Question: Why do you care so much what other people teach their kids? If anything, giving them false information as if it were fact puts your kids at an advantage.
in the US, at least, many of those in power are STAUNCHLY religious. they make the rules the rest of us have to live by!
OK, well, that's a good argument against letting certain groups gain a majority of power, but it still doesn't explain why you think you have a right to dictate what lessons other people's children are taught.
does that fully explain our fear in having ignorance pushed out to the populace, widespread?
The fear? Yes. The unreasonable, knee-jerk hypocrisy, less so. I'm all for keeping dumb people out of power, regardless of their religious affiliation, but I'm not about to say that I should be the one to decide what they can and cannot teach their own offspring. Mainly, because I wouldn't want someone else dictating what I can teach my kids.
Consequence of freedom. And, presuming that's a video of G.W. Bush (I don't bother with video links), I doubt you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of Democratic Presidents doing/saying stupid shit - Obama's almost as bad as Gee-Dub when it comes to "open-mouth-insert-foot" moments.
Those kids will very definitely go around telling other people what they can/can't do (eg. gay marriage).
Riiiiight, because kids raised by "progressive" parents definitely don't think they have a right to dictate what kind of cars others can drive, or what weapons they can own, or what they can do with their own property... </sarc>
If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.
Because had they done that, they would not be able to use this bill as a weapon against the party they'll be running against.
Indeed - just look at the way the summary writer uplifts Democrats while lambasting Republicans, even though any objective observer will tell you they're essentially two sides of the same, evil coin.
regardless of truth, what could you possibly gain by subscribing to the 911 conspiracies?
Not being a blind idiot who believes everything a known-to-be-corrupt government tells him?
I don't know much about "truthers," but I do know that some of the "facts" of that event, as the government has presented them, do not pass scientific or logical muster.
Considering that we have government agencies who truly believe their job is to lie to the American people, I'm hard pressed to say that "truthers" are as out-there as some people want me to think.
Apart from all those parents telling their kids...
Question: Why do you care so much what other people teach their kids? If anything, giving them false information as if it were fact puts your kids at an advantage.
Granted, I myself would prefer that parents not teach their children to be morons, but I also recognize that A) it's not my place to tell them how to raise their offspring, and B) that is a daunting task I doubt anyone is capable of taking on.
It's all a matter of what the arresting officer chooses to charge you with - I can imagine the general consensus among LEOs is that nobody impersonates an ambulance.
I personally find it funny, how "electric cars" are touted as new technology, when they predate internal combustion ones. Yea, you and I know better, but the MSM, and the people who get all their news from the MSM, do not.
You could do that now with a set of cop lights for your roof or grill.
You don't because, choose one: 1) You're not an asshole or 2) You realize it won't be a net time savings, once you include the time in court and picking up trash on the shoulder.
FYI, the crime of "impersonating a police officer" carries a far stiffer penalty than a few hours of community service.
I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
Your little anecdote about Sheriff Joe doesn't change that, namely because there's no mention of actual stalking there (an "open threat" != "stalker"), but also because it seems to me he was being "stalked," if you could even call it that*, because he is an asshole, not specifically because he's a cop.
* I think anyone who's actually been stalked by someone that wants to harm them would likely take offense to that claim. People make idle threats all the time, it's different when you find note left for you somewhere that person shouldn't have had access to; so, wake me when Arpaio starts finding dead cats or the like in his locker, or under the seat of his private automobile.
I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
Joe most certainly has been stalked based on his information being public - and moreso as a result of his feud with the Phoenix New Times and their publishing of his data. You can argue that it doesn't have anything to do with him being a LEO, but with his beliefs, but now we're just splitting hairs.
No, it's not 'splitting hairs' - I myself have been stalked because of comments I made publicly; I am not a LEO, nor are the vast majority of people who are stalked by individuals accessing public records. Which is my point - most people who are stalked are not members of law 'enforcement,' and therefore we don't need to give special protections to LEOs just because, one fucking time, one of them got a little sand in his vagina. Hell, if anything we need to put more scrutiny on these public servants, to make sure they aren't abusing the access they have to non-public records.
Yea - "from $69,900 - that's marketing talk for "$69,900 and up." Per Tesla's website, the $70K model has an "EPA-Certified Range" of just over 200 miles, no free access to Superchargers, and no lifetime replacement warranty on the batteries. As the theme of the article we're discussing is "OMG No Fuel Cost Cross Country Drive," it becomes obvious that the $70K base model was not the one being used, but rather it was either the $79,900 85Kw or the $89,900 85Kw Performance version.
On the plus side, though, both 85Kw variants have a range closer to 300 miles.
I don't think that's close to $100,000 or even $80,000.
Well, I said $80K, and if you can't see how $70K is close to $80K... You probably have a different understanding of the value of things than most people I've ever met.
That said, it's still at the pricey side, when you can get a fuel efficient reliable new car for $24,000. But there are a lot of people who can afford this price range, as the large number of vehicles sold in that range indicates. Once the infrastructure is set up and Tesla is ready to release their $30,000 vehicle, the price question will be even less relevant.
Sure, save the fact that most of the people they want to sell $30,000 electric cars to already own $30,000 fossil fuel cars, and can't afford that extra payment. I presume Tesla is banking its hopes on the idea that those people will, someday, trade in their current vehicle and opt for an electric; only time (and availability) can tell on that one.
Personally, I've considered trading my wife's TDI Jetta in on one of the cheaper models when they come out, as it would make a perfect commuter vehicle for her; however, I'm stymied by the fact that I often take trips of over 600 miles in 2 days, and cannot afford to waste time A) searching for a Supercharger (Which won't exist in my state for another 2-3 years), B) waiting for someone else to finish charging so I can start my hour, C) driving around and around until I find a publicly accessible outlet owned by someone cool enough to let me use it, etc.
Plus, the Vee-Dub is fuckin' tight, man - never realized how nice a car 30 grand could get you until I bought the TDI.
B) When you drive 200 miles at a time, do you stop to use a rest room and/or eat?
Hell no!
It's a 3-4 hour trip, hold your shit; I do.
Plug in while you're doing that, and you'll have no problem making the 200 miles.
"Plug in" for how long, and where? Just hope some local resident of Bum-Fuck Egypt has an external outlet, and is kind enough to let me spend an hour or two sucking a few kilowatts the electricity they pay for? Not to mention, I don't know about you but I consider my time, especially on a weekend road trip, far to valuable to waste in such a manner.
So you know, I can spend 10 minutes filling up the TDI, and it will get me there and back (~500 miles total) with enough fuel left to drive to work on Monday. When you consider that 99.99% of the driving population is not only used to, but expects that sort of convenience, you begin to see why electric cars aren't 'taking over' anytime soon.
There's no rule that you have to top up your charge every time you "fill up".
There's no rule that I have to top off my fuel tank, either. The difference is, if I start to run low on diesel, I can pop into the service station that exists on every highway off-ramp and most street corners and re-up. Finding a good-hearted soul that's going to let me park on their property and soak up some of the juice they pay for, not so easy.
While there are a number of reasons to avoid electric vehicles, including the Model S, your reasons are more the popular ones bandied about than actual
Anecdotal evidence regarding one guy who's a known racist, has been investigated for abuse of power, and is, generally speaking, a massive attention whore, is not what I would consider evidence of a systemic issue involving public records of persons working as LEOs.
Actually, never mind the other stuff - all the attention whoring is enough to get anybody on a whackjob's radar.
You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you.
If it's public information, the government provides it to everyone.
If it's from a social networking site (like LinkedIn), the individual themselves provided it.
And, of course, that applies to people of all professions.
(as is more common for people in law enforcement than others)
Yea, I hear that line of BS from LEOs a lot, but honestly I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
Much the contrary, LEOs use non-public databases to stalk/kill ex-lovers, people who cut them off in traffic, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Question: Why do you care so much what other people teach their kids? If anything, giving them false information as if it were fact puts your kids at an advantage.
in the US, at least, many of those in power are STAUNCHLY religious. they make the rules the rest of us have to live by!
OK, well, that's a good argument against letting certain groups gain a majority of power, but it still doesn't explain why you think you have a right to dictate what lessons other people's children are taught.
does that fully explain our fear in having ignorance pushed out to the populace, widespread?
The fear? Yes. The unreasonable, knee-jerk hypocrisy, less so. I'm all for keeping dumb people out of power, regardless of their religious affiliation, but I'm not about to say that I should be the one to decide what they can and cannot teach their own offspring. Mainly, because I wouldn't want someone else dictating what I can teach my kids.
See what I did there?
False dilemma, while I agree, not necessarily all objective observers will. Maybe most, or a lot, but probably not all.
But.. if they're all objective observers, how can they arrive at differing, subjective outcomes?
What matters is what the DA charges you with. Cops don't file charges.
They arrest you for stuff; in order to arrest you, they must charge you with a crime.
You're conflating charged with prosecuted.
Question: Why do you care so much what other people teach their kids?
Very simple: Because those kids grow up to run the country.
People like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Consequence of freedom. And, presuming that's a video of G.W. Bush (I don't bother with video links), I doubt you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of Democratic Presidents doing/saying stupid shit - Obama's almost as bad as Gee-Dub when it comes to "open-mouth-insert-foot" moments.
Those kids will very definitely go around telling other people what they can/can't do (eg. gay marriage).
Riiiiight, because kids raised by "progressive" parents definitely don't think they have a right to dictate what kind of cars others can drive, or what weapons they can own, or what they can do with their own property... </sarc>
If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.
Because had they done that, they would not be able to use this bill as a weapon against the party they'll be running against.
Propaganda works. Sorry.
Indeed - just look at the way the summary writer uplifts Democrats while lambasting Republicans, even though any objective observer will tell you they're essentially two sides of the same, evil coin.
Wow, so all members of all religions are in a conspiracy to take over the government?
Generalizations - mostly false, including this one.
regardless of truth, what could you possibly gain by subscribing to the 911 conspiracies?
Not being a blind idiot who believes everything a known-to-be-corrupt government tells him?
I don't know much about "truthers," but I do know that some of the "facts" of that event, as the government has presented them, do not pass scientific or logical muster.
Considering that we have government agencies who truly believe their job is to lie to the American people, I'm hard pressed to say that "truthers" are as out-there as some people want me to think.
No, actually, he doesn't. That was my point... and why having a public debate on a subject like this is meaningless.
So take it as "entertainment" and ready the popcorn.
That's my plan.
There is no downside to this debate.
Apart from all those parents telling their kids...
Question: Why do you care so much what other people teach their kids? If anything, giving them false information as if it were fact puts your kids at an advantage.
Granted, I myself would prefer that parents not teach their children to be morons, but I also recognize that A) it's not my place to tell them how to raise their offspring, and B) that is a daunting task I doubt anyone is capable of taking on.
... a verbal debate's just a stunt.
To a person who sucks at extemporaneous expression, I'd say it probably does appear that way.
However, for people who actually know what they're talking about, and do their research beforehand instead of on the spot, it works out pretty well.
You can't legally mandate technical breakthroughs.
Yet, here we are, discussing such a possibility.
It's all a matter of what the arresting officer chooses to charge you with - I can imagine the general consensus among LEOs is that nobody impersonates an ambulance.
I personally find it funny, how "electric cars" are touted as new technology, when they predate internal combustion ones. Yea, you and I know better, but the MSM, and the people who get all their news from the MSM, do not.
YMMV, obviously.
Stuff in your pockets isnt "public", and I wasnt saying otherwise.
Then you probably should have used a different phrasing than, "When youre in public, you're fair game."
Societally, I'm glad to have us focusing on improving safety and efficiency of transportation.
Were that the actual goal, why not just mandate that all cars have an auto-pilot function by Year X? Spyware doesn't really fulfill that purpose.
You could do that now with a set of cop lights for your roof or grill.
You don't because, choose one: 1) You're not an asshole or 2) You realize it won't be a net time savings, once you include the time in court and picking up trash on the shoulder.
FYI, the crime of "impersonating a police officer" carries a far stiffer penalty than a few hours of community service.
All technology adoption curves have an early adoption phase.
Considering that the first, "practical" electric car was invented in the 1880's, I think we're a bit beyond the whole "early adoption" meme.
More like "late adaptation," really.
I said
I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
Your little anecdote about Sheriff Joe doesn't change that, namely because there's no mention of actual stalking there (an "open threat" != "stalker"), but also because it seems to me he was being "stalked," if you could even call it that*, because he is an asshole, not specifically because he's a cop.
* I think anyone who's actually been stalked by someone that wants to harm them would likely take offense to that claim. People make idle threats all the time, it's different when you find note left for you somewhere that person shouldn't have had access to; so, wake me when Arpaio starts finding dead cats or the like in his locker, or under the seat of his private automobile.
I don't know anyone who even has one of these emergency radios.
I presume you don't live in Tornado Alley.
They practically hand those things out at birth around here.
Deaf people don't listen to the radio you morons.
Well, I wouldn't call it "listening," but I have a cousin who likes to crank the bass and 'feel' what's on the radio.
He's also a pretty damn phenomenal guitarist, considering he has no idea what it sounds like.
So, you know... generalizations and all...
I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
Joe most certainly has been stalked based on his information being public - and moreso as a result of his feud with the Phoenix New Times and their publishing of his data. You can argue that it doesn't have anything to do with him being a LEO, but with his beliefs, but now we're just splitting hairs.
No, it's not 'splitting hairs' - I myself have been stalked because of comments I made publicly; I am not a LEO, nor are the vast majority of people who are stalked by individuals accessing public records. Which is my point - most people who are stalked are not members of law 'enforcement,' and therefore we don't need to give special protections to LEOs just because, one fucking time, one of them got a little sand in his vagina. Hell, if anything we need to put more scrutiny on these public servants, to make sure they aren't abusing the access they have to non-public records.
A) 2013 Tesla Model S: from 69,900 USD
Yea - "from $69,900 - that's marketing talk for "$69,900 and up." Per Tesla's website, the $70K model has an "EPA-Certified Range" of just over 200 miles, no free access to Superchargers, and no lifetime replacement warranty on the batteries. As the theme of the article we're discussing is "OMG No Fuel Cost Cross Country Drive," it becomes obvious that the $70K base model was not the one being used, but rather it was either the $79,900 85Kw or the $89,900 85Kw Performance version.
On the plus side, though, both 85Kw variants have a range closer to 300 miles.
I don't think that's close to $100,000 or even $80,000.
Well, I said $80K, and if you can't see how $70K is close to $80K... You probably have a different understanding of the value of things than most people I've ever met.
That said, it's still at the pricey side, when you can get a fuel efficient reliable new car for $24,000. But there are a lot of people who can afford this price range, as the large number of vehicles sold in that range indicates. Once the infrastructure is set up and Tesla is ready to release their $30,000 vehicle, the price question will be even less relevant.
Sure, save the fact that most of the people they want to sell $30,000 electric cars to already own $30,000 fossil fuel cars, and can't afford that extra payment. I presume Tesla is banking its hopes on the idea that those people will, someday, trade in their current vehicle and opt for an electric; only time (and availability) can tell on that one.
Personally, I've considered trading my wife's TDI Jetta in on one of the cheaper models when they come out, as it would make a perfect commuter vehicle for her; however, I'm stymied by the fact that I often take trips of over 600 miles in 2 days, and cannot afford to waste time A) searching for a Supercharger (Which won't exist in my state for another 2-3 years), B) waiting for someone else to finish charging so I can start my hour, C) driving around and around until I find a publicly accessible outlet owned by someone cool enough to let me use it, etc.
Plus, the Vee-Dub is fuckin' tight, man - never realized how nice a car 30 grand could get you until I bought the TDI.
B) When you drive 200 miles at a time, do you stop to use a rest room and/or eat?
Hell no!
It's a 3-4 hour trip, hold your shit; I do.
Plug in while you're doing that, and you'll have no problem making the 200 miles.
"Plug in" for how long, and where? Just hope some local resident of Bum-Fuck Egypt has an external outlet, and is kind enough to let me spend an hour or two sucking a few kilowatts the electricity they pay for? Not to mention, I don't know about you but I consider my time, especially on a weekend road trip, far to valuable to waste in such a manner.
So you know, I can spend 10 minutes filling up the TDI, and it will get me there and back (~500 miles total) with enough fuel left to drive to work on Monday. When you consider that 99.99% of the driving population is not only used to, but expects that sort of convenience, you begin to see why electric cars aren't 'taking over' anytime soon.
There's no rule that you have to top up your charge every time you "fill up".
There's no rule that I have to top off my fuel tank, either. The difference is, if I start to run low on diesel, I can pop into the service station that exists on every highway off-ramp and most street corners and re-up. Finding a good-hearted soul that's going to let me park on their property and soak up some of the juice they pay for, not so easy.
While there are a number of reasons to avoid electric vehicles, including the Model S, your reasons are more the popular ones bandied about than actual
Anecdotal evidence regarding one guy who's a known racist, has been investigated for abuse of power, and is, generally speaking, a massive attention whore, is not what I would consider evidence of a systemic issue involving public records of persons working as LEOs.
Actually, never mind the other stuff - all the attention whoring is enough to get anybody on a whackjob's radar.
You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you.
If it's public information, the government provides it to everyone.
If it's from a social networking site (like LinkedIn), the individual themselves provided it.
And, of course, that applies to people of all professions.
(as is more common for people in law enforcement than others)
Yea, I hear that line of BS from LEOs a lot, but honestly I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
Much the contrary, LEOs use non-public databases to stalk/kill ex-lovers, people who cut them off in traffic, etc.