Well no, what it indicates is someone who is so insecure and immature as to be worried about the opinions of people he does not know and has never met. Spending time and effort paying attention to things like punctuation and grammar on a forum post (i.e within a context of no material benefit) is an indication of adolescence - doing so within the context of the workplace, where there is a material benefit, is an indication of adulthood.
I disagree. The opinions of others are immaterial. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Remind me never to hire you. That is all.
Write like Hemmingway. Keep all sentences short. Sentences that do not have subordinate clawses do not have much style to analyse.
You mean like this?
We were young and our happiness dazzled us with its strength.
But there was also a terrible betrayal that lay within me like a Merle
Haggard song at a French restaurant....
I could not tell the girl about the woman of the tollway, of
her milk white BMW and her Jordache smile. There had been a fight. I
had punched her boyfriend, who fought the mechanical bulls. Everyone
told him, "You ride the bull, senor. You do not fight it." But he was
lean and tough like a bad rib-eye and he fought the bull. And then he
fought me. And when we finished there were no winners, just men doing
what men must do....
"Stop the car," the girl said. There was a look of terrible
sadness in her eyes. She knew about the woman of the tollway. I knew
not how. I started to speak, but she raised an arm and spoke with a
quiet and peace I will never forget.
"I do not ask for whom's the tollway belle," she said, "the
tollway belle's for thee."
The next morning our youth was a memory, and our happiness was
a lie. Life is like a bad margarita with good tequila, I thought as I
poured whiskey onto my granola and faced a new day.
-- Peter Applebome, International Imitation Hemingway
Competition
Same applies for taxing the very rich more than the poor. Their workers and customers who make them so rich use the publicly funded infrastructure like roads, schools, etc.
And pay gasoline taxes and property taxes which fund the vast majority of that infrastructure. Is there a point hidden in there somewhere?
When I'm doing 1099 work through my own company....in the recent past, I've bought a high deductible insurance policy (and yes, I have pre-existing conditions and am not that young) which was only about $210/mo...with a $1200 deductible.
Again...harkening back to when medical insurance was called "Major Medical"....something to be used for catastrophic emergencies.
I do, however, make good money, and managed to sock away about $3K max, pre-tax into my HSA which I used for routine medical care (office visits, meds, a MRI I had one year...etc). But if you are young and save your money...this will not break the bank.
This in fact *can* be done, and I'm upset that the govt doesn't promote this type of medical care construct rather than taking all my money, deciding how best to spend it when that should be between my Dr and myself.....
That's fabulous for you. Probably would be okay for me too. But if you're a family of four, That comes out to ~$800/month. If you're at the median income (~$44,000/year), that means you take home about $2600/month. I'll let you do the math.
You are aware that Medicare (a government program) has administrative (non-patient related) costs of about 3%, while the administrative costs of private insurers are generally at least an order of magnitude higher, right?
And yet Medicaide/Medicare are going broke quickly why.....?
Okay. So you're a troll. not going to feed you any more. Sorry.
Yes. It's called the Social Contract [wikipedia.org]. We give up some liberty and treasure to society, so that the society we live in can be enhanced *for all of us*. Those young, healthy people will one day be old and infirm. Or are you unable to grasp the cycle of life?
Whatever happened to the young saving and planning for retirement and health needs in their future for when they were old, like many of us still do?
Get the govt out of the way and get rid of the bean counters, and make it easier for people to save (HSA's for instance) their money pre-tax for routine health care, and affordable major medical insurance for catastrophic needs....
You save for your housing, utilities and food needs right? Why should you also not save for your medical needs?
Are you really that uninformed about how health care works in the United States? If so, I'm really sorry for you. Purchasing health insurance as an individual under our current system costs anywhere from $10,000-$30,000 per year. Check the median income for people in the U.S. Now explain to me how HSAs and savings are going to allow someone to spend 25-40% of their income on health insurance and still be able to pay rent/mortgage, feed their family, etc, etc. etc.
Inform yourself about reality. Or don't. That's up to you. But expect to be called out with *facts* if you make unsupportable statements.
I sure hope you're right. Single payer is so obviously the right way to go. It's a shame that so many of you are either brainwashed or collared and leashed by those who feather their nests by ripping you off.
Not really....it is just that I'm capable of saving for my health needs just like I plan and save for my housing needs, food needs, utility needs...etc.
I wish the Govt would expand (instead of shrink) the tools that allow me to do this better, like HSA's..where I can sock back money pre-tax for my routine needs, and have higher deductible insurance (major medical) only to be used in catastrophic needs.
Let me use my medical dollars to shop around for my best Dr. / deal......and get the govt and bean counters out of the way as middle man taking up useless space and sucking money out with no benefit to the patient.
You are aware that Medicare (a government program) has administrative (non-patient related) costs of about 3%, while the administrative costs of private insurers are generally at least an order of magnitude higher, right?
It gives benefits to the old/sick people at the expense of the young/healthy people. That's the whole point of forcing everyone to buy the insurance, whether they want/need it or not.
Yes. It's called the Social Contract. We give up some liberty and treasure to society, so that the society we live in can be enhanced *for all of us*. Those young, healthy people will one day be old and infirm. Or are you unable to grasp the cycle of life?
For awhile, anyway. Once Obama has everybody properly collared and leashed, and they roll out single-payer, the Insurance Companies are out of business.
Not entirely a bad thing, because Insurance companies are leeches, but that's the deal coming up.
I sure hope you're right. Single payer is so obviously the right way to go. It's a shame that so many of you are either brainwashed or collared and leashed by those who feather their nests by ripping you off.
I think you're still missing the point. People were saying that he would still be American even if he was born in Kenya. But this is not true in all cases, such as if his mother was 11 when he was born.
I made that point in a previous post. I was correcting an error from another post where I called someone else out for omitting important information when I used the wrong statute altogether. Now that we're all on the same page, carry on.
I should have included that, but didnt seem relevant in the context. Apologies if it was misleading.
And upon re-reading my comment, I was wrong. A person born in the U.S. is covered under this:
Statute, by birth within U.S.
As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
Note that this is the law as of 2011. Presumably Barack Obama's citizenship would be covered under the law in effect in 1961. However, since the Fourteenth Amendment would govern this (since Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state on August 21, 1959), the rules would most likely be as follows:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The long standing and widely accepted interpretation of this clause strongly implies that regardless of the citizenship status of Obama's parents, he would be regarded a "natural born citizen."
My apologies for using the wrong statute altogether.
Not really true; if she was 11 when he was born he would NOT be a US citizen:
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
* the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
* at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday
You forgot to include the previous sentence from the Wikipedia article:
Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[6][emphasis added]
If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever legally resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.[8]
And so, if the person was born within the U.S. and the citizen parent resided in the U.S. for just one year, regardless of how old they were, the child would be a citizen.
(Shrug) You're the one who seems to be saying that it's ethical to "occupy" a public or semi-private space.
Is it, or isn't it? If it is, then the question becomes, who is entitled to do so?
I don't "seem" to be saying it. I do say it. And vehemently too. I'm also saying that not only should this be encouraged, but that we, as a society, should welcome it. Please let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything else for you.
And best wishes for 2013. I hope it is a happy, productive and *free* year for you.
Havent done specific reasearch, but if they did not there would be no reason I couldnt simply go to Zucotti park now and tape the entire thing off for my personal use for a game of football or something.
Again, just because they signed an agreement allowing public access 24/7 does not mean anyone can do whatever they want in the park. It COULD, but I would be suprised if anyone could find any documentation saying that was the case.
You continue to focus on the narrow, unimportant issue. That's your privilege, but I'd prefer to discuss the more important ones. Thanks.
It remains PRIVATE PROPERTY. The public has access, but there are rules, like, I dont know, not setting up your tent and grill.
"Allowing public access" swings both ways, when OWS basically prevents any other use of the park.
Do such rules exist? I am not aware of them. You may well be correct. But, at least for me, that's not really the point.
I posit that you're looking at this backwards. That's not intended as an insult, BTW. Rather than looking for ways to limit and discourage our fellow citizens (and no, I did not take part in any OWS activities) from expressing themselves and their points of view, I believe we should expand and encourage opportunities to do so for all of us.
The NYC government should have provided sanitation facilities and police *assistance* with security to the OWS (and any others, regardless of their point of view) protestors, rather than treating them as criminals for exercising their constitutional rights.
As a native (and life-long) New Yorker, I was ashamed of my city government for debasing the ideals of our once-great nation.
Feel free to disagree with me. I don't expect that everyone should share my point of view. What I do expect is that we, as a society, and our government should be accommodating, assisting and expanding the ways that peaceful protests, dissenting opinions and alternative ideas can be expressed and discussed.
Yeah, it's not like they were squatting on private property or anything. Oh, wait.
Except for the fact that Zuccotti Park is required to provide public access 24/7. What was that I said before? Oh yes. Moron. And you've proved me right. Again./p
Seriously, for a bunch of squatters that were not always civil, they were allowed to get away with way, way more than any other protest I can remember.
Aside from a delusional persecution complex, I can't believe anyone would think the government "stifled dissent".
Get away? Yes. I mean it's not like there's some kind of precedent for this like, any sort of right of the people to "peaceably assemble." Oh, wait. Moron.
Oh, and since you're obviously not aware of what I'm talking about, cf. First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Seriously, for a bunch of squatters that were not always civil, they were allowed to get away with way, way more than any other protest I can remember.
Aside from a delusional persecution complex, I can't believe anyone would think the government "stifled dissent".
Get away? Yes. I mean it's not like there's some kind of precedent for this like, any sort of right of the people to "peaceably assemble." Oh, wait. Moron.
According to NORML, what basically happens when someone is driving while on marijuana is that while they're somewhat impaired, they also drive more cautiously and leave more space around them. The net effect is that while they're annoying, they aren't all that dangerous.
By contrast, when someone is driving drunk, they tend to be both impaired and reckless. The net effect is that thousands of people each year are killed by drunk drivers.
I addressed this in a previous post. For all the studies cited by NORML, many others come to opposite conclusions. However, the common thread among Just about all of these studies is that marijuana causes impairment.
If you're impaired, you're impaired. Perhaps you can compensate for that impairment and you most likely won't get into a situation where you need all your faculties/best-case response time, etc. -- until you do. Driving while impaired is a bad idea. Whether it's because you're high (marijuana, alcohol, etc.), tired, angry/upset, texting or talking on the phone.
I'm glad that people can compensate for their impairment, but no one should drive while impaired. Period.
The real answer is to improve public transit, so that fewer people drive. Sure, people are going to need to drive around in rural areas, but we have a problem with impaired drivers in densely populated areas -- a problem that would be address by expanding public transit. Ultimately, the solution to impaired driving is to simply not have people drive -- but for the time being, we can pay people to drive buses, and we can focus our impairment tests on those people.
Absolutely. As a resident of NYC, I (mis)spent much of my youth drinking and doing other things which *definitely* impaired me. But I always took the subway or a taxi when I had to get around, and the worst thing that ever happened was that I fell asleep on the train and missed my stop.
Almost every one of my friends who grew up in suburbia had at least one story about waking up and not remembering how they got home. When you have to drive, that's a very scary proposition. Improved mass transit is *definitely* the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't hold back Linus. Tell us how you really feel!
TFA has no links to any papers or articles about this supposed "vaccine"
The research group's web page has no direct reference to any such vaccine.
What is being hyped is pre-clinical *animal* trials (cf. http://advhealth.com/alcohol-vaccine/) which haven't even begun yet.
Move along. Nothing to see here. At least not for some time.
Then do it properly. The "That is all." at the end of your post was unnecessary, we can see where you post ends perfectly well without it.
If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is.
Well no, what it indicates is someone who is so insecure and immature as to be worried about the opinions of people he does not know and has never met. Spending time and effort paying attention to things like punctuation and grammar on a forum post (i.e within a context of no material benefit) is an indication of adolescence - doing so within the context of the workplace, where there is a material benefit, is an indication of adulthood.
I disagree. The opinions of others are immaterial. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Remind me never to hire you. That is all.
Write like Hemmingway. Keep all sentences short. Sentences that do not have subordinate clawses do not have much style to analyse.
You mean like this?
-- Peter Applebome, International Imitation Hemingway Competition
Same applies for taxing the very rich more than the poor. Their workers and customers who make them so rich use the publicly funded infrastructure like roads, schools, etc.
And pay gasoline taxes and property taxes which fund the vast majority of that infrastructure. Is there a point hidden in there somewhere?
Dunno where you get that.
When I'm doing 1099 work through my own company....in the recent past, I've bought a high deductible insurance policy (and yes, I have pre-existing conditions and am not that young) which was only about $210/mo...with a $1200 deductible.
Again...harkening back to when medical insurance was called "Major Medical"....something to be used for catastrophic emergencies.
I do, however, make good money, and managed to sock away about $3K max, pre-tax into my HSA which I used for routine medical care (office visits, meds, a MRI I had one year...etc). But if you are young and save your money...this will not break the bank.
This in fact *can* be done, and I'm upset that the govt doesn't promote this type of medical care construct rather than taking all my money, deciding how best to spend it when that should be between my Dr and myself.....
That's fabulous for you. Probably would be okay for me too. But if you're a family of four, That comes out to ~$800/month. If you're at the median income (~$44,000/year), that means you take home about $2600/month. I'll let you do the math.
And yet Medicaide/Medicare are going broke quickly why.....?
Okay. So you're a troll. not going to feed you any more. Sorry.
Whatever happened to the young saving and planning for retirement and health needs in their future for when they were old, like many of us still do?
Get the govt out of the way and get rid of the bean counters, and make it easier for people to save (HSA's for instance) their money pre-tax for routine health care, and affordable major medical insurance for catastrophic needs....
You save for your housing, utilities and food needs right? Why should you also not save for your medical needs?
Are you really that uninformed about how health care works in the United States? If so, I'm really sorry for you. Purchasing health insurance as an individual under our current system costs anywhere from $10,000-$30,000 per year. Check the median income for people in the U.S. Now explain to me how HSAs and savings are going to allow someone to spend 25-40% of their income on health insurance and still be able to pay rent/mortgage, feed their family, etc, etc. etc.
Inform yourself about reality. Or don't. That's up to you. But expect to be called out with *facts* if you make unsupportable statements.
Not really....it is just that I'm capable of saving for my health needs just like I plan and save for my housing needs, food needs, utility needs...etc.
I wish the Govt would expand (instead of shrink) the tools that allow me to do this better, like HSA's..where I can sock back money pre-tax for my routine needs, and have higher deductible insurance (major medical) only to be used in catastrophic needs.
Let me use my medical dollars to shop around for my best Dr. / deal......and get the govt and bean counters out of the way as middle man taking up useless space and sucking money out with no benefit to the patient.
You are aware that Medicare (a government program) has administrative (non-patient related) costs of about 3%, while the administrative costs of private insurers are generally at least an order of magnitude higher, right?
It gives benefits to the old/sick people at the expense of the young/healthy people. That's the whole point of forcing everyone to buy the insurance, whether they want/need it or not.
Yes. It's called the Social Contract. We give up some liberty and treasure to society, so that the society we live in can be enhanced *for all of us*. Those young, healthy people will one day be old and infirm. Or are you unable to grasp the cycle of life?
For awhile, anyway. Once Obama has everybody properly collared and leashed, and they roll out single-payer, the Insurance Companies are out of business.
Not entirely a bad thing, because Insurance companies are leeches, but that's the deal coming up.
I sure hope you're right. Single payer is so obviously the right way to go. It's a shame that so many of you are either brainwashed or collared and leashed by those who feather their nests by ripping you off.
I think you're still missing the point. People were saying that he would still be American even if he was born in Kenya. But this is not true in all cases, such as if his mother was 11 when he was born.
I made that point in a previous post. I was correcting an error from another post where I called someone else out for omitting important information when I used the wrong statute altogether. Now that we're all on the same page, carry on.
I should have included that, but didnt seem relevant in the context. Apologies if it was misleading.
And upon re-reading my comment, I was wrong. A person born in the U.S. is covered under this:
Statute, by birth within U.S.
As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
Note that this is the law as of 2011. Presumably Barack Obama's citizenship would be covered under the law in effect in 1961. However, since the Fourteenth Amendment would govern this (since Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state on August 21, 1959), the rules would most likely be as follows:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The long standing and widely accepted interpretation of this clause strongly implies that regardless of the citizenship status of Obama's parents, he would be regarded a "natural born citizen."
My apologies for using the wrong statute altogether.
Not really true; if she was 11 when he was born he would NOT be a US citizen:
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if * the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and * at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday
You forgot to include the previous sentence from the Wikipedia article:
Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[6][emphasis added]
If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever legally resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.[8]
And so, if the person was born within the U.S. and the citizen parent resided in the U.S. for just one year, regardless of how old they were, the child would be a citizen.
(Shrug) You're the one who seems to be saying that it's ethical to "occupy" a public or semi-private space.
Is it, or isn't it? If it is, then the question becomes, who is entitled to do so?
I don't "seem" to be saying it. I do say it. And vehemently too. I'm also saying that not only should this be encouraged, but that we, as a society, should welcome it. Please let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything else for you.
And best wishes for 2013. I hope it is a happy, productive and *free* year for you.
If there's any point in there beyond your ridiculous non-sequitur, please do share.
Do such rules exist?
Havent done specific reasearch, but if they did not there would be no reason I couldnt simply go to Zucotti park now and tape the entire thing off for my personal use for a game of football or something.
Again, just because they signed an agreement allowing public access 24/7 does not mean anyone can do whatever they want in the park. It COULD, but I would be suprised if anyone could find any documentation saying that was the case.
You continue to focus on the narrow, unimportant issue. That's your privilege, but I'd prefer to discuss the more important ones. Thanks.
It remains PRIVATE PROPERTY. The public has access, but there are rules, like, I dont know, not setting up your tent and grill.
"Allowing public access" swings both ways, when OWS basically prevents any other use of the park.
Do such rules exist? I am not aware of them. You may well be correct. But, at least for me, that's not really the point.
I posit that you're looking at this backwards. That's not intended as an insult, BTW. Rather than looking for ways to limit and discourage our fellow citizens (and no, I did not take part in any OWS activities) from expressing themselves and their points of view, I believe we should expand and encourage opportunities to do so for all of us.
The NYC government should have provided sanitation facilities and police *assistance* with security to the OWS (and any others, regardless of their point of view) protestors, rather than treating them as criminals for exercising their constitutional rights.
As a native (and life-long) New Yorker, I was ashamed of my city government for debasing the ideals of our once-great nation.
Feel free to disagree with me. I don't expect that everyone should share my point of view. What I do expect is that we, as a society, and our government should be accommodating, assisting and expanding the ways that peaceful protests, dissenting opinions and alternative ideas can be expressed and discussed.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, it's not like they were squatting on private property or anything. Oh, wait.
Except for the fact that Zuccotti Park is required to provide public access 24/7. What was that I said before? Oh yes. Moron. And you've proved me right. Again./p
Seriously, for a bunch of squatters that were not always civil, they were allowed to get away with way, way more than any other protest I can remember.
Aside from a delusional persecution complex, I can't believe anyone would think the government "stifled dissent".
Get away? Yes. I mean it's not like there's some kind of precedent for this like, any sort of right of the people to "peaceably assemble." Oh, wait. Moron.
Oh, and since you're obviously not aware of what I'm talking about, cf. First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Seriously, for a bunch of squatters that were not always civil, they were allowed to get away with way, way more than any other protest I can remember.
Aside from a delusional persecution complex, I can't believe anyone would think the government "stifled dissent".
Get away? Yes. I mean it's not like there's some kind of precedent for this like, any sort of right of the people to "peaceably assemble." Oh, wait. Moron.
"Stifle yourself, Edith!" --Archie Bunker
According to NORML, what basically happens when someone is driving while on marijuana is that while they're somewhat impaired, they also drive more cautiously and leave more space around them. The net effect is that while they're annoying, they aren't all that dangerous.
By contrast, when someone is driving drunk, they tend to be both impaired and reckless. The net effect is that thousands of people each year are killed by drunk drivers.
I addressed this in a previous post. For all the studies cited by NORML, many others come to opposite conclusions. However, the common thread among Just about all of these studies is that marijuana causes impairment.
If you're impaired, you're impaired. Perhaps you can compensate for that impairment and you most likely won't get into a situation where you need all your faculties/best-case response time, etc. -- until you do. Driving while impaired is a bad idea. Whether it's because you're high (marijuana, alcohol, etc.), tired, angry/upset, texting or talking on the phone.
I'm glad that people can compensate for their impairment, but no one should drive while impaired. Period.
The real answer is to improve public transit, so that fewer people drive. Sure, people are going to need to drive around in rural areas, but we have a problem with impaired drivers in densely populated areas -- a problem that would be address by expanding public transit. Ultimately, the solution to impaired driving is to simply not have people drive -- but for the time being, we can pay people to drive buses, and we can focus our impairment tests on those people.
Absolutely. As a resident of NYC, I (mis)spent much of my youth drinking and doing other things which *definitely* impaired me. But I always took the subway or a taxi when I had to get around, and the worst thing that ever happened was that I fell asleep on the train and missed my stop.
Almost every one of my friends who grew up in suburbia had at least one story about waking up and not remembering how they got home. When you have to drive, that's a very scary proposition. Improved mass transit is *definitely* the way to go.