Regardless, movies sold to rental places were far more expensive than retail versions because you also got a license to rent them out.
Not quite so - the studios wanted to restrict (or eliminate) rentals, but the First Sale Doctrine restricted them. The rental stores were free to buy any legal copy and rent it out - there was no need for a license. Your following post puts it more succinctly:
But the real price premium was the fact that the studios expected the buyer to make money off of rentals, and they wanted a cut.
Interestingly, it is using tesla's batteries, and only gets 160 MPC, while Tesla gets around 200 MPC in a $80K car that performs close to it.
Have you got a cite on that?
Car and Driver said that, "The 60-kWh lithium-ion battery pack and the software that manages it were developed by the Formula 1 experts at Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. The 1208-pound pack contains 864 South Korean battery cells" (http://tinyurl.com/pt7wds6).
In comparison, a Tesla battery contains over 7,000 cells.
Electric resistance heating his horribly inefficient.
Electric heating is typically the most expensive way to heat, but that is because electricity is typically more expensive than fossil fuels - not because the heaters are "horribly inefficient." In fact, every electric heater (be it resistive, ceramic, infra-red or whatever) boasts 100% efficiency: every single watt that it uses is converted to exactly one watt of heat. The $14, 1500 watt space heater that you buy at your local big box store puts out exactly the same heat as the 1500 watt unit with the Amish mantle, cured copper cores, etc. that you see advertised for several hundred dollars in the Sunday newspaper (remember newspapers?).
An ICE powered generator has the advantage of being able to use a fuel with a high energy density, but will always lose heat through the exhaust - as well as other inefficiencies relating to the fact that it is separated from the passenger cabin. And how much heat would it actually provide? (That last question was somewhat rhetorical; I certainly don't know the answer.)
That's because the letters aren't silkscreened. Instead, the keys were 'double shot' in which the lettering is a different color plastic, molded into the key. Google "double shot keycaps" for better explanations.
Because you can read it any time you have either an expected or unexpected down time. I've been reading "Great Expectations" on both my HP tablet and Android phone, switching from one to another, and never losing my place.
Again, EPUB is completely safe from being "taken away", and hardware issues really don't matter when you have a format that can be read on virtually any device. As for "censorship", read about how you can no longer get the original version of this book in a physical book, yet my eBook version has the deleted text added back, because I did it myself. Sure, you might be able to hunt down a first edition and pay big money for it, but I'd rather spend far less money and a few minutes of my time to get the same result.
I spent a few minutes and found the 1966 Penguin version for under $10, shipping included: http://tinyurl.com/q2hf2rr
And I'd really like to hear the rest of the story. It would be trivial to rant against fireworks in general, without using the manufacturer's name. So what pressure could they bring about? And why are there no cites? (They do preface the article with the "This article needs additional citations for verification" disclaimer).
I took that test and see a major flaw in it. Mainly that the questions ate much too broad.
A major purpose of the test is to encourage thought, and to replace the traditional linear political map (left/centrist/right) with the two dimensional one, where you'll find people (such as myself) who might take a conservative view on the economy, but who also have a fairly absolute view on a woman's right to an abortion. Or someone who believes in the right to own guns (right wing), but also the right to take drugs (left wing).
For example "Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet." For the most part I agree except that there are certain kinds of speech that the government should censor; hate speech, slander, incitement to violence, etc.
Why should the government censor "hate speech"? And who defines just what it is? Slander is a civil tort and should be remedied in court - but after the fact. Penalties s/b based actual damages - if any. Allowing the gov't to censor such speech means that someone has to make the decision of whether or not it is slander. A person s/b allowed to say whatever he likes, but allowing such speech does not absolve him from responsibility for his speech's effects. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (or incitement to violence) should not go unpunished, but the crime should not be that he yelled. Libertarians take a firm view that a person is responsible for his actions.
Does "End government barriers to international free trade." mean that other countries can dump product on us until our industry is driven out of business and then jack up prices? "Replace government welfare with private charity." it would be nice if people were charitable enough to actively do that but in reality they are not.
I disagree. Google "how charitable are americans" and you'll find that we are actually a very charitable nation - see http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682100 as an example. Religious areas tend to give more, and private (especially religious) charities tend to pass on far more to those in need than do gov't charities. (I am an atheist, but I am in awe of the benefits coming from religious based charities). And how much more generous might we be if our disposable income went up? As in with lower taxes?
"Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more." That sounds like a nice number but it is unrealistic considering the services the government supplies.
Is is only unrealistic if you maintain the current gov't services. Smaller (cheaper) gov't is a Libertarian mantra. The key part of the phrase is to cut spending - the tax reduction follows.
You brought up the main problem with the Libertarian philosophy; reality. While the tenants sound good they do not work well in reality.
This is a problem for every political stance.
Do we really need a national agency to monitor local cable TV rates?
Yes, without such regulation there would be a great disparity in rates in different areas to the point that few people in rural areas could afford TV. By setting rates thaty allow easily serviced areas to subsidize areas where service is difficult.
I've had neither cable nor broadcast TV for at least two decades (I live in the mountains where reception is spotty). I could buy cable or satellite, but I choose to do without. I simply don't consider TV to be a basic right, to be defended by the gov't. But I'm more amenable to universal phone coverage, which means that I'm not really a hard-core Libertarian.
Should it be a government function to support the arts?
Yes, art along with pure science and sport are part of the culture of a nation. Having it around is important to the wellness of the people.
Again, these are areas that should be served by the private sector. If I paid l
Your points are valid, and there is certainly no way to actually apportion exact usage (or benefit) to every person, much less charge them on that basis. But toll roads can shift a great deal of the cost to those who receive the most benefits.
In an ideal libertarian world, the Clean Air Act would be unnecessary - instead, those creating the bad air would be legally accountable to those who suffer, and would either clean up their act or be driven out of business. But this is the real world, where such legislation as the CAA is far more effective at keeping us healthy. As a Libertarian, I don't oppose ALL taxes; nor do I believe that all government is bad. But I do believe that it is far too large, and involved in far too many areas. Do we really need a national agency to monitor local cable TV rates? Should it be a government function to support the arts?
BTW, I've been a registered Libertarian for close to 40 years. It is refreshing to finally see the party making the news, but distressing when extremists such as the Tea Party overshadow the rest of us. For an interesting look at the party's principles, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Ten questions - five on personal freedom, five on economic freedom. It may not convert you, but you may find that you agree with more of our principals than you'd expect.
You have that a bit wrong. A Liberatarian is more amenable to actually paying for services used, rather that paying general taxes that go to who knows where. Example: a Liberatarian would support toll roads over freeways, so that the actual commuters would pay for the roads, not the folks who rarely venture thereon. A Liberatarian is hugely opposed to using services that are paid for by others.
Bitcoin is not legal tender in the USA. This means that no one is obligated to accept it to clear debts.
Newsflash: No one is obligated to accept dollars, either. The familiar phrase: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" only means that the good ol' USA will back the bills, no matter how they are used. It does not place an obligation on the seller to accept them.
You seem to lack some very basic knowledge of law to claim the DMV could have invalid information and it would have no legal bearing.
Obsolete DMV info has nothing to do with current law. CA has had the.08 limit for around a decade or so. Can you cite ANY current DMV info that backs up your claims? You've made reference to some sort of driving test
At this point, you are arguing nothing related to the original point I made that you argued against so there is no point in continuing. No, neither of us can win because you are not on the same subject.
Your original claim was that a breathalyzer was required for a conviction. That is the only point that I have argued against.
You further claimed that "The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test." Do you have a copy of the test?
And you claimed that "The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving."
What guide? Is it on line? Do you have a copy? If so, when is it dated? And in response to my rebuttal:
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
you replied: "That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license."
Can you explain that conclusion?
I've provided links to the DMV code, you've provided vague, unverifiable references. You're free to believe that you can beat a drunk driving charge because you didn't blow up the balloon. I just don't think your defense will hold up in court.
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.
It is true; congress passed a law in 2000 requiring states to adopt the 0.08% limit by 2004 or lose highway funds. All 50 complied. And how in the world is it an easy out?
The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession.
False. Refusing the test is grounds for a one year suspension (with increasing penalties for repeat refusals). It is NOT a confession, and cannot be used for one. No, don't take my word for it - here's the handy linky: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13353.htm
The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.
The threat may be implicit, but again - not a confession, not a conviction.
Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.
To repeat (yet again):
"[...] but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree."
and from an earlier post:
"The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction."
The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving.
It may be an easy source, but:
- It is does not carry the force of law. The vehicle code can be found at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/. If it isn't there, it doesn't apply.
- It is off by an order of magnitude. BAC levels of 0.7 - 1.0 percent are in the fatal range. I have to assume that the intended values are 0.07 - 0.10 percent.
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
The reason I point out the pedantic issues is that you don't come out and claim "In CA it's called DUI not drunk driving like most other States", or "in CA it's called under the influence and not impaired like most other States". Perhaps that was your point, however you never communicated that point. If you had communicated those thoughts I would have agreed. Numerous States have different names for the same crime.
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.
That was the example I gave, so yes we can agree that "Drunk Driving" can not be convicted based on a cop claiming "he smelled like alcohol.
You then pull a sentence out as stand alone so it loses context, which was given to match the above which you seem to agree with. Is English your 2nd language and you don't understand how a paragraph is supposed to work?
No, English is my first (and essentially only) language. How 'bout yourself? The reason I ask is that because while I posited that you asserted that a test was necessary for a conviction, you replied by claiming that my posit was equivalent to me agreeing with your assertion. This is hardly the case.
Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.
Are you to claim that you can not be charged for DUI in CA? Once again, you don't seem to be pedantic since you don't mention DUI.
Again, is English a second language? I'm puzzled by your use of "pedantic", both here and earlier. In any case, I pointed out earlier (in that "snipped as not relevant") section that there was indeed a DUI (of anything) law, that there was a per se law, but that there was NOT a "drunk driving" law. I also asked you how you defined "drunk driving", add - more specifically - what laws applied.
You further don't mention "influence" so the same statement applies. Read the text of the laws and they do exist defining the limits of impaired vs. drunk driving. http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/laws.html states very clearly the summaries.
A useful site; that was where I copied the "not relevant" cites from. In fact, I delved quite deeply there, but did not see any references to "limits of impaired vs. drunk driving." Perhaps you could provide a link?
No, I don't feel it pertinent to a Slashdot discussion to point out exact verbiage and numbers of Laws, but rather use common names which everyone can associate with.
That's basically what I thought (using common names), but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree.
No, I won't site an easy to Google example of motorists arrested and ticketed for careless or impaired driving where no alcohol was involved.
I'm not sure where that came from, or what you mean by it. Perhaps I'm dense.
Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code: *snipped as not relevant*
The only way to prove "Drunk Driving" is with a method of measuring the alcohol level in blood (either breathalyzer or blood test, but you never mentioned a blood test and they are a bit rare in the US [compared to Germany] so you are not being simply pedantic).
Or a urine test, at least in California. I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.
This charge can not stand with only a cop saying "they smelled like booze", and would not stand even with video of erratic driving.
That is conjecture on your part.
If I had given a generalization, I could see the confusion. I gave a very specific example to show that "cop smelling alcohol" is not relevant to "legality" in any law.
You keep trying to blur the line between impaired and drunk driving, when there is a very clear legal definition.
Please point me to the definition. I cited two laws; you called them irrelevant.
Yes, a breathalyzer (or blood test as mentioned above) _is_ required for "drunk driving" charges.
Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.
Video of a weaving driver, witnesses claiming erratic behavior, etc.. could be used as evidence with the cop "smelling alcohol" as impaired or careless driving. There is a difference between Impaired/Careless and Drunk, despite your repeated attempts to claim that they are the same thing.
If there is such a difference, please point me to the relevant laws. As I cited, you can be guilty of driving under the influence [of alcohol or drugs], you can be guilty of having a blood alcohol level of over.08%, or both. Video of a weaving driver, etc., would certainly be compelling evidence of being under the influence. A chemical test would be required for the.08% case. Are you asserting that DUI is not "drunk driving?"
Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code:
23152(a) It is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. 23152(b) It is a misdemeanor to drive with.08% or more of alcohol in your blood.
So: what do you mean by "drunk driving?" I assumed (my fault, I know) that you were referring to a situation where a person's driving was affected by his drinking - section (a) above. In which case, no Breathalyzer is required. Section (b) obviously requires some form of testing ('tho not necessarily a Breathalyzer), but there is no requirement that you be "drunk" - only that your alcohol level be above some arbitrary point.
The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction.
No, I made no such claim (that there is no burden of proof.) I pointed out that your actions (weaving, etc.) could be sufficient proof of impairment - that there is no requirement for a Breathalyzer (or other empirical testing) at all.
[...] to which I'll say it takes a breathalyzer to show drunk driving and not simply an odor.
I don't know where you live, but [at least] in California, there is no Breathalyzer required. The law says that you can't drive while impaired, and the officer's testimony can be sufficient to convict. "Can be", as in he does have to convince the judge or jury. If he testifies that you were weaving about, had bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol on your breath, couldn't touch your nose, etc., it is likely that you'll go down. The Breathalyzer simply makes it easier to convict: by law, a blood alcohol level of over 0.08% is a presumption of guilt; no further proof is required.
And if your level is below 0.08%, you're still not off the hook. Once again, it comes down to whether or not you're impaired - regardless of your blood alky level. Which sorta brings us to . ..
A tablespoon of Robitussin contains alcohol, so should a person with a head cold be jailed for driving?
If that person is taking enough cold medicine to affect his driving, then yes - he can be jailed. The law doesn't care if it's alcohol, OTC medications, or prescription drugs. If it impairs your driving, you're guilty.
No, it's relevant because - as the cited site points out - legally owned, full autos have distinctly not been a factor in crimes. But making such absurd claims (that there have been only two homicides by autos in almost 80 years) leads to reasonable questioning of the credibility of valid pro-gun arguments. It is not unlike Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling. Stick to the facts, and you're safe. Get caught with spouting mistruths, and your legitimate arguments will be ignored.
[BTW - I'm a 1911 owner (Colt's Combat Commander, Mk. II Series 80, SS), and a life long 2nd Amendment supporter - which, IMHO, includes the right to own assault weapons.]
Slashdot Mirror
... which just means that an slightly above average man...
That should be a, not an. You must be a guy.
Regardless, movies sold to rental places were far more expensive than retail versions because you also got a license to rent them out.
Not quite so - the studios wanted to restrict (or eliminate) rentals, but the First Sale Doctrine restricted them. The rental stores were free to buy any legal copy and rent it out - there was no need for a license. Your following post puts it more succinctly:
But the real price premium was the fact that the studios expected the buyer to make money off of rentals, and they wanted a cut.
Off topic, but I hear that there is a movement to split Alaska in half - and make Texas the third largest state in the union.
Interestingly, it is using tesla's batteries, and only gets 160 MPC, while Tesla gets around 200 MPC in a $80K car that performs close to it.
Have you got a cite on that?
Car and Driver said that, "The 60-kWh lithium-ion battery pack and the software that manages it were developed by the Formula 1 experts at Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. The 1208-pound pack contains 864 South Korean battery cells" (http://tinyurl.com/pt7wds6).
In comparison, a Tesla battery contains over 7,000 cells.
Google "robot vacuum self emptying" and dig out your wallet. Yes, they're out there.
Electric resistance heating his horribly inefficient.
Electric heating is typically the most expensive way to heat, but that is because electricity is typically more expensive than fossil fuels - not because the heaters are "horribly inefficient." In fact, every electric heater (be it resistive, ceramic, infra-red or whatever) boasts 100% efficiency: every single watt that it uses is converted to exactly one watt of heat. The $14, 1500 watt space heater that you buy at your local big box store puts out exactly the same heat as the 1500 watt unit with the Amish mantle, cured copper cores, etc. that you see advertised for several hundred dollars in the Sunday newspaper (remember newspapers?).
An ICE powered generator has the advantage of being able to use a fuel with a high energy density, but will always lose heat through the exhaust - as well as other inefficiencies relating to the fact that it is separated from the passenger cabin. And how much heat would it actually provide? (That last question was somewhat rhetorical; I certainly don't know the answer.)
That's because the letters aren't silkscreened. Instead, the keys were 'double shot' in which the lettering is a different color plastic, molded into the key. Google "double shot keycaps" for better explanations.
[Typed on one of my three Model Ms.]
He definitely had me on board when he mentioned "blancmange "
Here's your starting point: http://www.irobot.com/us/learn/Educators/Create.aspx
Because you can read it any time you have either an expected or unexpected down time. I've been reading "Great Expectations" on both my HP tablet and Android phone, switching from one to another, and never losing my place.
Again, EPUB is completely safe from being "taken away", and hardware issues really don't matter when you have a format that can be read on virtually any device. As for "censorship", read about how you can no longer get the original version of this book in a physical book, yet my eBook version has the deleted text added back, because I did it myself. Sure, you might be able to hunt down a first edition and pay big money for it, but I'd rather spend far less money and a few minutes of my time to get the same result.
I spent a few minutes and found the 1966 Penguin version for under $10, shipping included: http://tinyurl.com/q2hf2rr
And I'd really like to hear the rest of the story. It would be trivial to rant against fireworks in general, without using the manufacturer's name. So what pressure could they bring about? And why are there no cites? (They do preface the article with the "This article needs additional citations for verification" disclaimer).
I took that test and see a major flaw in it. Mainly that the questions ate much too broad.
A major purpose of the test is to encourage thought, and to replace the traditional linear political map (left/centrist/right) with the two dimensional one, where you'll find people (such as myself) who might take a conservative view on the economy, but who also have a fairly absolute view on a woman's right to an abortion. Or someone who believes in the right to own guns (right wing), but also the right to take drugs (left wing).
For example "Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet." For the most part I agree except that there are certain kinds of speech that the government should censor; hate speech, slander, incitement to violence, etc.
Why should the government censor "hate speech"? And who defines just what it is? Slander is a civil tort and should be remedied in court - but after the fact. Penalties s/b based actual damages - if any. Allowing the gov't to censor such speech means that someone has to make the decision of whether or not it is slander. A person s/b allowed to say whatever he likes, but allowing such speech does not absolve him from responsibility for his speech's effects. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (or incitement to violence) should not go unpunished, but the crime should not be that he yelled. Libertarians take a firm view that a person is responsible for his actions.
Does "End government barriers to international free trade." mean that other countries can dump product on us until our industry is driven out of business and then jack up prices? "Replace government welfare with private charity." it would be nice if people were charitable enough to actively do that but in reality they are not.
I disagree. Google "how charitable are americans" and you'll find that we are actually a very charitable nation - see http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682100 as an example. Religious areas tend to give more, and private (especially religious) charities tend to pass on far more to those in need than do gov't charities. (I am an atheist, but I am in awe of the benefits coming from religious based charities). And how much more generous might we be if our disposable income went up? As in with lower taxes?
"Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more." That sounds like a nice number but it is unrealistic considering the services the government supplies.
Is is only unrealistic if you maintain the current gov't services. Smaller (cheaper) gov't is a Libertarian mantra. The key part of the phrase is to cut spending - the tax reduction follows.
You brought up the main problem with the Libertarian philosophy; reality. While the tenants sound good they do not work well in reality.
This is a problem for every political stance.
Do we really need a national agency to monitor local cable TV rates?
Yes, without such regulation there would be a great disparity in rates in different areas to the point that few people in rural areas could afford TV. By setting rates thaty allow easily serviced areas to subsidize areas where service is difficult.
I've had neither cable nor broadcast TV for at least two decades (I live in the mountains where reception is spotty). I could buy cable or satellite, but I choose to do without. I simply don't consider TV to be a basic right, to be defended by the gov't. But I'm more amenable to universal phone coverage, which means that I'm not really a hard-core Libertarian.
Should it be a government function to support the arts?
Yes, art along with pure science and sport are part of the culture of a nation. Having it around is important to the wellness of the people.
Again, these are areas that should be served by the private sector. If I paid l
Your points are valid, and there is certainly no way to actually apportion exact usage (or benefit) to every person, much less charge them on that basis. But toll roads can shift a great deal of the cost to those who receive the most benefits.
In an ideal libertarian world, the Clean Air Act would be unnecessary - instead, those creating the bad air would be legally accountable to those who suffer, and would either clean up their act or be driven out of business. But this is the real world, where such legislation as the CAA is far more effective at keeping us healthy. As a Libertarian, I don't oppose ALL taxes; nor do I believe that all government is bad. But I do believe that it is far too large, and involved in far too many areas. Do we really need a national agency to monitor local cable TV rates? Should it be a government function to support the arts?
BTW, I've been a registered Libertarian for close to 40 years. It is refreshing to finally see the party making the news, but distressing when extremists such as the Tea Party overshadow the rest of us. For an interesting look at the party's principles, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Ten questions - five on personal freedom, five on economic freedom. It may not convert you, but you may find that you agree with more of our principals than you'd expect.
You have that a bit wrong. A Liberatarian is more amenable to actually paying for services used, rather that paying general taxes that go to who knows where. Example: a Liberatarian would support toll roads over freeways, so that the actual commuters would pay for the roads, not the folks who rarely venture thereon. A Liberatarian is hugely opposed to using services that are paid for by others.
Bitcoin is not legal tender in the USA. This means that no one is obligated to accept it to clear debts.
Newsflash: No one is obligated to accept dollars, either. The familiar phrase: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" only means that the good ol' USA will back the bills, no matter how they are used. It does not place an obligation on the seller to accept them.
You seem to lack some very basic knowledge of law to claim the DMV could have invalid information and it would have no legal bearing.
Obsolete DMV info has nothing to do with current law. CA has had the .08 limit for around a decade or so. Can you cite ANY current DMV info that backs up your claims? You've made reference to some sort of driving test
At this point, you are arguing nothing related to the original point I made that you argued against so there is no point in continuing. No, neither of us can win because you are not on the same subject.
Your original claim was that a breathalyzer was required for a conviction. That is the only point that I have argued against.
You further claimed that "The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test." Do you have a copy of the test?
And you claimed that "The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving."
What guide? Is it on line? Do you have a copy? If so, when is it dated? And in response to my rebuttal:
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
you replied: "That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license."
Can you explain that conclusion?
I've provided links to the DMV code, you've provided vague, unverifiable references. You're free to believe that you can beat a drunk driving charge because you didn't blow up the balloon. I just don't think your defense will hold up in court.
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.
It is true; congress passed a law in 2000 requiring states to adopt the 0.08% limit by 2004 or lose highway funds. All 50 complied. And how in the world is it an easy out?
The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.
Which link? And since when does a driving test carry the force of law? Here is a direct link to the relevant law: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession.
False. Refusing the test is grounds for a one year suspension (with increasing penalties for repeat refusals). It is NOT a confession, and cannot be used for one. No, don't take my word for it - here's the handy linky: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13353.htm
The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.
The threat may be implicit, but again - not a confession, not a conviction.
Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.
To repeat (yet again):
"[...] but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree."
and from an earlier post:
"The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction."
The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving.
It may be an easy source, but:
- It is does not carry the force of law. The vehicle code can be found at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/. If it isn't there, it doesn't apply.
- It is off by an order of magnitude. BAC levels of 0.7 - 1.0 percent are in the fatal range. I have to assume that the intended values are 0.07 - 0.10 percent.
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
The reason I point out the pedantic issues is that you don't come out and claim "In CA it's called DUI not drunk driving like most other States", or "in CA it's called under the influence and not impaired like most other States". Perhaps that was your point, however you never communicated that point. If you had communicated those thoughts I would have agreed. Numerous States have different names for the same crime.
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.
That was the example I gave, so yes we can agree that "Drunk Driving" can not be convicted based on a cop claiming "he smelled like alcohol.
You then pull a sentence out as stand alone so it loses context, which was given to match the above which you seem to agree with. Is English your 2nd language and you don't understand how a paragraph is supposed to work?
No, English is my first (and essentially only) language. How 'bout yourself? The reason I ask is that because while I posited that you asserted that a test was necessary for a conviction, you replied by claiming that my posit was equivalent to me agreeing with your assertion. This is hardly the case.
Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.
Are you to claim that you can not be charged for DUI in CA? Once again, you don't seem to be pedantic since you don't mention DUI.
Again, is English a second language? I'm puzzled by your use of "pedantic", both here and earlier. In any case, I pointed out earlier (in that "snipped as not relevant") section that there was indeed a DUI (of anything) law, that there was a per se law, but that there was NOT a "drunk driving" law. I also asked you how you defined "drunk driving", add - more specifically - what laws applied.
You further don't mention "influence" so the same statement applies. Read the text of the laws and they do exist defining the limits of impaired vs. drunk driving. http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/laws.html states very clearly the summaries.
A useful site; that was where I copied the "not relevant" cites from. In fact, I delved quite deeply there, but did not see any references to "limits of impaired vs. drunk driving." Perhaps you could provide a link?
No, I don't feel it pertinent to a Slashdot discussion to point out exact verbiage and numbers of Laws, but rather use common names which everyone can associate with.
That's basically what I thought (using common names), but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree.
No, I won't site an easy to Google example of motorists arrested and ticketed for careless or impaired driving where no alcohol was involved.
I'm not sure where that came from, or what you mean by it. Perhaps I'm dense.
That would be like connecting a gun safety to the trigger, so that the safety is released as the trigger is pulled!
You mean as Glock does with its "safe action" system?
http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action
Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code: *snipped as not relevant*
The only way to prove "Drunk Driving" is with a method of measuring the alcohol level in blood (either breathalyzer or blood test, but you never mentioned a blood test and they are a bit rare in the US [compared to Germany] so you are not being simply pedantic).
Or a urine test, at least in California. I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.
This charge can not stand with only a cop saying "they smelled like booze", and would not stand even with video of erratic driving.
That is conjecture on your part.
If I had given a generalization, I could see the confusion. I gave a very specific example to show that "cop smelling alcohol" is not relevant to "legality" in any law.
You keep trying to blur the line between impaired and drunk driving, when there is a very clear legal definition.
Please point me to the definition. I cited two laws; you called them irrelevant.
Yes, a breathalyzer (or blood test as mentioned above) _is_ required for "drunk driving" charges.
Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.
Video of a weaving driver, witnesses claiming erratic behavior, etc.. could be used as evidence with the cop "smelling alcohol" as impaired or careless driving. There is a difference between Impaired/Careless and Drunk, despite your repeated attempts to claim that they are the same thing.
If there is such a difference, please point me to the relevant laws. As I cited, you can be guilty of driving under the influence [of alcohol or drugs], you can be guilty of having a blood alcohol level of over .08%, or both. Video of a weaving driver, etc., would certainly be compelling evidence of being under the influence. A chemical test would be required for the .08% case. Are you asserting that DUI is not "drunk driving?"
Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code:
23152(a) It is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. .08% or more of alcohol in your blood.
23152(b) It is a misdemeanor to drive with
So: what do you mean by "drunk driving?" I assumed (my fault, I know) that you were referring to a situation where a person's driving was affected by his drinking - section (a) above. In which case, no Breathalyzer is required. Section (b) obviously requires some form of testing ('tho not necessarily a Breathalyzer), but there is no requirement that you be "drunk" - only that your alcohol level be above some arbitrary point.
The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction.
No, I made no such claim (that there is no burden of proof.) I pointed out that your actions (weaving, etc.) could be sufficient proof of impairment - that there is no requirement for a Breathalyzer (or other empirical testing) at all.
[...] to which I'll say it takes a breathalyzer to show drunk driving and not simply an odor.
I don't know where you live, but [at least] in California, there is no Breathalyzer required. The law says that you can't drive while impaired, and the officer's testimony can be sufficient to convict. "Can be", as in he does have to convince the judge or jury. If he testifies that you were weaving about, had bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol on your breath, couldn't touch your nose, etc., it is likely that you'll go down. The Breathalyzer simply makes it easier to convict: by law, a blood alcohol level of over 0.08% is a presumption of guilt; no further proof is required.
And if your level is below 0.08%, you're still not off the hook. Once again, it comes down to whether or not you're impaired - regardless of your blood alky level. Which sorta brings us to . . .
A tablespoon of Robitussin contains alcohol, so should a person with a head cold be jailed for driving?
If that person is taking enough cold medicine to affect his driving, then yes - he can be jailed. The law doesn't care if it's alcohol, OTC medications, or prescription drugs. If it impairs your driving, you're guilty.
No, it's relevant because - as the cited site points out - legally owned, full autos have distinctly not been a factor in crimes. But making such absurd claims (that there have been only two homicides by autos in almost 80 years) leads to reasonable questioning of the credibility of valid pro-gun arguments. It is not unlike Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling. Stick to the facts, and you're safe. Get caught with spouting mistruths, and your legitimate arguments will be ignored.
[BTW - I'm a 1911 owner (Colt's Combat Commander, Mk. II Series 80, SS), and a life long 2nd Amendment supporter - which, IMHO, includes the right to own assault weapons.]