Or, conversely, are you surprised to hear that AK47s are already illegal in practice, and that fully automatic weapons have been used in only two, yes TWO homicides since 1934? (Bonus: one of them featured a cop as the murderer. Are we going to keep machine guns out of cops' hands too?)
According to http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html, there have been (at least) two homicides involving legally owned machine guns (including the cop who was the killer).
But that doesn't count the illegal guns: four police officers were killed by full autos between '83 and '92, as well as "less than 1%" of Miami's homicide victims in 1980.
[Their numbers were sourced from Gary Kleck's seminal work, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control."]
I just did a bit of Googling, and I think you're correct - I'm seeing references to covers, not rotating units. But it's been almost 40 years since I drove the car, and that was a lot of brain cells ago . . .
I'm not sure that I understand your reference to covers - I'm referring to a design wherein the entire, twin bulb headlamp rotated. That is, the headlamps pointed down when closed. But my point here and in another comment was that the Merc was distinctly more pedestrian friendly when closed. Again, this car had its headlamps forming part of the grill, not popping up like on a Mazda RX-7.
Huh? How does this affect pedestrian safety? If anything, I'd rather be hit by the smooth metal on the closed lights than the glass headlamps when they were open. Bear in mind, these were located in the grill and rotated in place, rather than popping up from the hood line.
1969 Merc Colony Park. My Dad started routinely seeing the lights open in the morning till he had it fixed. (They were spring loaded to be open; a vacuum cylinder pulled them closed.)
A quick google would suggest it's possible (but not guaranteed)
Hence, my "in general" qualifier. Of more interest is how the nolo.com info applies here. From your link:
"Certain debts are usually automatically nondischargeable, including the following:
- student loans
- child support or spousal support obligations
- debts owed to government entities (fines, taxes, court costs, restitution in criminal cases, etc.) [etc]."
This certainly covers the fine (as I mentioned). The reference to restitution here is a little muddy, as the restitution is owed to the injured party, not to the government. I suspect that they meant restitution ordered by the court, regardless of who it is owed to. That would concur with the quick Googling I did before I posted.
But notwithstanding the above, they go on to say:
"If the judgment creditor files an objection to your discharge and proves the underlying debt to be any of the following types, it may not be dischargeable:
- injury caused by a willful or malicious act, such as assault [etc.]"
The DDOS attack is clearly both willful AND malicious, suggesting that the restitution would stand.
IOW, the nolo.com article supports my initial comment - thanks for the cite!
If it is just to have fun, and public roads are not a fun park,
I've never owned anything in my life but 2 seater sports cars (with the exception of a Porsche Turbo Carrera, which technically is a 4 seat car, but you can't truly use the rear seats for people).....and when I'm out and about and no traffic is around me, or conditions are safe enough for it, I cut loose and hit the gas, take hard corners, etc.
I have cars that are performance cars and they can handle this easily. I've driven them all my life, I know HOW to handle them too.
Unless you ban cars like this, or plan to regulate every car to have the same specs (God forbid)...people that buy higher performance cars are going to kick their heels up from time to time, that is pretty much entirely the purpose of buying such a vehicle.
No need for the spreadsheets. But if you truly believe that, "The cost of fuel is a minor part of the cost of operation and maintenance of a car", I think it is reasonable to expect you to come up with reasonable figures. What vehicle are you thinking of, that averages 30 mpg, costs $1,000 per year to insure, and costs you $3,000/year in depreciation?
"More to the point though, you seem to have confused fireplace with furnace. The only reason smoke would get in your house from a furnace is if something was terribly broken."
His point is that a proper furnace - like an airtight wood stove or insert - does not vent into the house. No interior venting, no increase in pollutants. You can easily burn through 20 cigarettes a day without health issues - if you burn them up in a pile, far away from your lungs.
The Eclipse may be inexpensive, but I'd save the 'cheap' label for such long gone and unlamented cars such as Pintos or Yugos. But that's trivial.
More to the point is that you led off by asserting that, "The cost of fuel is a minor part of the cost of operation and maintenance of a car." You further postulated an average of 30 mpg for your ride. The Impala is rated at 21/25/31 (city/combined/highway) mpg. If you're expecting 30 mpg average, you aren't driving the Impala - you are in a 'cheaper' car.
In addition, you are lumping 'average depreciation' with operating costs. But the depreciation rate is a curve which is notoriously steep when the car is new, but which flattens out as the car ages. You have the option of buying used or new. If you opt for new, then you're obviously going to pay through the nose for depreciation. But if you assume that my car averages $1,600/year in depreciation, then mine should be worth under $4,000 by now. In fact, because I got a good deal initially, my depreciation cost has actually been slightly negative - that is, my car has a slightly higher estimated value now then when I bought it. Point is, depreciation is more of a new car tax - not an operating expense.
But getting back to your Impala. If you buy the five year old model for $10K, do you think you'll see $3,000 per year in depreciation? Certainly not. And are you paying $1,000/year to insure it? If so, you'd probably do well to change companies (I pay under a grand for three vehicles, liability only for two of them).
My point is that if you take the artificially inflated depreciation figures out of your equation, you're looking at your fuel cost being somewhere in the ballpark of one third to one half of your annual automotive expense - which, IMO, is far from being a 'minor part'.
What in the world are you driving? I have a '07 Mitsubishi Eclipse that I bought used for a little over $7,000, three years ago. The Kelly Blue Book value is still about what I paid for it, Granted, I got a good deal on it (through a friend in the business), but I'll never see depreciation even close to $3,000/year. As it happens, I just renewed my insurance (comprehensive/collision/liability) through AAA for under $450/year. I drive much less than 12K per year, but only hit around 25 mpg - maybe $1,000/year. Maintenance? Tires are my most expensive item (I live in the mountains and I drive it like I stole it), but I don't even get close to $1,000 per year. My real world cost of owning the car is much closer to half of what you're postulating = and the fuel cost is a substantial part of the cost of operation.
I also live in a small mountain town, with zero public transportation options. When I lived in the San Fernando valley (California), I had somewhat better options - but the additional time that it required meant that I'd only use the bus when my car was broken. OTOH, I spent a few days in Manhattan last summer, and I marveled at the actual practicality of taking the buses or the subway. If I lived there, I'm sure I would not own a car.
You rent a private PO box under an assumed name. I drop an envelope (or small package) in a street corner mailbox, addressed to your box. You abandon the box after receipt.
IOW, if a drug is used by a niche group (Native Americans, perhaps, using psilocybin) it should be illegal?
Sounds like you're promoting the idea that we should ban anything that hasn't been specifically allowed - rather than allowing anything that hasn't been specifically banned.
I've been a Libertarian for all of my adult life - you can probably guess my opinion on that matter.
I'm reminded somewhat of the 10th amendment, which specifies that powers not specifically granted to the feds are held by the state (or the people). The feds are the ones who are constrained by enumerated powers - not the state. Similarly, substances (including drugs) offered on the market s/b legal unless specifically banned, not illegal unless specifically allowed.
It might be tricky when the part is manufactured rather than purchased, and does not have any serial number - what do you count as "the gun" then?
From my post: "[...] the part (such as a rifle's lower receiver) that is required to have the gun's serial number [...]"
The ATF defines the specific parts that are required to be numbered. Having the actual number is immaterial, in terms of whether or not that specific part is defined as a gun. Grinding the serial number off (an offence of its own) does not affect the status of the part. Whether it is self-manufactured (without a number) or purchased, whether you can use it as a paperweight or a change box doesn't matter - in the eyes of the law, it is a gun. The law does not give a damn if you have the other incidentals (barrel, trigger, etc.) or not - possessing the part itself is all that counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, conversely, are you surprised to hear that AK47s are already illegal in practice, and that fully automatic weapons have been used in only two, yes TWO homicides since 1934? (Bonus: one of them featured a cop as the murderer. Are we going to keep machine guns out of cops' hands too?)
According to http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html, there have been (at least) two homicides involving legally owned machine guns (including the cop who was the killer).
But that doesn't count the illegal guns: four police officers were killed by full autos between '83 and '92, as well as "less than 1%" of Miami's homicide victims in 1980.
[Their numbers were sourced from Gary Kleck's seminal work, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control."]
mmmmmmmm . . . cheese grits.
I just did a bit of Googling, and I think you're correct - I'm seeing references to covers, not rotating units. But it's been almost 40 years since I drove the car, and that was a lot of brain cells ago . . .
I'm not sure that I understand your reference to covers - I'm referring to a design wherein the entire, twin bulb headlamp rotated. That is, the headlamps pointed down when closed. But my point here and in another comment was that the Merc was distinctly more pedestrian friendly when closed. Again, this car had its headlamps forming part of the grill, not popping up like on a Mazda RX-7.
Huh? How does this affect pedestrian safety? If anything, I'd rather be hit by the smooth metal on the closed lights than the glass headlamps when they were open. Bear in mind, these were located in the grill and rotated in place, rather than popping up from the hood line.
1969 Merc Colony Park. My Dad started routinely seeing the lights open in the morning till he had it fixed. (They were spring loaded to be open; a vacuum cylinder pulled them closed.)
A nod to Tom Leher, who did say it - in "Wernher Von Braun", from his "That Was the Year That Was" album.
A quick google would suggest it's possible (but not guaranteed)
Hence, my "in general" qualifier. Of more interest is how the nolo.com info applies here. From your link:
"Certain debts are usually automatically nondischargeable, including the following:
- student loans
- child support or spousal support obligations
- debts owed to government entities (fines, taxes, court costs, restitution in criminal cases, etc.)
[etc]."
This certainly covers the fine (as I mentioned). The reference to restitution here is a little muddy, as the restitution is owed to the injured party, not to the government. I suspect that they meant restitution ordered by the court, regardless of who it is owed to. That would concur with the quick Googling I did before I posted.
But notwithstanding the above, they go on to say:
"If the judgment creditor files an objection to your discharge and proves the underlying debt to be any of the following types, it may not be dischargeable:
- injury caused by a willful or malicious act, such as assault
[etc.]"
The DDOS attack is clearly both willful AND malicious, suggesting that the restitution would stand.
IOW, the nolo.com article supports my initial comment - thanks for the cite!
Not likely - in general, criminal judgments (his fine) and court ordered restitution (the 183K) are not dischargeable.
I've never owned anything in my life but 2 seater sports cars (with the exception of a Porsche Turbo Carrera, which technically is a 4 seat car, but you can't truly use the rear seats for people).....and when I'm out and about and no traffic is around me, or conditions are safe enough for it, I cut loose and hit the gas, take hard corners, etc.
I have cars that are performance cars and they can handle this easily. I've driven them all my life, I know HOW to handle them too.
Unless you ban cars like this, or plan to regulate every car to have the same specs (God forbid)...people that buy higher performance cars are going to kick their heels up from time to time, that is pretty much entirely the purpose of buying such a vehicle.
It is also what radar detectors are for....
In NYC, you can pay cash - but only in coin. No bills. (I found out the hard way, but the driver let me ride for free.)
Of course you meant to say "an example."
No need for the spreadsheets. But if you truly believe that, "The cost of fuel is a minor part of the cost of operation and maintenance of a car", I think it is reasonable to expect you to come up with reasonable figures. What vehicle are you thinking of, that averages 30 mpg, costs $1,000 per year to insure, and costs you $3,000/year in depreciation?
No, not quite. Instead, they pick up your car and leave you with a 'loaded' loaner (or a Roadster, if you prefer). See:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/creating-world%E2%80%99s-best-service-and-warranty-program-0
Looks like you're skipping over:
"More to the point though, you seem to have confused fireplace with furnace. The only reason smoke would get in your house from a furnace is if something was terribly broken."
His point is that a proper furnace - like an airtight wood stove or insert - does not vent into the house. No interior venting, no increase in pollutants. You can easily burn through 20 cigarettes a day without health issues - if you burn them up in a pile, far away from your lungs.
The Eclipse may be inexpensive, but I'd save the 'cheap' label for such long gone and unlamented cars such as Pintos or Yugos. But that's trivial.
More to the point is that you led off by asserting that, "The cost of fuel is a minor part of the cost of operation and maintenance of a car." You further postulated an average of 30 mpg for your ride. The Impala is rated at 21/25/31 (city/combined/highway) mpg. If you're expecting 30 mpg average, you aren't driving the Impala - you are in a 'cheaper' car.
In addition, you are lumping 'average depreciation' with operating costs. But the depreciation rate is a curve which is notoriously steep when the car is new, but which flattens out as the car ages. You have the option of buying used or new. If you opt for new, then you're obviously going to pay through the nose for depreciation. But if you assume that my car averages $1,600/year in depreciation, then mine should be worth under $4,000 by now. In fact, because I got a good deal initially, my depreciation cost has actually been slightly negative - that is, my car has a slightly higher estimated value now then when I bought it. Point is, depreciation is more of a new car tax - not an operating expense.
But getting back to your Impala. If you buy the five year old model for $10K, do you think you'll see $3,000 per year in depreciation? Certainly not. And are you paying $1,000/year to insure it? If so, you'd probably do well to change companies (I pay under a grand for three vehicles, liability only for two of them).
My point is that if you take the artificially inflated depreciation figures out of your equation, you're looking at your fuel cost being somewhere in the ballpark of one third to one half of your annual automotive expense - which, IMO, is far from being a 'minor part'.
What in the world are you driving? I have a '07 Mitsubishi Eclipse that I bought used for a little over $7,000, three years ago. The Kelly Blue Book value is still about what I paid for it, Granted, I got a good deal on it (through a friend in the business), but I'll never see depreciation even close to $3,000/year. As it happens, I just renewed my insurance (comprehensive/collision/liability) through AAA for under $450/year. I drive much less than 12K per year, but only hit around 25 mpg - maybe $1,000/year. Maintenance? Tires are my most expensive item (I live in the mountains and I drive it like I stole it), but I don't even get close to $1,000 per year. My real world cost of owning the car is much closer to half of what you're postulating = and the fuel cost is a substantial part of the cost of operation.
I also live in a small mountain town, with zero public transportation options. When I lived in the San Fernando valley (California), I had somewhat better options - but the additional time that it required meant that I'd only use the bus when my car was broken. OTOH, I spent a few days in Manhattan last summer, and I marveled at the actual practicality of taking the buses or the subway. If I lived there, I'm sure I would not own a car.
Agreed, that's how it is. I misinterpreted your comment.
silkroad6ownowfk.onion
That would be silkroad6ownowfk.onion (you must connect through Tor).
You rent a private PO box under an assumed name. I drop an envelope (or small package) in a street corner mailbox, addressed to your box. You abandon the box after receipt.
Anonymous enough.
IOW, if a drug is used by a niche group (Native Americans, perhaps, using psilocybin) it should be illegal?
Sounds like you're promoting the idea that we should ban anything that hasn't been specifically allowed - rather than allowing anything that hasn't been specifically banned.
I've been a Libertarian for all of my adult life - you can probably guess my opinion on that matter.
I'm reminded somewhat of the 10th amendment, which specifies that powers not specifically granted to the feds are held by the state (or the people). The feds are the ones who are constrained by enumerated powers - not the state. Similarly, substances (including drugs) offered on the market s/b legal unless specifically banned, not illegal unless specifically allowed.
It might be tricky when the part is manufactured rather than purchased, and does not have any serial number - what do you count as "the gun" then?
From my post: "[...] the part (such as a rifle's lower receiver) that is required to have the gun's serial number [...]"
The ATF defines the specific parts that are required to be numbered. Having the actual number is immaterial, in terms of whether or not that specific part is defined as a gun. Grinding the serial number off (an offence of its own) does not affect the status of the part. Whether it is self-manufactured (without a number) or purchased, whether you can use it as a paperweight or a change box doesn't matter - in the eyes of the law, it is a gun. The law does not give a damn if you have the other incidentals (barrel, trigger, etc.) or not - possessing the part itself is all that counts.
Now how is the pigfucker who cannot read?
He is probably feeling a bit contrite.
Got a problem? Pass another law.
Got a business problem? Call for a government mandated rule.
(Want health insurance? [...])