how it won't work. I think the congressman is trying to get rich with a new invention. By the way, it's not just the congressman, the Oregon Governor came up with the idea a couple years ago.
Tracking vehicle mileage is not even practicle. Yes, you can track miles driven via gps tracking, but the entire process, including data collection and compliance, would be extremely complex. How would the state possibly begin to enforce and monitor this and mandate everyone to buy a GPS device or some type of tracking system? As far as the research costing so much money, maybe they could read comments on Slashdot to get their answers for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they going to tell us what we can watch too? Good thing I don't live in California.
I think we can all agree there is SOME logical content on Twitter. I'm in favor of Google's decision.
This is amazing. The first thing that comes to mind is the 1987 movie, Robocop. I have to wonder what drama will be left for movies in a couple decades from now if imagination is becoming a reality.
What happens when someone is trapped inside their vehicle and can't call 911 for help? This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
He must have been a blue color criminal. They're not that smart you know.
Statistics show that texting while driving causes more accidents than driving under the influence of alcohol. It's my personal belief that this law should apply to everyone. I am a multi tasker and previously had a job in which it was necessary to type on my in-car MDT and/or talk on a cell phone or radio among other things while driving. With that said, I find it very distracting if I try to text while driving.
Did he think researching the science of the female body was part of his job? I wonder how much hands-on lab research he did.
Come on guys, let's get some ideas. This isn't rocket science......oh, maybe it is.
I agree with you that, "not stopping should still mean a ticket." However, I think the cameras should only be ticketing more serious violations, like going through an intersection at a red light, speeding, etc. A right turn on red is legal, but I'm not sure that I would rely on a camera to decide if I came to a complete stop. Let the uniformed officers decide that.
In my humble opinion, the cameras should not be citing a violation for right turns at red lights. The cameras don't do this where I live. They are taking it too far.
Well, there has to be a better solution than jail, depending on the seriousness. But, you're right, this problem is getting worse. Just look on Craigslist and job sites. There are more scams than real jobs. Something has to be done to stop it.
For the fun of it, I googled "vegetable state" and here's what I found: "The research suggests that some of these patients may be misdiagnosed as being unconscious, when, in fact, they are aware of their surroundings but trapped in their immobile bodies." Here's the link: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/10/breaking_through_to_.html
To date, no company has been about to develop a good watch with GPS tracking capabilities. A company called Wherefy tried it and failed. There are too many challenges with battery life and size.
Article says, "his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used." If they are being "lied about," that's different from what you are saying. There's not a lot he can do about that part of it if there are no threats involved. I believe this Slashdot article is accurate.
The way I see it is that police don't have anyone looking over their shoulder. Online comments may keep him in check. He must be a real idiot to stir this pot, which will only bring him more criticism.
I definitely agree. This system will probably work well for people who are trained in it on a regular basis, such as, airport staff. However, I seriously doubt the average citizen will remember what each color means.
Law enforcement use a similar color code system. Officers must always maintain the "always alert" (on guard) awareness level of vigilance. The only reason to have codes below this is for training and discipline purposes. If an officer lets their guard down and drops below the "always alert" level, the safety of the officer and/or citizens can be jeopardized. So, on a public spectrum, I agree with the change that the public only need to know our code awareness level from "Guarded" on up.
Good points, and I think you helped prove what I'm saying on the subject of search and seizure. For search, all that's needed is probable cause. Assuming the same probable cause exists, but instead of entering and seizing property without a warrant, they attach a tracking device to the outside of the vehicle. So, I propose this question: Which is more intrusive without a warrant - surveillance or entry?
Who said anything about entering a garage or a vehicle? These devices are often placed on or under a vehicle with a magnet.
How is it that a police officer can enter your vehicle or home without a warrant if he or she believes a crime has been, is being, or will be committed?
How is it that a police officer can run 24/7 surveillance of video and audio without a warrant when he or she is investigating a suspected crime?
How is it that a police officer can tow a vehicle, search a vehicle, or even confiscate a vehicle whithout a warrant when he or she believes it has been used in the commission of a crime?
But, they can't track a vehicle without a warrant???
I think it would be reasonable to make the jury sign a stipulation to prevent them from researching information from outside sources. I say this because there are too many people in the media that are trying to get their story on top by misleading the public with misinformation.
If the court wanted to fully guard the jury from all outside sources, a simple sequester would not be enough. They would have to lock them in a room with constant surveillance which is unrealistic and unnecessary. Obviously, there is a good chance that jury members are exposed to some outside influences, at least by family members. However, there is a big difference between "researching" it (regardless of the means) and being "exposed" to it.
So, where do you draw the line?
I think most people know that the real facts of the case are going to come out in court; not the media. It's the investigation that holds the evidence; not the reporters. In general, the only evidence that is sometimes held back in the courtroom, is criminal history or a juvenile record that has been sealed. However, in all fairness, it is the current case the jury is to consider and not a person's history. So, although outside exposure may be unpreventable, I believe research should only be done in the courtroom based on the facts of the case presented by both sides.
If they had better coverage, they could charge for the paper bill.
I believe a compass and a gps will tell you "true north." Why reinvent the wheel?
Quite a few states have emissions testing every year or every other year. Make them get a sticker that also has the mileage. The next year, you figure out the difference. Pay the tax. Odometer fails it's the same as if ODB readiness fails.
How often are these RFID checkpoints going to fail? Devices fall off cars, etc.
Let me guess, there's a GPS tracking company in someones district.
No, I don't think it's the last point you mentioned. I know of one GPS tracking company that's against it and they have written articles showing how it won't work. I think the congressman is trying to get rich with a new invention. By the way, it's not just the congressman, the Oregon Governor came up with the idea a couple years ago.
Tracking vehicle mileage is not even practicle. Yes, you can track miles driven via gps tracking, but the entire process, including data collection and compliance, would be extremely complex. How would the state possibly begin to enforce and monitor this and mandate everyone to buy a GPS device or some type of tracking system? As far as the research costing so much money, maybe they could read comments on Slashdot to get their answers for free.