Oh, now I have to provide "sufficient evidence" that I'm not guilty? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on their side?
Technically, it's not a criminal case, but a civil case. Civil cases are decided on "preponderance of the evidence". "Innocent until proven guilty" is only for criminal cases. The plus side is that the accusation "he has the technology to pirate the signal, therefore he has pirated the signal" is easily refuted by showing a legitimate use for the technology. But, our legal system being as it is, it's usually much cheaper for the defendant to settle the case than to fight it, which is what witch hunts like these (and, oh, the RIAA comes to mind) rely on.
It's not unreasonable for them to look for people that are actually pirating the signal. The problem with the lawsuits was that they made no distinction between those that were pirating the signal and those that had the equipment for legitimate uses. If the modification of their hunt means going from merely suing people who possess the technology to pirate the signal to suing people who are actually at least likely pirating the signal, it's a step in the right direction.
In most countries, an idea has to be "not obvious to anyone appropriately skilled in the relevant art or technology" to be patentable - Does America not have such a clause, or do they not have anyone skilled in any art or technology?
The current procedure in the USPTO is to grant the patent and let someone else prove its invalid.
The difference is that the forum is supposed to be a place for newbies to get answers, not brushed off.
The other side of this is that in most of these forums the experienced users are volunteers and the "RTFM" response is a way of separating the people who are willing to do some of the work themselves from the people who simply want answers handed to them. Unfortunately, many inexperienced people wander into these forums thinking that they are owed answers. They give newbies a bad name as much as the "STFU N00B" experienced users give gurus a bad name.
Indeed we should all help, but sometimes pointing the user to the right source of information is a better way of helping.
Personally, I rarely say "RTFM" without at least giving a pointer where the "FM" is, even if it's just a Google search. But I also have a very low tolerance for the willfully ignorant, regardless of the OS. If they can't be bothered to learn, I can't be bothered to teach them, and I'd rather they didn't start using Linux because I don't want to have to support them. Learning to RTFM is the first step in becoming, if not a guru, then at least a non-newbie. Any forum that is specifically designed for newbies should have an introductory document explaining how RTFM works.
Here's a big problem with Linux. Linux users want people to switch to Linux, but they're not willing to help. It's always, "Did you 'man' it?" or "RTFM!!!".
In most of the groups I've been in, "RTFM" is help, at least in a subtle way. It's the "teach a man to fish" method. The idea being that telling a user where to find the answers to his questions is more helpful in the long run than just answering his question. Yes, there are people who use it as another way to say "get lost newbie", but, right or wrong, the intent is to help.
Some of you will hate me for this, but the billions of distros doesn't help. With Windows, there's only one. Having a computer background, I can say I enjoy having a choice in my flavor of Linux and desktop. But the everyday user will look at this as a hinderance. They don't want to choose the wrong one. Not everyone is a Unix admin or a developer.
The solution to this is to help the new user make the choice, not reduce the number of choices. Nobody complains about there being too many models of cars. Car buyers, in general at least, know how to choose a model based on what they need. If the user can get the information on the different distributions (even if it means just asking a friend which he recommends), they can make the decision easier. But in the end, it's up to the user to make that decision. No one else can make it for him.
You can't find the same program in the same place on different distros.
This is a fundamental part of having a choice. Different distributions are going to do things, well, differently. The solution to this is for the distributions to provide good documentation of what can be found where.
Not a big deal to the normal Linux user, but a huge deal to the everyday computer user that grew up on Windows.
This could arguably be a problem with Windows. That the user is used to a lack of choice does not mean that a lack of choice is better for the user.
Until Linux works with all hardware(it won't work with my Lexmark all-in-one) and is unified in it's overall look, normal users won't adopt it.
This is the chicken-or-egg problem: Hardware vendors won't provide Linux drivers until there are sufficient users to justify it and there won't be sufficient users until hardware vendors provide Linux drivers. The solution is for existing Linux users to encourage hardware vendors to provide drivers by asking for them and buying hardware which supports Linux. In reality, Linux will never work with all hardware. There will always be a number of vendors who only support one operating system. But with enough Linux users, that number will become increasingly small.
Stop calling them newbies. It's to much of a deragatory name and tends to push people away. How about calling them beginners or something like that?
Because the problem is not the name, it's that it's used in a derogatory fashion. As soon as the new name becomes politically correct, the people who use "newbie" to belittle them will use the new name to belittle them. Changing the name will not stop people from being derogatory to whom it refers.
The problem is that there is no "Linux" operating system, there is just the Linux kernel,
Not that anyone asked, but here's my $0.02 about the whole GNU/Linux thing. While it may not be the strict definition of what an operating system is, it stops being Linux if you change the kernel but keep the GNU utilities. It wouldn't stop being Linux if you change the GNU utilities but kept the kernel. The question I think needs answering is does running the GNU utilities on MacOS X make it GNU/MacOS X? How about GNU/Windows or GNU/BSD?
You'd end up reinventing the wheel. Nature has already worked out the solutions to alot of the problems. Would make sense to use those solutions, considering the complexity of building a functional macromolecule.
Providing we can recreate nature's inventions. Artificial hearts are made from plastic and metal because we can't, as of yet, grow new ones organically. Yes, a real heart does the job much better. But it's not currently an option.
That just simply wouldn't work as it would be effective suicide for the radio stations. What, precisely, would be left to play? fifty year old yodelling tapes? The consumers expect that stuff.
I know. My comment was largely a thought experiment. The radio stations would have to get so enormously pissed off that they would band together and be willing to sacrifice their ad revenue to teach the RIAA a lesson. Even if just the stations in New York did it it would take a serious chunk out of the RIAA's revenue. But then they would just blame piracy even more. It's going to take a lot more than this.
As for what they could play, there are a number of bands who aren't signed with the RIAA. The stations could have "local licks month" or something.
Yeah. You're right. We should get rid of patrol cars too.
Yeah, because there isn't a bit of difference between a police officer and a video camera. Not one bit.
Oh. And if you live in constant fear of the government, then you're doing something wrong. If you are obeying the law then you have little to fear due to that great judiciary you referred to.
In other words, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Because laws are always reasonable and governments never abuse their power to punish their critics. What dream world are you living in?
I'm sure this will get modded down as flamebait... but isn't this just an effective form of advertisement for the record or digital download?
I kind of have to agree with this. I never saw the commercial music radio industry as anything more than advertising for the record labels anyway, so I don't see much of a difference. But then I tend to be an idealist believing that the popularity of a song shouldn't affect an individuals decision to purchase it.
If it is played 40 times a week people are going to hear it and *believe* that it is popular. When it gets artificially vaulted to the top of the charts more people are going to *believe* that it is popular.
Well, the sheep have to be willing to be led. People who purchase music solely because it is popular deserve what they get.
The system is not the people and that is exactly the problem.
America is a representative democracy.
In theory. In actuality it is an aristocracy where only members of the ruling class can be elected. The people are asked to choose between two people[1] who are virtually indistinguishable from each other and we pretend we still have a choice. It's like giving the people the choice between eating horse shit or cow shit and then claiming it was they that chose to eat shit. We console ourselves with the idea that "anyone can grow up to be president" despite the fact that the office has been held almost exclusively by rich white men. Not that there is anything inherently evil about rich white men, but they do not, by any stretch of the imagination, represent all Americans.
To claim that you don't vote because you lost faith in the system is like saying that you dont clean your room becuase it is alwys messy.
To extend your analogy, the problem is my room is always messy despite my many attempts to clean it so I've stopped wasting my time and energy.
[1] Yes, I'm aware that there are more than two choices. They can't win.
Can you please explain to me how having cameras IN A PUBLIC PLACE somehow infringes on "freedom"?
Because it violates the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". It records every act in case it might be a crime.
And as for privacy, its called PUBLIC for a reason.
Privacy is the result of the limit on government's power, not the reason for it. The reason for the limit is that people should not have to live in constant fear of the government. That I am in a public place does not change that.
Can this be abused? Sure.
If we could trust our government not to abuse it's power we wouldn't need things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to limit it, and the Judiciary Branch to enforce it.
Uh, well, yeah. Nothing can make me immune to robbery, so "less likely" is all I can shoot for.
The point I was making, and the one you replied to, was that the parent's comparison of not punishing every speeder to not punishing every burglar was flawed because there is necessarily a victim in every instance of burglary while there is not necessarily a victim in every incidence of speeding. Being at less risk of being a victim of burglary doesn't change that.
See my previous comment:
You said:
I'm not advocating RFID tags in license plates, mind you. I just think speeding isn't always harmless.
I was pointing out that I never said speeding was always harmless as you appeared to be implying.
A major predicate of our criminal justice system is the notion that punishment is a deterrent.
The threat of punishment is to discourage the behavior. But if they are already engaging in the behavior, punishment does not stop them. The person who has already decided to speed is not being stopped from speeding by getting a ticket in the mail. The speeder being stopped by a policeman is being stopped from speeding.
The reason people speed so freely is because they know they won't get caught.
In order to discourage the behavior, people only have to get caught often enough to make the benefit not worth the risk.
Where I live, it's the same with burglary. The chance of getting caught is approaching zero. The police won't even come out to take a report unless there's some sort of aggravating circumstance.
Then that's a problem with how the police handle burglaries in your area (for whatever reasons). Ticketing every incidence of speeding won't change that and doesn't make the comparison of speeding to burglary any more valid.
Tell that to my kid whose father was killed by a speeding motorist.
I'm sorry for your kid's tragedy. But his/her father would still have been killed whether or not the speeder got a ticket in the mail a week later. Besides that, one specific case does not prove a generality ("This person died because of speeding so all speeding is necessarily dangerous").
You can come explain to him why his pain is bogus.
I didn't say his pain was bogus. I said your argument was bogus. That someone suffered doesn't make your argument any more valid.
As a psychologist I can tell you that a large part of human behavior, ethics and laws are based on emotion and our emotional response to certain events.
That may be the case. It doesn't, however, make it right.
>Would you like to point out where I said that? I never said speeding shouldn't be against the law.
Would you like to say where I said you said that? I didn't. I just pointed out that motorists always talk as if laws (such as speeding) were put there merely for their inconvenience.
You said:
Why is it that motorists believe that laws regarding cars (speeding, parking restrictions, environmental considerations) are merely designed to inconvenience them and not to serve some greater social good?[1]
Your were attacking my argument by equating it to what you perceive others believe and thus applying it to my viewpoint also. Simply because I don't think draconian measures to stop every single incident of speeding are unwarranted does not mean I believe speeding laws don't have a purpose. Don't apply other people's viewpoints to my arguments to discredit them when I said no such thing.
No. (It really does help if you actually read what someone says and realize that not every single point in a posting is supposed to be taken as being part of a single argument.)
You said:
How many deaths have there been from terrorism in the last ten years? How many due to cars? [2]
comparing the number of deaths from terrorist attacks to the number of deaths from car accidents, ignoring that the number of terrorist attacks is far fewer than the number of incidents of speeding, in an attempt to make speeding look worse than terrorism. How exactly did I misconstrue that?
I was just pointing out the large number of car-related deaths and how little attention is given to many of the relatively simple steps that could be taken to reduce that number.
While completely ignoring that not every car related death is due to speeding, that not every incident of speeding results in a death (far fewer actually), and that the "relatively simple steps" you advocate treat every citizen
Obviously, the crux of this thread is that one guy is happy to accept the electoral college and others have become disenfranchised to the point where it feels as if it makes no difference for them if they vote or not.
I don't think the problem is in how we make the choices but what the choices are. The entire system is full of people who have interests other than the people they supposedly represent. This is because the system gives them an advantage to have other interests. It's like basketball giving tall people an advantage, so it tends to have a lot of tall players.
I'd propose that if you really want true representative democracy, then you should take the advice of the gp (in spite of the mild vitriol and personal attacks) and vote in this direction as a write-in or organize grass-roots support for such a system.
The fact is I do vote, but I don't delude myself into thinking it makes a difference. Assuming that 60% of the populace is lazy or just doesn't care is naive at best and avoiding the real problem. A lot of people have just given up. Others are making a conscious decision not to give their tacit approval to a system which is clearly, in their minds anyway, corrupt. When the game is rigged against you, you stop playing. And I can't say that I blame them.
What the fuck do you think happens on election day? You walk into a booth and check either Bush or Kerry and then walk out? There are other races, other candidates. You can have an effect on all of them.
No independent candidate has ever even come close to winning the election for president. Independents in the Senate are outnumbered 99 to 1. Independents in the House are outnumbered 434 to 1(source).Voting for an independent candidate, or worse, writing one in, has no more effect than not voting.
You're lazy and apathetic and just looking to excuse it.
Ad hominem. If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.
Bill Clinton was first elected by less than half of the voters. George Bush was also likely elected by less than half of the voters. Perot and Nader changed the outcome of elections. What was the result of this?
The result was we got Presidents that more than half the voters thought were not the best men for the job.
It's only a matter of time until a kid gets hit. (Remember: residential suburban street)
I have the same problem on my street. But the solution is not to tag every car in the state in case they speed down my street.
Between the alarm system, my dog and my guns I'm not really worried about burglars.
That only makes you less likely to get robbed. Were your house to be burglarized, though, you would be a victim. Every instance of burglary results in a victim. The fact that you are less likely to get robbed doesn't change that.
Right now people on our street take turns calling the police and complaining. They send someone out who nails speeders for a day, but it really doesn't make a difference.
If your police department won't enforce the law where it is clearly a danger, that is a different problem and I doubt RFID tags would help. The guy doing 50 down your street is still going to kill someone whether or not he gets a ticket in the mail a week later.
I'm not advocating RFID tags in license plates, mind you. I just think speeding isn't always harmless.
I didn't say speeding was always harmless. I said it isn't always harmful. The simple fact is that the intent of speeding laws is to reduce the behavior, not eliminate it completely. And the stance that every violation must be punished is absolutely unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, now I have to provide "sufficient evidence" that I'm not guilty? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on their side?
Technically, it's not a criminal case, but a civil case. Civil cases are decided on "preponderance of the evidence". "Innocent until proven guilty" is only for criminal cases. The plus side is that the accusation "he has the technology to pirate the signal, therefore he has pirated the signal" is easily refuted by showing a legitimate use for the technology. But, our legal system being as it is, it's usually much cheaper for the defendant to settle the case than to fight it, which is what witch hunts like these (and, oh, the RIAA comes to mind) rely on.
Also - DirecTV isn't STOPPING it's hunt... they're merely modifying it:
It's not unreasonable for them to look for people that are actually pirating the signal. The problem with the lawsuits was that they made no distinction between those that were pirating the signal and those that had the equipment for legitimate uses. If the modification of their hunt means going from merely suing people who possess the technology to pirate the signal to suing people who are actually at least likely pirating the signal, it's a step in the right direction.
If you want to be truly fair about it, divide the $3 million over the amount of time he spent developing it.
In most countries, an idea has to be "not obvious to anyone appropriately skilled in the relevant art or technology" to be patentable - Does America not have such a clause, or do they not have anyone skilled in any art or technology?
The current procedure in the USPTO is to grant the patent and let someone else prove its invalid.
The difference is that the forum is supposed to be a place for newbies to get answers, not brushed off.
The other side of this is that in most of these forums the experienced users are volunteers and the "RTFM" response is a way of separating the people who are willing to do some of the work themselves from the people who simply want answers handed to them. Unfortunately, many inexperienced people wander into these forums thinking that they are owed answers. They give newbies a bad name as much as the "STFU N00B" experienced users give gurus a bad name.
Indeed we should all help, but sometimes pointing the user to the right source of information is a better way of helping.
Personally, I rarely say "RTFM" without at least giving a pointer where the "FM" is, even if it's just a Google search. But I also have a very low tolerance for the willfully ignorant, regardless of the OS. If they can't be bothered to learn, I can't be bothered to teach them, and I'd rather they didn't start using Linux because I don't want to have to support them. Learning to RTFM is the first step in becoming, if not a guru, then at least a non-newbie. Any forum that is specifically designed for newbies should have an introductory document explaining how RTFM works.
Here's a big problem with Linux. Linux users want people to switch to Linux, but they're not willing to help. It's always, "Did you 'man' it?" or "RTFM!!!".
In most of the groups I've been in, "RTFM" is help, at least in a subtle way. It's the "teach a man to fish" method. The idea being that telling a user where to find the answers to his questions is more helpful in the long run than just answering his question. Yes, there are people who use it as another way to say "get lost newbie", but, right or wrong, the intent is to help.
Some of you will hate me for this, but the billions of distros doesn't help. With Windows, there's only one. Having a computer background, I can say I enjoy having a choice in my flavor of Linux and desktop. But the everyday user will look at this as a hinderance. They don't want to choose the wrong one. Not everyone is a Unix admin or a developer.
The solution to this is to help the new user make the choice, not reduce the number of choices. Nobody complains about there being too many models of cars. Car buyers, in general at least, know how to choose a model based on what they need. If the user can get the information on the different distributions (even if it means just asking a friend which he recommends), they can make the decision easier. But in the end, it's up to the user to make that decision. No one else can make it for him.
You can't find the same program in the same place on different distros.
This is a fundamental part of having a choice. Different distributions are going to do things, well, differently. The solution to this is for the distributions to provide good documentation of what can be found where.
Not a big deal to the normal Linux user, but a huge deal to the everyday computer user that grew up on Windows.
This could arguably be a problem with Windows. That the user is used to a lack of choice does not mean that a lack of choice is better for the user.
Until Linux works with all hardware(it won't work with my Lexmark all-in-one) and is unified in it's overall look, normal users won't adopt it.
This is the chicken-or-egg problem: Hardware vendors won't provide Linux drivers until there are sufficient users to justify it and there won't be sufficient users until hardware vendors provide Linux drivers. The solution is for existing Linux users to encourage hardware vendors to provide drivers by asking for them and buying hardware which supports Linux. In reality, Linux will never work with all hardware. There will always be a number of vendors who only support one operating system. But with enough Linux users, that number will become increasingly small.
Stop calling them newbies. It's to much of a deragatory name and tends to push people away. How about calling them beginners or something like that?
Because the problem is not the name, it's that it's used in a derogatory fashion. As soon as the new name becomes politically correct, the people who use "newbie" to belittle them will use the new name to belittle them. Changing the name will not stop people from being derogatory to whom it refers.
The problem is that there is no "Linux" operating system, there is just the Linux kernel,
Not that anyone asked, but here's my $0.02 about the whole GNU/Linux thing. While it may not be the strict definition of what an operating system is, it stops being Linux if you change the kernel but keep the GNU utilities. It wouldn't stop being Linux if you change the GNU utilities but kept the kernel. The question I think needs answering is does running the GNU utilities on MacOS X make it GNU/MacOS X? How about GNU/Windows or GNU/BSD?
A talking, pop-up tux that spits out hundred-page man pages might be kinda funny though...
Or, better yet, one who's response to every action is "RTFM".
Blind leading the blind? I don't see many schools asking students to lead class and I think there is a reason...
If you're building something for the blind to use (software, sidewalks, whatever), don't you think you ought to ask the blind what they need?
You'd end up reinventing the wheel. Nature has already worked out the solutions to alot of the problems. Would make sense to use those solutions, considering the complexity of building a functional macromolecule.
Providing we can recreate nature's inventions. Artificial hearts are made from plastic and metal because we can't, as of yet, grow new ones organically. Yes, a real heart does the job much better. But it's not currently an option.
When you are dealing with things on the scale of nanobots, the term 'organic' is meaningless: its all just atoms.
Organic is still organic even on a molecular scale. The point about them being inorganic is they wouldn't be a food source for other organisms.
What would stop the nanobots attacking each other?
I'm assuming their design. Unless the people who built them had some specific reason to cause them to attack each other, they likely wouldn't.
That just simply wouldn't work as it would be effective suicide for the radio stations. What, precisely, would be left to play? fifty year old yodelling tapes? The consumers expect that stuff.
I know. My comment was largely a thought experiment. The radio stations would have to get so enormously pissed off that they would band together and be willing to sacrifice their ad revenue to teach the RIAA a lesson. Even if just the stations in New York did it it would take a serious chunk out of the RIAA's revenue. But then they would just blame piracy even more. It's going to take a lot more than this.
As for what they could play, there are a number of bands who aren't signed with the RIAA. The stations could have "local licks month" or something.
The radio stations should stop playing RIAA songs altogether and see how many they sell then.
It eliminates junk faxes by legalizing it, just like CAN-SPAM eliminates spam by legalizing (certain forms of) it. TADA!
/sarcasm
Like the Clean Air Act wasn't a command, but a declaration: "The air is now clean".
Personally I have never found an appropriate opportunity to close a sarcasm tag...
Yeah. You're right. We should get rid of patrol cars too.
Yeah, because there isn't a bit of difference between a police officer and a video camera. Not one bit.
Oh. And if you live in constant fear of the government, then you're doing something wrong. If you are obeying the law then you have little to fear due to that great judiciary you referred to.
In other words, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Because laws are always reasonable and governments never abuse their power to punish their critics. What dream world are you living in?
I'm sure this will get modded down as flamebait... but isn't this just an effective form of advertisement for the record or digital download?
I kind of have to agree with this. I never saw the commercial music radio industry as anything more than advertising for the record labels anyway, so I don't see much of a difference. But then I tend to be an idealist believing that the popularity of a song shouldn't affect an individuals decision to purchase it.
If it is played 40 times a week people are going to hear it and *believe* that it is popular. When it gets artificially vaulted to the top of the charts more people are going to *believe* that it is popular.
Well, the sheep have to be willing to be led. People who purchase music solely because it is popular deserve what they get.
The system is the people.
The system is not the people and that is exactly the problem.
America is a representative democracy.
In theory. In actuality it is an aristocracy where only members of the ruling class can be elected. The people are asked to choose between two people[1] who are virtually indistinguishable from each other and we pretend we still have a choice. It's like giving the people the choice between eating horse shit or cow shit and then claiming it was they that chose to eat shit. We console ourselves with the idea that "anyone can grow up to be president" despite the fact that the office has been held almost exclusively by rich white men. Not that there is anything inherently evil about rich white men, but they do not, by any stretch of the imagination, represent all Americans.
To claim that you don't vote because you lost faith in the system is like saying that you dont clean your room becuase it is alwys messy.
To extend your analogy, the problem is my room is always messy despite my many attempts to clean it so I've stopped wasting my time and energy.
[1] Yes, I'm aware that there are more than two choices. They can't win.
Can you please explain to me how having cameras IN A PUBLIC PLACE somehow infringes on "freedom"?
Because it violates the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". It records every act in case it might be a crime.
And as for privacy, its called PUBLIC for a reason.
Privacy is the result of the limit on government's power, not the reason for it. The reason for the limit is that people should not have to live in constant fear of the government. That I am in a public place does not change that.
Can this be abused? Sure.
If we could trust our government not to abuse it's power we wouldn't need things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to limit it, and the Judiciary Branch to enforce it.
The point I was making, and the one you replied to, was that the parent's comparison of not punishing every speeder to not punishing every burglar was flawed because there is necessarily a victim in every instance of burglary while there is not necessarily a victim in every incidence of speeding. Being at less risk of being a victim of burglary doesn't change that.
See my previous comment:
You said:
I was pointing out that I never said speeding was always harmless as you appeared to be implying.
The threat of punishment is to discourage the behavior. But if they are already engaging in the behavior, punishment does not stop them. The person who has already decided to speed is not being stopped from speeding by getting a ticket in the mail. The speeder being stopped by a policeman is being stopped from speeding.
The reason people speed so freely is because they know they won't get caught.
In order to discourage the behavior, people only have to get caught often enough to make the benefit not worth the risk.
Where I live, it's the same with burglary. The chance of getting caught is approaching zero. The police won't even come out to take a report unless there's some sort of aggravating circumstance.
Then that's a problem with how the police handle burglaries in your area (for whatever reasons). Ticketing every incidence of speeding won't change that and doesn't make the comparison of speeding to burglary any more valid.
Tell that to my kid whose father was killed by a speeding motorist.
I'm sorry for your kid's tragedy. But his/her father would still have been killed whether or not the speeder got a ticket in the mail a week later. Besides that, one specific case does not prove a generality ("This person died because of speeding so all speeding is necessarily dangerous").
You can come explain to him why his pain is bogus.
I didn't say his pain was bogus. I said your argument was bogus. That someone suffered doesn't make your argument any more valid.
As a psychologist I can tell you that a large part of human behavior, ethics and laws are based on emotion and our emotional response to certain events.
That may be the case. It doesn't, however, make it right.
>Would you like to point out where I said that? I never said speeding shouldn't be against the law.
Would you like to say where I said you said that? I didn't. I just pointed out that motorists always talk as if laws (such as speeding) were put there merely for their inconvenience.
You said:
Your were attacking my argument by equating it to what you perceive others believe and thus applying it to my viewpoint also. Simply because I don't think draconian measures to stop every single incident of speeding are unwarranted does not mean I believe speeding laws don't have a purpose. Don't apply other people's viewpoints to my arguments to discredit them when I said no such thing.
No. (It really does help if you actually read what someone says and realize that not every single point in a posting is supposed to be taken as being part of a single argument.)
You said:
comparing the number of deaths from terrorist attacks to the number of deaths from car accidents, ignoring that the number of terrorist attacks is far fewer than the number of incidents of speeding, in an attempt to make speeding look worse than terrorism. How exactly did I misconstrue that?
I was just pointing out the large number of car-related deaths and how little attention is given to many of the relatively simple steps that could be taken to reduce that number.
While completely ignoring that not every car related death is due to speeding, that not every incident of speeding results in a death (far fewer actually), and that the "relatively simple steps" you advocate treat every citizen
Obviously, the crux of this thread is that one guy is happy to accept the electoral college and others have become disenfranchised to the point where it feels as if it makes no difference for them if they vote or not.
I don't think the problem is in how we make the choices but what the choices are. The entire system is full of people who have interests other than the people they supposedly represent. This is because the system gives them an advantage to have other interests. It's like basketball giving tall people an advantage, so it tends to have a lot of tall players.
I'd propose that if you really want true representative democracy, then you should take the advice of the gp (in spite of the mild vitriol and personal attacks) and vote in this direction as a write-in or organize grass-roots support for such a system.
The fact is I do vote, but I don't delude myself into thinking it makes a difference. Assuming that 60% of the populace is lazy or just doesn't care is naive at best and avoiding the real problem. A lot of people have just given up. Others are making a conscious decision not to give their tacit approval to a system which is clearly, in their minds anyway, corrupt. When the game is rigged against you, you stop playing. And I can't say that I blame them.
What the fuck do you think happens on election day? You walk into a booth and check either Bush or Kerry and then walk out? There are other races, other candidates. You can have an effect on all of them.
No independent candidate has ever even come close to winning the election for president. Independents in the Senate are outnumbered 99 to 1. Independents in the House are outnumbered 434 to 1(source).Voting for an independent candidate, or worse, writing one in, has no more effect than not voting.
You're lazy and apathetic and just looking to excuse it.
Ad hominem. If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.
Bill Clinton was first elected by less than half of the voters. George Bush was also likely elected by less than half of the voters. Perot and Nader changed the outcome of elections. What was the result of this?
The result was we got Presidents that more than half the voters thought were not the best men for the job.
It's only a matter of time until a kid gets hit. (Remember: residential suburban street)
I have the same problem on my street. But the solution is not to tag every car in the state in case they speed down my street.
Between the alarm system, my dog and my guns I'm not really worried about burglars.
That only makes you less likely to get robbed. Were your house to be burglarized, though, you would be a victim. Every instance of burglary results in a victim. The fact that you are less likely to get robbed doesn't change that.
Right now people on our street take turns calling the police and complaining. They send someone out who nails speeders for a day, but it really doesn't make a difference.
If your police department won't enforce the law where it is clearly a danger, that is a different problem and I doubt RFID tags would help. The guy doing 50 down your street is still going to kill someone whether or not he gets a ticket in the mail a week later.
I'm not advocating RFID tags in license plates, mind you. I just think speeding isn't always harmless.
I didn't say speeding was always harmless. I said it isn't always harmful. The simple fact is that the intent of speeding laws is to reduce the behavior, not eliminate it completely. And the stance that every violation must be punished is absolutely unreasonable.