I would say it's neither the game, nor the player entirely at fault.
As a long time WoW player, I can say I have met most of the player types and not everyone plays for the same reasons.
In my experienced opinion, I would say WoW is the most perfectly designed digital skinner box imaginable. The game was designed in such a way that the more of the game content you want to see, the dramatically higher level of effort is required.
The addiction comes from always chasing the carrot. As already noted, there will always be new content, and therefore those players seeking the best will always be on the treadmill.
I want an OS that allows my applications to work. I do not want an OS consuming my processor time or battery life unnecessarily on things I would consider a frill.
The mere fact that you need a very recently made computer to run the operating system alone is a sign the OS is doing things it shouldn't.
All it takes is tubular steel, a capacitor bank and a DC power supply to make a rail gun. Sure, the initial G force of the launch could(will?) damage the satelite, but it will fly a long way.
Another option is rocket assisted rail gun launch. Using a rail gun to launch it the first 40k feet before the rocket motor kicks in should allow a really impressive height. The reduced drag from thinner air would increase the maximum attainable height dramatically.
Probably the hardest part is building a rail gun with a near linear acceleration. Just a capacitor bank would result in a huge initial force, which which reduce over time rapidly as the capacitors discharge.
REUTERS - June 17, 2008: In response to a recent Federal court ruling in the 9th circuit, the President released a press release indicating the Department of Defense has been renamed Department of Pink Fuzzy Marshmallow Kittens. As such, it is now deemed to be harmless and FOIA requests will now be rejected by default.
FYI, most typical household wall outlets are rated 20 amps RMS maximum, as are the circuits they are on. This limitation is determined by a number of factors including your average house wiring, the thermal insulation properties of the wiring, wall conduit materials, and the risk of electrical fire under fault conditions. The circuit is constrained to this amperage limit by the circuit breaker in the panelboard, which should never be replaced with a larger rated circuit breaker unless you're an electrician or really know what you're doing.
Under short circuit fault conditions they typically support up to about 22kA for brief durations(fractions of a cycle). YMMV, depending on country and age of wiring/panelboard/circuit breakers.
Also, controlling voltage through a resistor network is pretty power limited and not very efficient for devices such as this. If the purpose of this exercise is to reduce the number of power supplies manufactured annually, then the problem is solved. If you want efficiency at the same time, you really need a power supply that supports variable voltage levels.
A specification for a universal adaptor would specify both the maximum and minimum voltage, amperage, power and duty cycle supported. This would be necessary for devices with variable loads, such as cameras for charging CCDs or flash capacitors which might temporarily need a lot of power, but in general are very low power devices.
That's kind of my whole take on the matter. Unless the legislative or executive branch is concerned that the judicial branch ARE the terrorists, then the only reason to prevent judicial oversight for this program is because there is no probable cause.
Nobody has given me a reason either as to why this needs to be done warrantless. We have a whole court set up for proceedings of a secretive nature. I see no reason why we can't simply expand that court to meet demand, as opposed to circumventing it entirely.
I don't think time or capacity is the issue, since those are very easy problems to solve with more government spending.
There does need to be some moderation of the internet.
Kiddie porn - this is illegal for a reason, not just on the internet. It's a crime, because there is a victim.
Snuff - same as above.
Libel - in some communities, professions and industries, you can ruin a person in days if you come up with a convincing and clever lie. If you can't say it in real life without it being actionable, you shouldn't be able to say it on the internet either.
Anything that lacks a direct victim should be acceptable. This includes inciteful speech(not 'insightful', I mean truly speech to 'incite' action that may be illegal), pornography, political matters and anything that someone might find 'offensive'.
I want to protect the rights of my enemies to speak their mind, lest I become an enemy of my own state and have no right to speak.
There are traceability methods to demonstrate with some confidence that something can be developed independantly of another thing. Companies do this constantly with patented software by reimplenting patented methods and designs in different ways, often times simply leading to more patents for essentially equivalent inventions.
With that said, my specific wording was not 'commercialized', it was 'effort to commercialize'. The intent of my wording was to convey that patent protection should only be extended to those people intending to utilize the patent for competetive uses - not simply as a barrier to entry for newcomers. In the latter case, as it exists for IP holding companies, they exist for the sole purpose of decimating companies who independantly implement a patented widget.
Take for example software, let me pick your brain with a rhetorical question: If multiple companies independantly find the simplest method to accomplish X with software is function Y, how original was the patented method to begin with? I'd say it was an obvious progression of existing methodology.
Physical objects are a little trickier to apply this line of logic to. Instead of a 50 year history of software evolution, you must extend the evolution of objects in the physical world back another 9,000 years. Thus, what constitutes patentable physical object should be much easier to define.
The key here I'm attempting to drive home is that at this time, patents are consistently issued for non-original inventions and this protection we offer to them is deleterious to our economy and marketplace.
In my opinion, the real problem isn't copyrights as much as it is patents. I think, and the creators of the Berne convention must have agreed, by default people's creations need protection and in some countries they have gone farther by saying you can't legally blanket reassign those protections to another party.
Patents however are probably the most widely misused legal instrument in the 'IP law' realm. They're often filed and obtained purely for anticompetitive reasons and are rarely ingenious enough to actually deserve patent protection. Companies constantly reinvent the wheel with minor variations and continually repatent the wheel simultaneously(see recent "online" gift card for sale at POS counter).
I think if a patent is filed and the patent holder has not made any effort to commercialize or otherwise 'use' their patent within a predetermined time period(say 2 years, or 5 years), they should lose it. The benefit to society as a whole for so-called "IP holding companies" is negative and punitive reasons to prevent this situation from occurring should be created.
You have to realize the patent is a government granted temporary monopoly to encourage companies to innovate, or at least that was the purpose. Fast forward to the present and you see now the primary reason to invest in patents is to stifle the competition and raise the barrier to entry. Effectively this creates not a single monopolist for a specific product, but instead creating monolithic industries that are impenetrable to newcomers. The only companies routinely willing to sue others to force compliance with patent laws are those IP holding companies; since they don't actually manufacture, design, distribute, redistribute or retail anything, they have no fear of reprisal.
If someone creates a widget, patents it but fails to commercialize it and another person or company independantly comes up with the same widget and succeeds, what was the original inventor's benefit to society? None, but under current patent law the subsequent inventor is forced to redesign their widget differently from the original inventor even though the original inventor plays no value-adding role in this chain of research, design, invention, implementation and monetization.
So, the trillion dollar question is, how do you fix this conundrum without unfairly empowering tipping the balance of power? I could write a book on the subject, but nobody with the power to change this will read it.
Is there any instance where the sale of something at an auction (a non charity one, at least) leads to somebody other than the previous owner getting the money?
Yes. All land and property seized and auctioned as a result of a criminal conviction has proceeds remitted back to the government, less any real debts such as taxes owed or mortgages that need paid much like a bankruptcy proceeding. A good example would be conviction under RICO statutes, drug smuggling and tax evasion. Once money is collected for the seized property, any 3rd parties with claim or title to that item can try to get their money back.
In most cases, the money would be retained by the State treasury or US Treasury.
In case you weren't aware, The Dalles, Oregon has it's own hydroelectric dam. Delivery time on hookups even for large amounts of power is pretty quick, depending on the exactly location.
Oddly enough, I'd never thought about it this way.
If someone were to create a program whose sole purpose was to protect both registry information, browser history and private information as a collected and copyrightable work(see Feist Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service), the DMCA would apply to companies who make any attempt to circumvent such a program.
This would create great liability for nefarious companies who exist only for the purposes of collecting information for resale, as well as for other companies such as Sears who are duped into agreeing to help distribute the said software. Not only do I see a lot of money here, I see a big slap on the wrist for any company that doesn't clearly and concisely describe what information they're attempting to collect from you without your explicit permission.
Software doesn't write itself, and integration is usually necessary anyway. Look at it another way.
With open source software, the user can choose from multiple vendors to provide integration and bugfix support, whereas with closed source you have the original author only. If that vendor goes out of business, you're SOL.
Some companies(HP can die in a fire on this one) do not release drivers for some components for XP. Instead of simply going to the support website for the computer manufacturer, you have to find the OEM drivers from each individual component supplier.
In some cases, their websites are only in Korean or Chinese which is very frustrating. All I can say is, before you attempt such a feat and expect all the components to work, find the manufacturer name and model number for each component you intend to use(video, sound, net, wireless are the big ones) and try to get all of the drivers you expect to need on a USB drive.
If you get xp installed and the default PCI drivers don't work for your network card and you don't have the drivers available, you're kinda hosed.
I do this as well. My computers came with Windows XP and a bunch of OEM crap on them. I downloaded a cracked version of XP to avoid the OEM crapware, advertising, 'free' promo software and the bullshit of Windows itself forcing me to reactivate it after making hardware changes.
The answer is simple. When their actions become so brash that the generally uninformed public becomes annoyed with them, people will simply stop buying their products and the **AA mafia will go broke. At that point, we will have crappy B movies and better music.
I plan to simply pirate music as I see fit. I have no moral justification except to screw the absurdly greedy, which in and of itself is reason enough. When the RIAA gose out of business, I will be happy.
When the MPAA goes out of business, I will be sad that they chose not to adapt.
While it's not Tacoma, I do happen to live just north of the Columbia River Gorge in the Portland OR area. With the increased elevation and the inside of the curve, the wind here is typically quite low or moderate.
However, when I lived in Troutdale(south side of Columbia river, opposite side of bend) the wind would frequently top 60 MPH during the winter. The highest I ever heard of was 72 MPH and that must have been 15 or 20 years ago, but it was exciting at the time to watch the wind storm damage on the news.
Sorry for the late reply, I had court this morning >
The patrolmen asked me to do a breathalyzer because he said I appeared obviously intoxicated, which he based on my visual appearance of bloodshot and watery eyes. It was 31 degrees(F) outside, of course my eyes were watery. My bloodshot eyes were from being tired, that's why I was leaving the bar; I was going home to eat dinner and go to bed. Portable breathalyzers are known to be inaccurate, that's why the PBT and the BAC on the real machine didn't match. That's also why PBT's aren't court admissable.
My lawyer was a douchebag, interested only in settling it with the prosecutor to a negligent driving plea deal. He didn't want to go to trial since that was less money for him. He did everything he could to talk me out of trial, spouting off all of the consequences that were anticipated in the case of a guilty verdict. Never did he consider that the probable cause was lacking and the breathalyzer results were likely faulty.
In the end, going to trial to prove my innocence wasn't even an option. I work Monday through Friday, 8 to 5 and my county doesn't offer DUI court proceedings through night court. My options were 1) Settle or 2) lose my job, my apartment, and possibly my freedom. Prosecutors in my county are very quick to push Neg 1 settlements because you get the same legal penatly as far as fines and treatment goes and offenders are happy they don't get a DUI on their record. This is also a good place to note, for people who don't know, a settlement deal for negligence instead of DUI still counts as a prior conviction with respect to future DUI charges. In other words, if I were to ever get another DUI(unlikely) I would face a harsher sentence than a first offender because of my pleading guilty to negligence.
1) Yes, I knew the taillight was cracked. No, I didn't think this was a primary offense. 2 & 3) I kinda pissed the cop off during the HGN test by asking him if we were done. Note to self, stfu while talking to police. 4) 3 beers in 3 hours? dunno about the bars where you live, but around here that's pretty low. 5) I should have refused, but I was being a nice, polite and compliant citizen. 6) Check 7) Check 8) Check 9) Check 10) My license was suspended late last year and I didn't even know it. I had received a ticket, paid it late, called to confirm no additional fees were required(which they confirmed) and the courthouse subsequently applied the late fee and reported me as a non-payer to the DOL. How fucked up is that?
Regarding the other comments, here's some information for people who don't know. I've had a lot of spare time to read up on DUI laws.
In all 50 states... You CAN refuse all types of field sobriety tests, including the portable breathalyzer test. You CANNOT refuse to perform a breathalyzer at the station without losing your driving priveledges, typically for 1 year.
Also, Corona is a light beer similar to coors light or bud light, for those who do not know. Three 12 ounce light beers in 3 hours for someone who weighs 175 pounds should place someone around the.04% -.07% range according to the charts I've read, depending on stomach contents and even how recently my last cigarette was smoked.
Regarding NHTSA recommendations, I performed my one leg stand test on a 30% grade(poorly constructed drainage strategy of a parking lot). That alone should invalidate my placing one foot on the ground to balance myself midway through this test. Uneven or unstable footing is a common reason for losing your balance during this test. The HGN test is meant to be short because results can be obtained within the first 10-15 seconds of the test. Anything over about 30 is an exercise in futility; if you aren't sure after 30 seconds of an HGN test, it's time to cut 'em loose.
Cops know how to administer these tests, and if they don't want you to pass, you won't. That's why it is just better to say "no" to all of them with exception of the properly calibrated and court admissable breathalyzer at the station.
There was an old intersection a few miles away from me that would make you think twice about this. It was on a state route(basically a highway with stop lights every 1-2 miles). Until the state built a bridge and converted the 4-way stop light into a diamond interchange, it had the highest fatality rate of any intersection in the state. This was due to the excessive speed of the average driver, short yellow lights and drivers who weren't aware just how fast the lights go from green to red at this intersection.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say it's neither the game, nor the player entirely at fault.
As a long time WoW player, I can say I have met most of the player types and not everyone plays for the same reasons.
In my experienced opinion, I would say WoW is the most perfectly designed digital skinner box imaginable. The game was designed in such a way that the more of the game content you want to see, the dramatically higher level of effort is required.
The addiction comes from always chasing the carrot. As already noted, there will always be new content, and therefore those players seeking the best will always be on the treadmill.
The question is "Why?".
I want an OS that allows my applications to work. I do not want an OS consuming my processor time or battery life unnecessarily on things I would consider a frill.
The mere fact that you need a very recently made computer to run the operating system alone is a sign the OS is doing things it shouldn't.
All it takes is tubular steel, a capacitor bank and a DC power supply to make a rail gun. Sure, the initial G force of the launch could(will?) damage the satelite, but it will fly a long way.
Another option is rocket assisted rail gun launch. Using a rail gun to launch it the first 40k feet before the rocket motor kicks in should allow a really impressive height. The reduced drag from thinner air would increase the maximum attainable height dramatically.
Probably the hardest part is building a rail gun with a near linear acceleration. Just a capacitor bank would result in a huge initial force, which which reduce over time rapidly as the capacitors discharge.
REUTERS - June 17, 2008: In response to a recent Federal court ruling in the 9th circuit, the President released a press release indicating the Department of Defense has been renamed Department of Pink Fuzzy Marshmallow Kittens. As such, it is now deemed to be harmless and FOIA requests will now be rejected by default.
FYI, most typical household wall outlets are rated 20 amps RMS maximum, as are the circuits they are on. This limitation is determined by a number of factors including your average house wiring, the thermal insulation properties of the wiring, wall conduit materials, and the risk of electrical fire under fault conditions. The circuit is constrained to this amperage limit by the circuit breaker in the panelboard, which should never be replaced with a larger rated circuit breaker unless you're an electrician or really know what you're doing.
Under short circuit fault conditions they typically support up to about 22kA for brief durations(fractions of a cycle). YMMV, depending on country and age of wiring/panelboard/circuit breakers.
Also, controlling voltage through a resistor network is pretty power limited and not very efficient for devices such as this. If the purpose of this exercise is to reduce the number of power supplies manufactured annually, then the problem is solved. If you want efficiency at the same time, you really need a power supply that supports variable voltage levels.
A specification for a universal adaptor would specify both the maximum and minimum voltage, amperage, power and duty cycle supported. This would be necessary for devices with variable loads, such as cameras for charging CCDs or flash capacitors which might temporarily need a lot of power, but in general are very low power devices.
Just to put this into perspective, look at the raw unmitigated loss of life.
In the span of 1 minute, more people in China died than all the american lives lost in the "War on Terror" during the last 7 years.
Add it up and I dare anyone bashing China right now to respond saying this mourning isn't a natural and healthy response.
That's kind of my whole take on the matter. Unless the legislative or executive branch is concerned that the judicial branch ARE the terrorists, then the only reason to prevent judicial oversight for this program is because there is no probable cause.
Nobody has given me a reason either as to why this needs to be done warrantless. We have a whole court set up for proceedings of a secretive nature. I see no reason why we can't simply expand that court to meet demand, as opposed to circumventing it entirely.
I don't think time or capacity is the issue, since those are very easy problems to solve with more government spending.
There does need to be some moderation of the internet.
Kiddie porn - this is illegal for a reason, not just on the internet. It's a crime, because there is a victim.
Snuff - same as above.
Libel - in some communities, professions and industries, you can ruin a person in days if you come up with a convincing and clever lie. If you can't say it in real life without it being actionable, you shouldn't be able to say it on the internet either.
Anything that lacks a direct victim should be acceptable. This includes inciteful speech(not 'insightful', I mean truly speech to 'incite' action that may be illegal), pornography, political matters and anything that someone might find 'offensive'.
I want to protect the rights of my enemies to speak their mind, lest I become an enemy of my own state and have no right to speak.
yeah, but does it run herd?
There are traceability methods to demonstrate with some confidence that something can be developed independantly of another thing. Companies do this constantly with patented software by reimplenting patented methods and designs in different ways, often times simply leading to more patents for essentially equivalent inventions.
With that said, my specific wording was not 'commercialized', it was 'effort to commercialize'. The intent of my wording was to convey that patent protection should only be extended to those people intending to utilize the patent for competetive uses - not simply as a barrier to entry for newcomers. In the latter case, as it exists for IP holding companies, they exist for the sole purpose of decimating companies who independantly implement a patented widget.
Take for example software, let me pick your brain with a rhetorical question: If multiple companies independantly find the simplest method to accomplish X with software is function Y, how original was the patented method to begin with? I'd say it was an obvious progression of existing methodology.
Physical objects are a little trickier to apply this line of logic to. Instead of a 50 year history of software evolution, you must extend the evolution of objects in the physical world back another 9,000 years. Thus, what constitutes patentable physical object should be much easier to define.
The key here I'm attempting to drive home is that at this time, patents are consistently issued for non-original inventions and this protection we offer to them is deleterious to our economy and marketplace.
In my opinion, the real problem isn't copyrights as much as it is patents. I think, and the creators of the Berne convention must have agreed, by default people's creations need protection and in some countries they have gone farther by saying you can't legally blanket reassign those protections to another party.
Patents however are probably the most widely misused legal instrument in the 'IP law' realm. They're often filed and obtained purely for anticompetitive reasons and are rarely ingenious enough to actually deserve patent protection. Companies constantly reinvent the wheel with minor variations and continually repatent the wheel simultaneously(see recent "online" gift card for sale at POS counter).
I think if a patent is filed and the patent holder has not made any effort to commercialize or otherwise 'use' their patent within a predetermined time period(say 2 years, or 5 years), they should lose it. The benefit to society as a whole for so-called "IP holding companies" is negative and punitive reasons to prevent this situation from occurring should be created.
You have to realize the patent is a government granted temporary monopoly to encourage companies to innovate, or at least that was the purpose. Fast forward to the present and you see now the primary reason to invest in patents is to stifle the competition and raise the barrier to entry. Effectively this creates not a single monopolist for a specific product, but instead creating monolithic industries that are impenetrable to newcomers. The only companies routinely willing to sue others to force compliance with patent laws are those IP holding companies; since they don't actually manufacture, design, distribute, redistribute or retail anything, they have no fear of reprisal.
If someone creates a widget, patents it but fails to commercialize it and another person or company independantly comes up with the same widget and succeeds, what was the original inventor's benefit to society? None, but under current patent law the subsequent inventor is forced to redesign their widget differently from the original inventor even though the original inventor plays no value-adding role in this chain of research, design, invention, implementation and monetization.
So, the trillion dollar question is, how do you fix this conundrum without unfairly empowering tipping the balance of power? I could write a book on the subject, but nobody with the power to change this will read it.
Is there any instance where the sale of something at an auction (a non charity one, at least) leads to somebody other than the previous owner getting the money?
Yes. All land and property seized and auctioned as a result of a criminal conviction has proceeds remitted back to the government, less any real debts such as taxes owed or mortgages that need paid much like a bankruptcy proceeding. A good example would be conviction under RICO statutes, drug smuggling and tax evasion. Once money is collected for the seized property, any 3rd parties with claim or title to that item can try to get their money back.
In most cases, the money would be retained by the State treasury or US Treasury.
In case you weren't aware, The Dalles, Oregon has it's own hydroelectric dam. Delivery time on hookups even for large amounts of power is pretty quick, depending on the exactly location.
Oddly enough, I'd never thought about it this way.
If someone were to create a program whose sole purpose was to protect both registry information, browser history and private information as a collected and copyrightable work(see Feist Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service), the DMCA would apply to companies who make any attempt to circumvent such a program.
This would create great liability for nefarious companies who exist only for the purposes of collecting information for resale, as well as for other companies such as Sears who are duped into agreeing to help distribute the said software. Not only do I see a lot of money here, I see a big slap on the wrist for any company that doesn't clearly and concisely describe what information they're attempting to collect from you without your explicit permission.
Software doesn't write itself, and integration is usually necessary anyway. Look at it another way.
With open source software, the user can choose from multiple vendors to provide integration and bugfix support, whereas with closed source you have the original author only. If that vendor goes out of business, you're SOL.
I see them everywhere but never click on them. What exactly is myminicity?
Swapping motherboards almost universally triggers the reactivation since it counts(to Windows XP at least) as multiple components.
Just think, they usually have at least video, net and sound builtin.
So, I paid for XP and it came with crap attached. I reinstalled XP with a version that didn't have the crap on it.
You can go all high and mighty on your crusade to protect corporate profits, but fuck it.
I will not tolerate this bullshit for a product I paid for, legal or not. MS got paid. OEM's can fuck themselves.
My sense of moral responsibility is not marred.
Some companies(HP can die in a fire on this one) do not release drivers for some components for XP. Instead of simply going to the support website for the computer manufacturer, you have to find the OEM drivers from each individual component supplier.
In some cases, their websites are only in Korean or Chinese which is very frustrating. All I can say is, before you attempt such a feat and expect all the components to work, find the manufacturer name and model number for each component you intend to use(video, sound, net, wireless are the big ones) and try to get all of the drivers you expect to need on a USB drive.
If you get xp installed and the default PCI drivers don't work for your network card and you don't have the drivers available, you're kinda hosed.
I do this as well. My computers came with Windows XP and a bunch of OEM crap on them. I downloaded a cracked version of XP to avoid the OEM crapware, advertising, 'free' promo software and the bullshit of Windows itself forcing me to reactivate it after making hardware changes.
So, I paid for XP, and I got XP. I'm happy.
The answer is simple. When their actions become so brash that the generally uninformed public becomes annoyed with them, people will simply stop buying their products and the **AA mafia will go broke. At that point, we will have crappy B movies and better music.
I plan to simply pirate music as I see fit. I have no moral justification except to screw the absurdly greedy, which in and of itself is reason enough. When the RIAA gose out of business, I will be happy.
When the MPAA goes out of business, I will be sad that they chose not to adapt.
While it's not Tacoma, I do happen to live just north of the Columbia River Gorge in the Portland OR area. With the increased elevation and the inside of the curve, the wind here is typically quite low or moderate.
However, when I lived in Troutdale(south side of Columbia river, opposite side of bend) the wind would frequently top 60 MPH during the winter. The highest I ever heard of was 72 MPH and that must have been 15 or 20 years ago, but it was exciting at the time to watch the wind storm damage on the news.
Not if the copyrights are held by each individual submitter.
Sorry for the late reply, I had court this morning >
.04% - .07% range according to the charts I've read, depending on stomach contents and even how recently my last cigarette was smoked.
The patrolmen asked me to do a breathalyzer because he said I appeared obviously intoxicated, which he based on my visual appearance of bloodshot and watery eyes. It was 31 degrees(F) outside, of course my eyes were watery. My bloodshot eyes were from being tired, that's why I was leaving the bar; I was going home to eat dinner and go to bed. Portable breathalyzers are known to be inaccurate, that's why the PBT and the BAC on the real machine didn't match. That's also why PBT's aren't court admissable.
My lawyer was a douchebag, interested only in settling it with the prosecutor to a negligent driving plea deal. He didn't want to go to trial since that was less money for him. He did everything he could to talk me out of trial, spouting off all of the consequences that were anticipated in the case of a guilty verdict. Never did he consider that the probable cause was lacking and the breathalyzer results were likely faulty.
In the end, going to trial to prove my innocence wasn't even an option. I work Monday through Friday, 8 to 5 and my county doesn't offer DUI court proceedings through night court. My options were 1) Settle or 2) lose my job, my apartment, and possibly my freedom. Prosecutors in my county are very quick to push Neg 1 settlements because you get the same legal penatly as far as fines and treatment goes and offenders are happy they don't get a DUI on their record. This is also a good place to note, for people who don't know, a settlement deal for negligence instead of DUI still counts as a prior conviction with respect to future DUI charges. In other words, if I were to ever get another DUI(unlikely) I would face a harsher sentence than a first offender because of my pleading guilty to negligence.
1) Yes, I knew the taillight was cracked. No, I didn't think this was a primary offense.
2 & 3) I kinda pissed the cop off during the HGN test by asking him if we were done. Note to self, stfu while talking to police.
4) 3 beers in 3 hours? dunno about the bars where you live, but around here that's pretty low.
5) I should have refused, but I was being a nice, polite and compliant citizen.
6) Check
7) Check
8) Check
9) Check
10) My license was suspended late last year and I didn't even know it. I had received a ticket, paid it late, called to confirm no additional fees were required(which they confirmed) and the courthouse subsequently applied the late fee and reported me as a non-payer to the DOL. How fucked up is that?
Regarding the other comments, here's some information for people who don't know. I've had a lot of spare time to read up on DUI laws.
In all 50 states...
You CAN refuse all types of field sobriety tests, including the portable breathalyzer test.
You CANNOT refuse to perform a breathalyzer at the station without losing your driving priveledges, typically for 1 year.
Also, Corona is a light beer similar to coors light or bud light, for those who do not know. Three 12 ounce light beers in 3 hours for someone who weighs 175 pounds should place someone around the
Regarding NHTSA recommendations, I performed my one leg stand test on a 30% grade(poorly constructed drainage strategy of a parking lot). That alone should invalidate my placing one foot on the ground to balance myself midway through this test. Uneven or unstable footing is a common reason for losing your balance during this test. The HGN test is meant to be short because results can be obtained within the first 10-15 seconds of the test. Anything over about 30 is an exercise in futility; if you aren't sure after 30 seconds of an HGN test, it's time to cut 'em loose.
Cops know how to administer these tests, and if they don't want you to pass, you won't. That's why it is just better to say "no" to all of them with exception of the properly calibrated and court admissable breathalyzer at the station.
if you can, you do. If you can't, you don't
There was an old intersection a few miles away from me that would make you think twice about this. It was on a state route(basically a highway with stop lights every 1-2 miles). Until the state built a bridge and converted the 4-way stop light into a diamond interchange, it had the highest fatality rate of any intersection in the state. This was due to the excessive speed of the average driver, short yellow lights and drivers who weren't aware just how fast the lights go from green to red at this intersection.