We're getting distracted from the original Slashdot article. What you are saying is that it's therefore okay to post DUI people's names on Twitter, even though they are not driving under the influence of any substance and are actually diabetic? *laughs* There's a big difference between the two. Employers can choose not to hire someone for abusing substances, but it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their legal condition. And gee, guess what happens when you post someone as driving under the influence of a substance? You turn someone's medical condition into a situation where they will get discriminated as if it is a lifestyle choice, when in fact it was not. As the website I already linked to you said, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT. I suppose the first time something unpredictable happens, you should have your life ruined over it. You can apply your heavyhanded justice to the world, and it will not result in solving the problems you think it solves. It will just punish some unlucky people more. Somehow in your idealism that makes the world better, but it actually doesn't. It just makes you a punitive dick.
Some people can go into this state without even knowing they are diabetic, for chrissakes! It's often an episode that causes someone to be diagnosed. Even putting a Breathalyzer key lock system that requires someone to blow before igniting the engine cannot stop this. No matter how much punishment you mete out, driving is going to be dangerous - no matter what. The danger is easily avoidable by staying away from other vehicles; something almost no one does. Especially in rush hour. Everyone follows half a second behind the next vehicle; everyone tailgates. The victims are not 100% innocent in most accidents. But oh, if you've had a drop of alcohol, it's all your fault.
People want the world to be simpler than it is, because complex situations make people run way. To quote my old boss, "If it's more than one step, i don't want to be told about it".
P.S. I have a $180 pro grade breathalyzer that I purchased for self-use. Also, I do believe I did infact supply links to refute your original statement that no one gets DUI without a breathalyzer.
I'm trying to defend the concept that there is some metric by which you can reduce the complex scales of justice into an idiotic binary decision.
Driving style actually makes more of a difference than BAC, to some extent. And you aren't going to believe this because it's wayyyy to analog for your simplistic view. Knowing how bad some people drive -- and how well others do -- I've learned (back in the college days, at least), that there are some people I'd rather ride in a car with, with them having a BAC of 0.10 -- than other people who are completely sober. Because some people are just so fucking stupid that they don't even need alcohol to be a danger.
Ironically when they wanted to increase the fine for reckless driving to $1200 in Virginia -- which also included changing lanes without signaling -- I was the only person I know who supported it. I am threatened by shitty driver on a daily basis -- and this is during rush hour, when there aren't many drunk drivers on the road. Stupidity is a far greater that than alcohol, but can you guess which one gets focused on more, because it relies on simple machine-determined justice rather than real-world shades-of-grey ethics?
Hahahahahah @ binary decision. You must be one of those false dichotomy idealists who thinks the world is binary, when it is in fact not. The only way to measure safety as a binary decision is whether you hurt someone or not. In every case I cited, no one was hurt. Conveniently, you ignored everything I said, except the one thing you disagreed with, then presented a dichotomy (false, like most) as some sort of idealist championing statement for the purity of your safety ideals.
Again, if you start to feel funny, you pull over. But that wont stop the cops from beating you, AS I POINTED OUT VIA LINKS I CITED. Your sad retort was meaningless idealism. The real world is not binary, no matter how much you fantasized about being a Transformer when you grew up.
But hey, let's live in your false world where diabetics magically can predict blood sugar fluctuations, and where they deserve to be treated like drunk drivers. Because everyone hates a complex world. I know how much easier it is for feeble minds like yours to cope when things can conveniently fit into 2 categories.
Sounds to me like if you were in charge of public policy, you would end up discriminating against people over your own inability to have the clarity to view reality in more than binary. Personally, I think you must have 0 experience with diabetics in your family or household, so you are akin to a villager waving a pitchfork around.
If coffee was banned and removed from every workplace and cupboard tomorrow, you'd see people talking to street dealers pretty quickly. You'd also see it in smokable rock form in a matter of months. And you can bet there'd be some withdrawl fueled road rage the next rush hour.
The difference is intent. People choose to drink, they don't choose to be diabetic. Do you really need to be told something so obvious? Falling asleep at the wheel isn't the same as driving drunk either; the punishment would never be the same. Intent absolutely can and does matter in the eyes of the law and in real ethics. I'm a bit annoyed that I have to bother to point this out.
Furthermore, if you are unsafe to drive, you can pull over. Yet if you are drunk, you still get charged. So if you are drunk, the law actually encourages you NOT to pull over and keep driving. And if you are diabetic, an attack can set upon you quite suddenly. But if you pull over, they'll treat you like a drunk. (example(s) below)
And it doesn't take much googling to find that having a clear breathalyzer doesn't automatically free you of harassment:
But hey, if I can pull up those examples in 1 minute, you can bet there are 1000s more.
And really, are you incapable of googling "Without breathalyzer"? At least spend 10 seconds before you say "I think what you said sounds fishy". You waste both our time, and mislead the public. People are also charged when blowing below the limit. You might have to dig down in those results some, but what you are looking for is available without needing me around to show it to you.
I have many scripts that pipe from clip:... Like my linkifier that automatically links terms I want linked. Suck my comment into clipboard, run linkifier, paste back out with links. 4NT > CMD.
Microsoft may not, but 4NT has been around forever
on
Cygwin 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Except it was called 4DOS back in the 90s, and NDOS back in the 80s. It's a command-line that has seen over 20 yrs of development. It may be no bash, but in conjunction with cygwin, I can do a great deal of things that unix people can do on my windows machine. Which is my main reason for sticking with windows -- don't want to re-write my 1000+ scripts.
Non-diabetics also don't understand that the condition isn't something that can necessarily be kept under control 100% of the time. People want their "control" like magic.
Nope. I actually never get pulled over, actually. Last time was '97. Though I did have a cop point a gun at my head for what seemed like forever in 1999 because I dared to try to ask directions.
Yes, I"m sure that story is not fudged, and it's not the first time I've heard of forced police catherization. In fact, someone was arguing with me [kind of like you] that it never happened [when I was referencing the first time I heard about it], and the 2nd time I heard about it happens the next day. I made her eat her words good.
First off, you can bet cops will have pull to not be published. Second off, you're kind of asinine/assholey {ass-something, perhaps hat...}... What if you're having a diabetic seizure and mistakenly reported as drunk? Later you can't get employed because archive.org has a copy of this tweet that will never go away. Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason. Punitive dicks like you want to mess up the balance in favor of casting a few innocent people into your safety net. Oh, and in case you think nothing happens to diabiets, eat it: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/diabetics
That's just one example. Rest assured there are more, and there are things we haven't thought of. In many jurisdictions you can be charged without a breathalyzer.
Think things never go wrong with the DUI process? Here's some more links to think about: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/dui. I especially like the forceful catherization of your penis because a breathalyze showed no DUI. But in your world, you'd permanently mar these people, guilty or not. Have fun with your fascist prictatorship.
And you seem to have missed the point that there is a distinction between use and abuse. But it's amusing how many times you will call *me* stupid while not realizing that was the original point.
And you don't know when you're being trolled. Multiple times. That was epic.
Anyway, I'd still love to know what I SHOULD have said. I gave you the opportunity to educate me out of the behavior you criticized, but all you had to offer was more criticism. Though in your defense, you were being trolled.:)
Except this thread is about SSDP, and has nothing to do with alcohol, which you brought up as some kind of clumsy device to try to make a point. Of course I did the same thing by bringing up coffee, but if you look at the post I was replying to: He's a douchebag. How would you have suggested I respond to him?
And I really doubt google went "oh wow!" and crawled everybody's pages right then and there.
In fact, searching for my username or firstnamelastname combination with the site:facebook.com reveals 0 results other than an application I created with my name in it that has to be public by default.
I wasn't aware Native Americans who colonized our land for 1000s of years before any Europeans ever stepped foot on our continent had to follow our law. ASSHOLE.
It's about removing the law that denies student loans for anyone with a marijuana conviction. Because of course taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar isn't exactly the best way to minimize marijuana's impact on people's lives. The wierd thing is is that the punishment/getting caught is far more damaging than the drug itself.
Oh wow, so anyone using marijuana is a drug addict. You ever drink coffee or alcohol, ya addict?
SSDP is about repealing the law passed by an anti-drug crusading republican which denied student loans to anyone with a marijuana defense. Because of course taking people's education away is certainly going to lead them on the rigth path in life. That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't comprehend it.
No, it doesn't. But what it does mean is that we took a land from indigenous people who had it first, via a system of genocide, murder, and repression. Even now, hundreds of years after accepting their submission, Native American's have the shortest lift expectancy and lowest literacy rates.
Sounds like they should have fought back. But Native Americans are humble, and Arabs are prideful. Sounds like pride is better to one's survival to me.
And if we then went and invaded Mexico and Canada in 1967, and took 30% more land -- it wouldn't magically be right that we get to keep it just becuase we felt like it. But that's pretty much what we did to Hawaii.
If the U.N. simply declares that New Jersey now belongs to Scientologists, does that mean they can forcefully take people's million-dollar family homes, make them leave, and shoot anybody they feel like it? Last I checked, land belongs to whoever's been there for the last couple hundred years. (No, going back 1000 years is too far. If you hold onto something for 1000 years, fine, it's yours.)
Slashdot Mirror
Some people can go into this state without even knowing they are diabetic, for chrissakes! It's often an episode that causes someone to be diagnosed. Even putting a Breathalyzer key lock system that requires someone to blow before igniting the engine cannot stop this. No matter how much punishment you mete out, driving is going to be dangerous - no matter what. The danger is easily avoidable by staying away from other vehicles; something almost no one does. Especially in rush hour. Everyone follows half a second behind the next vehicle; everyone tailgates. The victims are not 100% innocent in most accidents. But oh, if you've had a drop of alcohol, it's all your fault.
People want the world to be simpler than it is, because complex situations make people run way. To quote my old boss, "If it's more than one step, i don't want to be told about it".
P.S. I have a $180 pro grade breathalyzer that I purchased for self-use. Also, I do believe I did infact supply links to refute your original statement that no one gets DUI without a breathalyzer.
Driving style actually makes more of a difference than BAC, to some extent. And you aren't going to believe this because it's wayyyy to analog for your simplistic view. Knowing how bad some people drive -- and how well others do -- I've learned (back in the college days, at least), that there are some people I'd rather ride in a car with, with them having a BAC of 0.10 -- than other people who are completely sober. Because some people are just so fucking stupid that they don't even need alcohol to be a danger.
Ironically when they wanted to increase the fine for reckless driving to $1200 in Virginia -- which also included changing lanes without signaling -- I was the only person I know who supported it. I am threatened by shitty driver on a daily basis -- and this is during rush hour, when there aren't many drunk drivers on the road. Stupidity is a far greater that than alcohol, but can you guess which one gets focused on more, because it relies on simple machine-determined justice rather than real-world shades-of-grey ethics?
Again, if you start to feel funny, you pull over. But that wont stop the cops from beating you, AS I POINTED OUT VIA LINKS I CITED. Your sad retort was meaningless idealism. The real world is not binary, no matter how much you fantasized about being a Transformer when you grew up.
The real world isn't black and white, but I know dichotomy driven jerks like to ignore data, and you like to conclude that you can just magically decide in advance if you are safe to drive, when you can IN FACT not, as this points out.
But hey, let's live in your false world where diabetics magically can predict blood sugar fluctuations, and where they deserve to be treated like drunk drivers. Because everyone hates a complex world. I know how much easier it is for feeble minds like yours to cope when things can conveniently fit into 2 categories.
Sounds to me like if you were in charge of public policy, you would end up discriminating against people over your own inability to have the clarity to view reality in more than binary. Personally, I think you must have 0 experience with diabetics in your family or household, so you are akin to a villager waving a pitchfork around.
If coffee was banned and removed from every workplace and cupboard tomorrow, you'd see people talking to street dealers pretty quickly. You'd also see it in smokable rock form in a matter of months. And you can bet there'd be some withdrawl fueled road rage the next rush hour.
4NT treats / and \ as the same.
Furthermore, if you are unsafe to drive, you can pull over. Yet if you are drunk, you still get charged. So if you are drunk, the law actually encourages you NOT to pull over and keep driving. And if you are diabetic, an attack can set upon you quite suddenly. But if you pull over, they'll treat you like a drunk. (example(s) below)
And it doesn't take much googling to find that having a clear breathalyzer doesn't automatically free you of harassment:
http://www.wlwt.com/news/20693221/detail.html ... http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/733637 ... Oh wait, this guy was pulled over! NOT driving. Still treated the same. ... and sometimes they lie .
But hey, if I can pull up those examples in 1 minute, you can bet there are 1000s more.
And really, are you incapable of googling "Without breathalyzer"? At least spend 10 seconds before you say "I think what you said sounds fishy". You waste both our time, and mislead the public. People are also charged when blowing below the limit. You might have to dig down in those results some, but what you are looking for is available without needing me around to show it to you.
Just Google It(tm)
Please. Understand that reality sucks more than you think it does :)
I have many scripts that pipe from clip: ... Like my linkifier that automatically links terms I want linked. Suck my comment into clipboard, run linkifier, paste back out with links. 4NT > CMD.
Except it was called 4DOS back in the 90s, and NDOS back in the 80s. It's a command-line that has seen over 20 yrs of development. It may be no bash, but in conjunction with cygwin, I can do a great deal of things that unix people can do on my windows machine. Which is my main reason for sticking with windows -- don't want to re-write my 1000+ scripts.
In that case, please refer to my earlier post's 'diabetics' link, and explain how all those stories happened...
Non-diabetics also don't understand that the condition isn't something that can necessarily be kept under control 100% of the time. People want their "control" like magic.
Nope. I actually never get pulled over, actually. Last time was '97. Though I did have a cop point a gun at my head for what seemed like forever in 1999 because I dared to try to ask directions.
Yes, I"m sure that story is not fudged, and it's not the first time I've heard of forced police catherization. In fact, someone was arguing with me [kind of like you] that it never happened [when I was referencing the first time I heard about it], and the 2nd time I heard about it happens the next day. I made her eat her words good.
That's just one example. Rest assured there are more, and there are things we haven't thought of. In many jurisdictions you can be charged without a breathalyzer.
Think things never go wrong with the DUI process? Here's some more links to think about: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/dui. I especially like the forceful catherization of your penis because a breathalyze showed no DUI. But in your world, you'd permanently mar these people, guilty or not. Have fun with your fascist prictatorship.
Sounds like you're all offended over something I never said. (No, this isn't a troll this time.)
I've known for some 15-20 years that alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined. Who put the stick up your ass?
And you seem to have missed the point that there is a distinction between use and abuse. But it's amusing how many times you will call *me* stupid while not realizing that was the original point.
Anyway, I'd still love to know what I SHOULD have said. I gave you the opportunity to educate me out of the behavior you criticized, but all you had to offer was more criticism. Though in your defense, you were being trolled. :)
No I didn't. YOU brought it up.
Except this thread is about SSDP, and has nothing to do with alcohol, which you brought up as some kind of clumsy device to try to make a point. Of course I did the same thing by bringing up coffee, but if you look at the post I was replying to: He's a douchebag. How would you have suggested I respond to him?
In fact, searching for my username or firstnamelastname combination with the site:facebook.com reveals 0 results other than an application I created with my name in it that has to be public by default.
I wasn't aware Native Americans who colonized our land for 1000s of years before any Europeans ever stepped foot on our continent had to follow our law. ASSHOLE.
It's about removing the law that denies student loans for anyone with a marijuana conviction. Because of course taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar isn't exactly the best way to minimize marijuana's impact on people's lives. The wierd thing is is that the punishment/getting caught is far more damaging than the drug itself.
SSDP is about repealing the law passed by an anti-drug crusading republican which denied student loans to anyone with a marijuana defense. Because of course taking people's education away is certainly going to lead them on the rigth path in life. That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't comprehend it.
Sounds like they should have fought back. But Native Americans are humble, and Arabs are prideful. Sounds like pride is better to one's survival to me.
And if we then went and invaded Mexico and Canada in 1967, and took 30% more land -- it wouldn't magically be right that we get to keep it just becuase we felt like it. But that's pretty much what we did to Hawaii.
Two wrongs don't make a right, dude.
If the U.N. simply declares that New Jersey now belongs to Scientologists, does that mean they can forcefully take people's million-dollar family homes, make them leave, and shoot anybody they feel like it? Last I checked, land belongs to whoever's been there for the last couple hundred years. (No, going back 1000 years is too far. If you hold onto something for 1000 years, fine, it's yours.)