It's not so much driver's rights, as it is property owner's rights.
Rights that are apparently so important, they used to be the main criteria in deciding whether or not you were allowed to vote.
Most driver's that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.
What a cute way to re-word "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Aside from the fact that, thanks to a little phenomena known as overcriminalization pretty much every single American over the age of 6 is technically guilty of committing some sort of infraction, the point of it all is that the government does not have a right to search or seize your personal property without a fucking warrant. "Search" up-to-and-includes spying on, a statement which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats
So... you don't understand what "life without parole" means?
or escape from jail, and do his deed again, when imprisoned.
Yea, right, because people escape from US prisons constantly, and when it actually happens of course the first the the escapee does is find someone to murder.
Sheesh. Talk about emotional responses.
With an execution, they could toss his body anywhere, and anybody walking next to it would be safe from having her or his throat slit.
Yup, nothing twisted or emotional in that sentence.
Pure logic, yup yup. </sarc>
You certainly don't know the difference b/w emotion or logic. Or else, you wouldn't have put up such a stupid equivalence.
I think it's funny you think you know stuff you really don't. But funny isn't an emotion. Butthurt rage, on the other hand...
Emotion? You mean like crying over a passed out/unconscious man grunting and snorting as he dies? That kind of emotion? Fucking please.
Yes, that's an emotional response.
Just like slobbering all over yourself while you scream for blood is an emotional response. Just like attempting to marginalize opposing opinions so you can summarily ignore them is an emotional response.
I, for one, do not believe the state has a right to take any life, regardless. Besides, if our society wasn't hell-bent on spending billions of dollars to incarcerate non-violent offenders, there would be plenty of cash in the coffers to put every sociopath away for several lifetimes, with money left over.
It ain't just about the victim's family, asshole - it's so that he can never do the same crime again, and we don't have to bear the cost of his remaining days.
Life imprisonment is generally cheaper than executions, unless you live in a state that kills a lot of its citizens:
I was just thinking, you know what would be sweet?
A version of the Iron Dome system, scaled down for small arms fire.
Granted, it would be a lot harder to implement without barbequing the innards of every living thing within range, but it sure would do a lot to end petty conflicts. We really don't put enough effort into finding new and novel ways to keep people from being killed.
Why does every discussion of 3D printing seem to devolve into how it could make better weapons or armor?
Human nature.
As much as we try to deny it, at our base we're still extremely violent, hate-filled, xenophobic tribalists. As a species, anyway.
How about using metal and plastic to make elaborate layered circuit boards we can drop inexpensive chips into and make even cooler stuff? And I don't mean detonators.
Oooh, detonators! What a clever idea!
Your government will now thank you for your contribution to their military-industrial complex in the only way they know how.
Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
What's your point? That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?
People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?
I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.
The FCC does not produce legislation, Congress does.
I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
Only if you insist on a direct, literal interpretation of that part of the First Amendment.
Southern Africa. The region including Zimbabwe (because of it's troubles people are more likely to buy their BS) and South Africa. Botswana is less obsessed(being more obsessed with beer and cattle), and Mozambique is too busy trying to rekindle their revolution to notice much. If you ever go to Africa, you will realise that it is culturally very different from what you may be used to. Also, that people here sometimes have an unhealthy obsession with western culture. Joyce Meyer came to Zimbabwe once. Had a huge concert filled with people and sold them the same BS you find in "The Secret". And they bought it. Kind of sad really.
Southern Africa... isn't that the region of the world where people are still murdered, regularly, for "participating in black magic?"
Takes a lot of nerve to hail from somewhere like that and still have the cajones to say Americans have fucked up religious ideologies; we stopped executing "witches" a couple hundred years ago.
Your fault for electing George Dumbass Bush... then Governor Hairgel... Taliban Dan... Louie Gohmert... Ted Cruz...
Congratulations, your expression of this preconceived notion serves to prove my point: You assume, because I accused you of something you didn't like being accused of, that I must be one of those "Stereotypical Texans" you obviously harbor so much hatred for.
Thing is, I'm neither a Texan, nor a supporter of either side of the One Party, D or R. So, by attacking a non-stereotypical person with accusations of stereotype, you support my contention that stereotypes are most oft perpetuated by those willingly stuck in a loop of ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
"-Name three of your strengths."
1. Fear
2. Surprise
3. An almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
... I was not expecting that.
Uh, that sounds like more of a cautionary tale about smoking crack than organ theft...
I think you missed my points, so I'll summarize:
- People tracking you against your will has nothing to do with driving, other than the fact they're doing it while you're driving.
- Your fear of automobile accidents does not justify taking away the Constitutional rights of everyone around you.
I, for one, do not believe the state has a right to take any life, regardless.
Defend its citzens from a war of aggression? Rubber bullets, that will do the trick. Probably.
Why can't the citizens defend themselves? So long as we're talking about the US, it's not like lack of firepower is going to be an issue.
It's not so much driver's rights, as it is property owner's rights.
Rights that are apparently so important, they used to be the main criteria in deciding whether or not you were allowed to vote.
Most driver's that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.
What a cute way to re-word "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Aside from the fact that, thanks to a little phenomena known as overcriminalization pretty much every single American over the age of 6 is technically guilty of committing some sort of infraction, the point of it all is that the government does not have a right to search or seize your personal property without a fucking warrant. "Search" up-to-and-includes spying on, a statement which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats
Over 9 million Americans were treated in emergency departments as a result of an unintentional fall in 2011.
So the point you're obviously trying to make here is that driving is four times safer than walking, right?
Because there is not a push for that.
If you can convince people to care enough for it to be an election issue, then it will get changed.
Perfect campaign slogan:
"Somebody's making money off your data, shouldn't it be you?"
This article discusses the ethics and the mechanics of ad-blocking software
Ethics of blocking advertisements?
Gimme a fucking break.
He can be released,
So... you don't understand what "life without parole" means?
or escape from jail, and do his deed again, when imprisoned.
Yea, right, because people escape from US prisons constantly, and when it actually happens of course the first the the escapee does is find someone to murder.
Sheesh. Talk about emotional responses.
With an execution, they could toss his body anywhere, and anybody walking next to it would be safe from having her or his throat slit.
Yup, nothing twisted or emotional in that sentence.
Pure logic, yup yup. </sarc>
You certainly don't know the difference b/w emotion or logic. Or else, you wouldn't have put up such a stupid equivalence.
I think it's funny you think you know stuff you really don't. But funny isn't an emotion. Butthurt rage, on the other hand...
Emotion? You mean like crying over a passed out/unconscious man grunting and snorting as he dies? That kind of emotion? Fucking please.
Yes, that's an emotional response.
Just like slobbering all over yourself while you scream for blood is an emotional response. Just like attempting to marginalize opposing opinions so you can summarily ignore them is an emotional response.
I'll bet you drive a big truck too.
Now now, no need to bandy about stereotypes, especially when they're wrong.
To that end, I drive a big truck, and agree with you wholeheartedly.
I, for one, do not believe the state has a right to take any life, regardless. Besides, if our society wasn't hell-bent on spending billions of dollars to incarcerate non-violent offenders, there would be plenty of cash in the coffers to put every sociopath away for several lifetimes, with money left over.
That's really all I have to say about this.
No. Murderer dead implies murderer not able to murder again. Plain & simple logic.
Any plainer or more simple that "murderer on life sentence without parole not able to murder again?"
Only bleeding heart criminal rights thugs like you would call it an appeal to emotion!
Or, you know - people who know the difference between emotion and logic.
It ain't just about the victim's family, asshole - it's so that he can never do the same crime again, and we don't have to bear the cost of his remaining days.
Life imprisonment is generally cheaper than executions, unless you live in a state that kills a lot of its citizens:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/29/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-says-executions-cost-more-life-impris/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL2FbGH2DDs
To be fair, whoever wrote that article does a really, really poor job of explaining the science that proves all those things are natural.
I was just thinking, you know what would be sweet?
A version of the Iron Dome system, scaled down for small arms fire.
Granted, it would be a lot harder to implement without barbequing the innards of every living thing within range, but it sure would do a lot to end petty conflicts. We really don't put enough effort into finding new and novel ways to keep people from being killed.
Because humans are a war like species. They're most happy when blowing shit up.
I'd be so down with a nice set of powered armor peiced together in my own garage with a printer and a drem[e]l tool. :D
I do admit, being able to build one's own, personal mech-suit does have its appeal...
Anyone up for a game of Real Life Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots?
Why does every discussion of 3D printing seem to devolve into how it could make better weapons or armor?
Human nature.
As much as we try to deny it, at our base we're still extremely violent, hate-filled, xenophobic tribalists. As a species, anyway.
How about using metal and plastic to make elaborate layered circuit boards we can drop inexpensive chips into and make even cooler stuff? And I don't mean detonators.
Oooh, detonators! What a clever idea!
Your government will now thank you for your contribution to their military-industrial complex in the only way they know how.
Notice how they never build medical devices or something to help poor people in Africa. It's always something military? Yeah, that...
Hey now! Military tech very much can be used to help poor people in Africa!
Help them not be alive anymore, for instance.
They've just been using their "State secrets" argument to keep it from getting to the supreme court to get ruled on.
That's pretty much the definition of an unconstitutional court: one that supersedes the SCOTUS.
A night flight. The plane is quiet.
Suddenly...
Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
What's your point? That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?
People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?
I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.
The FCC does not produce legislation, Congress does.
I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
Only if you insist on a direct, literal interpretation of that part of the First Amendment.
Which seems kinda silly.
Southern Africa. The region including Zimbabwe (because of it's troubles people are more likely to buy their BS) and South Africa. Botswana is less obsessed(being more obsessed with beer and cattle), and Mozambique is too busy trying to rekindle their revolution to notice much. If you ever go to Africa, you will realise that it is culturally very different from what you may be used to. Also, that people here sometimes have an unhealthy obsession with western culture. Joyce Meyer came to Zimbabwe once. Had a huge concert filled with people and sold them the same BS you find in "The Secret". And they bought it. Kind of sad really.
Southern Africa... isn't that the region of the world where people are still murdered, regularly, for "participating in black magic?"
Takes a lot of nerve to hail from somewhere like that and still have the cajones to say Americans have fucked up religious ideologies; we stopped executing "witches" a couple hundred years ago.
Your fault for electing George Dumbass Bush... then Governor Hairgel... Taliban Dan... Louie Gohmert... Ted Cruz...
Congratulations, your expression of this preconceived notion serves to prove my point: You assume, because I accused you of something you didn't like being accused of, that I must be one of those "Stereotypical Texans" you obviously harbor so much hatred for.
Thing is, I'm neither a Texan, nor a supporter of either side of the One Party, D or R. So, by attacking a non-stereotypical person with accusations of stereotype, you support my contention that stereotypes are most oft perpetuated by those willingly stuck in a loop of ignorance.