is enforcing the laws as they exist. And not making new ones to be seen as "doing something"
There are already laws on the books for negligent driving. There are already laws on the books for distracted driving. Between those two, you cover the vast swath of "being a danger to others".
You don't need laws for "driving while texting", "driving while putting on makeup", "driving while reading the NYT", "driving while eating", "driving while thinking about that really hot chick at the club", "driving while changing clothes", "driving while being outsmarted by the radio/CD player", "driving while tired, because I was an idiot and stayed up all night playing WoW", etc.
If any of those (or thousands of other examples) result in the person driving in a distracted or negligent manner, they are ALREADY illegal. If not, then why should anyone care?
"They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb - to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (of propaganda)."
They are NOT dumb. They know exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Now they just need to keep the public distracted for long enough...
It's got the geek factor, sure. But...How useful is it? Many PCs have the "slot" CD reader. This won't work there. What happens with these mini-disks in a laptop, if it gets bumped, etc. Then there's the whole "wallet" thing. I expect that a cd in my wallet would have a life expectancy measured in minutes.
-Uhm, default? If not the US, then who would decide what the US can export? The French? Also, the constitution mentions both treaties and trade as things the gvt can regulate.
2/ The Manhattan project operated on pencil, paper, and Feynman's grey matter, and look what they done, Ma!
-Mostly people are NOT Feynman. Or even remotely near. Also, even with Feynman, they had to TEST that those things IRL, to see if what they wrote down. The idea is that powerful enough computers will allow simulation/"virtual testing" good enough to allow WMD creation WITHOUT real world testing, which could be noticed,
Of course, when your wife/so is home alone at night, and hears a window break, and someone enter, she will have to use your gun in degraded ("club") mode....
Dead thread, but coupla things: 1. point one was refering to your claim that state vs federal was never a founding principle. It was. You were incorrect. See the 10th Amendment.The stuff about wartime excesses is IBI (interesting but irrelevant-and wrong) to the point being made. 2. a. The patriot was still the wrong movie. And it was the English being harsh in that movie, not the South, as you origionally claimed. And I have no idea why you brought in the NORTH being harsh, As my only point was it was the WRONG war... 3. Once again, the point was 'what principles were "axe'd" to win the civil war....' And the answer to that is the rights of the (up to that point, anyway) soverign states to conduct their business as they saw fit. You go of on and IBI tread on the President's ability to wage war as he sees fit, once authorized by congress.
The clearly held power that the USA usurped in the Civil War was as follows: The rights of (up till then) soverign states states to act as soverign states. The states did NOT ceceede violently. The states ceceeded. The Union chose to place a fort in the territory of one of the ceded states. If you read history (and that was my major in college) you would know that the Civil War was the event that made the USA a "nation state" until then it really was a confederation of soverign states. The southern states were as much in their rights to ceceed as the USA would be to quit the UN, or NATO. Did NATO bomb France when it left? As has often been stated, the Civil War changed "THESE United States" to "THE united states". The Civil War fundamentally changed our conception of ourselves.
The proper method for the south to withdraw was to inform the union of the fact. Just as France informed NATO when it pulled out. France did NOT ask NATO for permission, because it was a soveriegn state. Just as the US would not need the permission of the UN to withdraw from the UN. Again, that's the point of that 10th Amendment thingy.
WHAT founding principles were "axe"'d to win the Civil War? Priority of State over Federal? (Never a founding prinicple). Civilized War? (The southern campaign of the revolution was rather remarkeably harsh--_The Patriot_ got that part right at least). Or maybe having a weak executive who couldn't take action in times of national crisis--no, wait, that one was tossed out the Articles of Confederation.
Uhmm... 1. See Amendment[10]. See the federalist papers, etc. You are wrong. 2. _The Patriot_ was revolutionary war. Yer off approx 100 years. 3. If you check the document (the constitution), you will find it went to great lengths to spell out the *LIMITS* of federal executive power. And just in case, there was any doubt, they did that whole Amendment[10] thing for the hard-of-thinking.
Agreed. I'd either live downtown (and occassionally use flexicar -http://www.flexcar.com/), or not in the city whatsover. I agree it would suck. My parents did the first option, (Harbor Steps building, kitty-corner from the SAM, Connected to Wolfgang Pucks...Or, since we're on/., about 2 blocks from the Lusty Lady...) for a few years, and it worked well for them. Never even needed a car.
Unless I decide to get a grad degree sometime soon, I think I'd just say no, though!
"you still have to give them a home address at which the car is registered, don't you? "
No. At least, no it WA. You need to give a billing/contact address. Doesn't need to be your home address. Doesn't need to be the address on the Vehicle registration, either.
Like I said, they care about the garage address, as that is what they do their actuarial (risk) calculations on. If you gave them a fake garage address, *THEN* they'd get upset, declare your policy void, and tell you to go suck an egg.
The insurance thing is really a non-issue. The real issue is that it WOULD be tax fraud. Like I said, expect the PI/Times to do a story within the next 18 months. I'll bet they use the term "epidemic".
Me, I'd never own a car if I lived in Seattle itself, but that's just me.
" A couple dozen at most. " A beer at the location of your choice (assuming you're in the puget sound- South is better) says that within 18 months, there will be stories in the PI/Times about an "epidemic of"
"Since rates are based on the home address of the owner of the vehicle, insurance companies take a pretty serious interest in making sure that cars are registered at the proper address."
You've brought up the insurance thing a couple times now...So... 1) Nobody is talking about trying to defraud insurance companies. I gave a quick example of how people would try to get out of this tax. If you want to rail against insurance fraud, I'll agree with you, but that's really a separate thread. 2)Just because you give address X to the state when you purchase the vehicle doesn't mean that you can't give address Y to the insurance co when you insure it. In fact, as someone who worked (unfortunately) in the insurance industry for a number of years, it's rather common, normal, and legal. It's called a "garage address". Insurance rates are based on the garage address, NOT the home address. Insurance companies are interested in the garage address, not where they send the bill (as long as it's paid. A quick example, that I'm sure many here can relate to: I went to college in Spokane. My "garage address" was listed on my policy as Spokane. My home address was listed on my policy as my parents address (in Kent). Perfectly above board in the eyes of the insurance co. Don't honestly know whether the taxes were greater in Spokane or Kent, was simply more convienient. Was NOT a massive PITA, btw.
"Huh? Do you think it's a sales tax? It's not a sales tax: it's an 1.4% annual motor vehicle excise tax charged to all residents of the city. Are you suggesting people will move to avoid it? Moving is damn expensive, you know."
Registering it to you at the address of your friend in Auburn isn't, however.
Slashdot Mirror
is enforcing the laws as they exist. And not making new ones to be seen as "doing something"
There are already laws on the books for negligent driving.
There are already laws on the books for distracted driving.
Between those two, you cover the vast swath of "being a danger to others".
You don't need laws for "driving while texting", "driving while putting on makeup", "driving while reading the NYT", "driving while eating", "driving while thinking about that really hot chick at the club", "driving while changing clothes", "driving while being outsmarted by the radio/CD player", "driving while tired, because I was an idiot and stayed up all night playing WoW", etc.
If any of those (or thousands of other examples) result in the person driving in a distracted or negligent manner, they are ALREADY illegal. If not, then why should anyone care?
It seems all the important crimes have been stamped out.
Remember, "complex" != "good"
Come on man! It's tradition!
Posting an article on /. on how to pretend to look busy while goofing off.
Was someone trying to demonstrate recursion?
Isn't a freaken' card catalog prior art?
yes.
"so far the weapons inspectors have found dick"
They were supposed to find weapons....
"They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb - to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (of propaganda)."
They are NOT dumb. They know exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Now they just need to keep the public distracted for long enough...
This is the origion of the term: http://www.trilobyte-mag.com/tinfoilhat.htm
(You could probably try to turn around the politics, but that would just show that your tinfoil hat had fallen off.
To the person who modded this off-topic...Did You RTFA? "Light's carrying capacity doubles" was one of the top 25...It was a joke. Sheesh.
June: Light's carrying capacity doubles
Dec: Microsoft to purchase Diety Light(tm) for 23Billion.
It's got the geek factor, sure.
But...How useful is it?
Many PCs have the "slot" CD reader. This won't work there.
What happens with these mini-disks in a laptop, if it gets bumped, etc.
Then there's the whole "wallet" thing. I expect that a cd in my wallet would have a life expectancy measured in minutes.
1/ Who gave the US the right to decide?
-Uhm, default? If not the US, then who would decide what the US can export? The French? Also, the constitution mentions both treaties and trade as things the gvt can regulate.
2/ The Manhattan project operated on pencil, paper, and Feynman's grey matter, and look what they done, Ma!
-Mostly people are NOT Feynman. Or even remotely near. Also, even with Feynman, they had to TEST that those things IRL, to see if what they wrote down. The idea is that powerful enough computers will allow simulation/"virtual testing" good enough to allow WMD creation WITHOUT real world testing, which could be noticed,
10..9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.fp
Of course, when your wife/so is home alone at night, and hears a window break, and someone enter, she will have to use your gun in degraded ("club") mode....
Dead thread, but coupla things:
1. point one was refering to your claim that state vs federal was never a founding principle. It was. You were incorrect. See the 10th Amendment.The stuff about wartime excesses is IBI (interesting but irrelevant-and wrong) to the point being made.
2. a. The patriot was still the wrong movie. And it was the English being harsh in that movie, not the South, as you origionally claimed. And I have no idea why you brought in the NORTH being harsh, As my only point was it was the WRONG war...
3. Once again, the point was 'what principles were "axe'd" to win the civil war....' And the answer to that is the rights of the (up to that point, anyway) soverign states to conduct their business as they saw fit.
You go of on and IBI tread on the President's ability to wage war as he sees fit, once authorized by congress.
The clearly held power that the USA usurped in the Civil War was as follows: The rights of (up till then) soverign states states to act as soverign states.
The states did NOT ceceede violently. The states ceceeded. The Union chose to place a fort in the territory of one of the ceded states. If you read history (and that was my major in college) you would know that the Civil War was the event that made the USA a "nation state" until then it really was a confederation of soverign states. The southern states were as much in their rights to ceceed as the USA would be to quit the UN, or NATO. Did NATO bomb France when it left? As has often been stated, the Civil War changed "THESE United States" to "THE united states". The Civil War fundamentally changed our conception of ourselves.
The proper method for the south to withdraw was to inform the union of the fact. Just as France informed NATO when it pulled out. France did NOT ask NATO for permission, because it was a soveriegn state. Just as the US would not need the permission of the UN to withdraw from the UN. Again, that's the point of that 10th Amendment thingy.
I believe CA is working on this...
" Until then, we may as well argue about C++ vs Java, or tea vs coffee, or Shakespeare vs Spencer."
C++, Coffee, Spencer.
WHAT founding principles were "axe"'d to win the Civil War? Priority of State over Federal? (Never a founding prinicple). Civilized War? (The southern campaign of the revolution was rather remarkeably harsh--_The Patriot_ got that part right at least). Or maybe having a weak executive who couldn't take action in times of national crisis--no, wait, that one was tossed out the Articles of Confederation.
Uhmm...
1. See Amendment[10]. See the federalist papers, etc. You are wrong.
2. _The Patriot_ was revolutionary war. Yer off approx 100 years.
3. If you check the document (the constitution), you will find it went to great lengths to spell out the *LIMITS* of federal executive power. And just in case, there was any doubt, they did that whole Amendment[10] thing for the hard-of-thinking.
Agreed. /., about 2 blocks from the Lusty Lady...) for a few years, and it worked well for them. Never even needed a car.
I'd either live downtown (and occassionally use flexicar -http://www.flexcar.com/), or not in the city whatsover. I agree it would suck.
My parents did the first option, (Harbor Steps building, kitty-corner from the SAM, Connected to Wolfgang Pucks...Or, since we're on
Unless I decide to get a grad degree sometime soon, I think I'd just say no, though!
"you still have to give them a home address at which the car is registered, don't you? "
No. At least, no it WA. You need to give a billing/contact address. Doesn't need to be your home address. Doesn't need to be the address on the Vehicle registration, either.
Like I said, they care about the garage address, as that is what they do their actuarial (risk) calculations on. If you gave them a fake garage address, *THEN* they'd get upset, declare your policy void, and tell you to go suck an egg.
The insurance thing is really a non-issue. The real issue is that it WOULD be tax fraud. Like I said, expect the PI/Times to do a story within the next 18 months. I'll bet they use the term "epidemic".
Me, I'd never own a car if I lived in Seattle itself, but that's just me.
" A couple dozen at most. "
A beer at the location of your choice (assuming you're in the puget sound- South is better) says that within 18 months, there will be stories in the PI/Times about an "epidemic of"
"Since rates are based on the home address of the owner of the vehicle, insurance companies take a pretty serious interest in making sure that cars are registered at the proper address."
You've brought up the insurance thing a couple times now...So...
1) Nobody is talking about trying to defraud insurance companies. I gave a quick example of how people would try to get out of this tax. If you want to rail against insurance fraud, I'll agree with you, but that's really a separate thread.
2)Just because you give address X to the state when you purchase the vehicle doesn't mean that you can't give address Y to the insurance co when you insure it. In fact, as someone who worked (unfortunately) in the insurance industry for a number of years, it's rather common, normal, and legal. It's called a "garage address". Insurance rates are based on the garage address, NOT the home address. Insurance companies are interested in the garage address, not where they send the bill (as long as it's paid. A quick example, that I'm sure many here can relate to: I went to college in Spokane. My "garage address" was listed on my policy as Spokane. My home address was listed on my policy as my parents address (in Kent). Perfectly above board in the eyes of the insurance co. Don't honestly know whether the taxes were greater in Spokane or Kent, was simply more convienient.
Was NOT a massive PITA, btw.
So you're telling me people won't do it?
No I didn't think so...
"Huh? Do you think it's a sales tax? It's not a sales tax: it's an 1.4% annual motor vehicle excise tax charged to all residents of the city. Are you suggesting people will move to avoid it? Moving is damn expensive, you know."
Registering it to you at the address of your friend in Auburn isn't, however.