Is a 42-inch HDTV the same standard-TV picture size as a 36-inch CRT? I wonder....
If it's only $300 more than what I paid for a NON-hdtv in 1999 (just broke 35,000 hours used -- do the math on that one), that might actually be worth it *IF* (and that's a big if) there are NO ISSUES.
they COULD sell them at a break-even, and simply make more money off of the capitalists who have no choice but to pay full price for these things.... (And yes, I know that has a ripple effect into our health care prices, so you could say it's forced charity again.) I'm a bit suspect of any corporation tooting its own horn. ):
One argument I can make against myself: I don't give to charity. Pretty much, never. Perhaps that's why I am in more support of socialized medicine (like every other industrialized nation, though the smart ones still allow private medicine to co-exist so that people can get the benefits of WHICHEVER SYSTEM is more beneficial for them, be it capitalism, or socialism.)
You are right about the happiness thing. I'll be happy when housing contractors are out of my life, but that's a different story.
"There just isn't enough tax money out there to give every citizen best-in-class medical care, even if you thought it were ethical to use tax money to do so."
That's very true. The cost of keeping an old person alive for another 6 weeks is often greater than the cost of saving 1,000 lives (of, say, premature babies). There are all kinds of issues to work out, but I think simply giving 0 care to people who can't pay it ignores the problem, and creates many more problems; problems that likely exceed the scope of this conversation. (For example, being carjacked and shot to death because someone needed money for an operation. Contrived example? Yes. Has it happened? I bet. Do I come up with shitty examples? Usually, but if you have imagination, you can hopefully think of a better one.:))
Lucent.. hahahahaha..... At least you didn't have MCI or C&W.
348 pages? I'm a bit ADHD and PDF-hating for that. Got something closer to THIS? (Well, maybe not, but that link is interesting -- check out the others.) I believe you though; we just still spend A LOT on military, and that money could go elsewhere.
I guess... I'd like to live in a world where charity isn't necesary. Wouldn't that be nice? I'd also like sugar faries and gumdrop lanes...<sigh>
Like a mathematician, I can define more problems than solutions.
if corporations are giving free drugs to indigents, why are they fighting so hard to NOT release cheap AIDS drugs to africa? I call shenanigans on that one:) Helping 10 people at place X while hurting 10000 people at place Y is a great p.r. move "against" those who live in place X.
Anyway, the part I disagree with most is "Capitalism, for all its flaws, has helped more people live better lives than any other economic system (anarchy, socialism, its brother fascism, feudalism, communism, or whatever else I can think of)."
I think that was true in the 1800s, and even in the 1900s, but I think as technology progresses, and things get cheaper, capitalism just wont hold up. The limit of pure capitalism as time reaches infinity is corpratism and/or fascism. Capitalist ideas were based on a smaller world with less technology, and I do not think they scale one-to-one to the world today.
What happens when there are fewer jobs than people? When robots run our farms, our manufacturing, our service. What happens when there is only 1 job to 1000 people? Do we let the rest starve? What if person X could afford to save their life for $1, but can't make $1 simply because there are no jobs? Yes, this is a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical situation, but if we suceed as a species, in 1,000 years this is how it should be.
We can still create art, entertainment, etc. But honestly, will we become a species of slackers and dreamers who wont have to work? I think so. I actually hope so. We don't NEED to be constnatly consuming and producing to be happy. That is a paradigm thrust upon us by the system. The american flavor of capitalism isn't making me particularly happy, and seems to be screwing everybody left-and-right (I'm at least fortunate enough to have a positive net worth, but most of my friends making >$50K/yr are still in debt!).
Admittedly, this discourse is completely impractical. But I hope it at least illustrates why I think the way I do.
I think it IS in your best interest to keep these extra people alive, rather than let them die because there's "not enough money to save them" (when there IS -- just look at how much we spend on DESTROYING life! Take half that, put it to medicine, bam, problem solved. Rich people can still pay for extra service, but at least poor people would have baseline services. This isn't changing capitalism to communism; this is a mashup. Health Care 2.0.). These people can provide value. A person is worth more alive than dead. "The illogic of waste." It is illogical to let people die from lack of health care when SO MUCH MONEY is being spent. It makes sense in the 1800s, and the 1900s, but not in the 2000s. And it will make even less sense in the 3000s.
Now give me a time machine so I can prove myself right!:)
But I wasn't arguing for communism, athiesm, concentrating political power, forcing doctors to work for free, or any of that. You put words in my mouth.
Your equating my tax distribution to that is what... a straw man? (I'm not too versed on the names of logical fallacies as I find them a bit pedantic, but still I want to join the pedant bandwagon nonetheless.)
Not everything is 0's and 1's, and this is the problem in many people's thinking. I'm saying that we need something like 0.9, but you are saying there is only 1 or 0. There are many shades of grey to how many things can be done.
40 million americans without health care would not agree with you one bit about socialized medicine. Go tell some of them dying of cancer that it's for their own good. Wake up to reality. Not everything in reality must be the implementation of an unyielding idealism.
Remember: As we progress as a species, with more robots, nanotech, genetics, the cost of technology and medicine go down to 0. But the # of jobs will decrease as well, once everything is automated (I'm talking more about 1,000 years in the future.) At some point, free handouts WILL become the norm, as a species. It *is* possible for everybody to have everything, eventually -- but not with your attitude. (IMNSHO)
I'm not talking about a free ride, simply that the poor should be able to afford health care and education, which SHOULD BE socialized services (like the rest of the world) ANYWAY. (Well, education is socialized in america - just very poorly).
Both communism and capitalism are idealist paradigms, both destined to fail utterly. The best solution is a mashup. (I really want to use "2.0" in a joke here.)
Another anology: Imagine if a single hair on your head could save a life. It's no harm to use to use it, so is it really a crime if I pull that hair out? Maybe, but I think that's a bit idealist, and not very practical.
Communism is a good idea. It just doesn't work because there's no incentive. Why be a rocket scientist when I can be a garbageman and make the same money? I'm not talking about converting to communism; I kind of think your leap to that is a bit of a slippery slope.
I agree that is is unconstitutional, but lets face it: It's here to stay. Just because you are against it in general doesn't mean that you should automatically be against anything that affects one group (the rich) more than another (the poor) (though I would argue the oppositte is true, the rich can lose much more money without having any change to their lifestyle, and the poor could use the extra money a lot more than the rich -- $1000 means a lot more to a homeless man than to Bill Gates).
So while it may not be the government's job to do it, it is happening whether you or I like it. Accept it, or revolt. Now, given that this is happening no matter what, I would prefer it to be done using an algorithm that creates the most help while creating the least harm. The simple matter is that the rich can afford to help the poor. If we're already being "forced to help our common man by the government", then we should be forced to do it in a proper way.
This isn't about being objective. It's about being purposely subjective and realizing, the poor need the money more than the rich. If you are going to tax $X, most of it should come from the rich. If the toop 2% own 98% of everything out there, they can certainly afford to pay for the bottom 2%. Hell, probably the bottom 50% (considering the top 1% pay 30% of all taxes -- I'm sure they could afford to pay 100% of all taxes and STILL have money left over).
The consolodation of wealth is one of the things that is holding us back, as a species. I vote libertarian, but I think some libertarian ideas are completely unyeilding in thier acceptance of certain subjective realities, such as fairness.
Say you were only worth $1000, and someone took 10%, $100. That hurts. You have $900 left.
Say you were worth $100,000,000, and someone took 10%, $10,000,000. That hurts. On paper. In real life, you still have $90M and are still going to be able to live the exact same lifestyle that you were before.
It's not about the number of dollar bills, it's about the harm associated with losing them. Harm those who can afford to be harmed...
I also meant to say -- the extra $10M could offset all the taxes for thousands of poor families, allowing them to possibly be able to afford things like, say, COLLEGE TUITION SO THEY DON'T STAY POOR.))
A person making a billion dollars can afford to lose a higher percentage of his money. If we taxed those who made a billion at a rate of 75%, they'd STILL HAVE 250 MILLION. One could very easily argue that their rate should be EVEN HIGHER THAN 75%.
Taxing just one billionairre another single percent (10 million dollars) could offset large taxes (30%) from poor familes (
It's not just a matter of everyone paying the same percentage. You have an M&M. I have a chocolate cake. We adopt a child. We each agree to give the child 10% of our food. Now, you have 0.9 M&Ms for yourself, and I have 90% of a cake for myself. Is that fair? In a strict libertarian sense, it is. But in a sense of wanting to do good for your common man, it is absolutely unfair. (Yes, my analogy is all fucked up, and I'm too lazy to fix it, simply hoping you can see past my presentation to MY POINT.)
Women over 50 talk. A LOT. As coworkers, 100% of women over 50 have talked to me 500% more than ANY other person of ANY other age group, man or woman. And by "talked to me" I mean "shared minute details about their life that I don't really care about until I would rather have my ears bleed."
Because I, and everyone else with common sense and experience, know you are wrong. Most rear-endings are not fatal, period. So saying "if you survive" is indeed laughable because you usually will. I know tons of people who have been rear ended (including me and my wife). I know very few people who were killed in such accidents (0 to my knowledge). Of course, it's hard to know dead people.
I bet if you encoded your video through Macrovision's copyright protection scheme, that the filter programs would not be able to read it will enough to filter it.
Using copyright protection to disable copyright protection? Priceless.
Huh? What? No.. If someone is tailgating me, and I tap my brakes just enough to cause them to ding me and make their insurance go up, no. That is not under any circumstance the same amount of kinetic energy exchange as a head-on collision. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. You said "if you survive" which was so laughable.
Any intelligent reader has already made conclusions about you. The fact that you defended such a stupid statement actually makes you look even stupider than you already did.
I'm well aware of those, which is part of the reason I haven't been eager to replace my 1993 car.:)
You just said getting rear-ended is like getting in a head-on collision. I think this speaks for itself. Do not pass Go, go directly to high school physics.
Where to start? First off, I'm lazy, so I'm not going to do any work over you. I don't remember what I said, and I don't really care if I used fallacy X or fallacy Y; I find the pointint out of logical fallacies as a bit pedantic and avoiding the true substance of things, though sometimes it is certainly of some benefit. I can't help but think, however, that a lot of what you said applies to yourself as well. Especially what you said about the 'majority'.
But that's not worth my time debating.
I'm here to respond to your laughable series of events here. First off, most rear-endings are survived. I had to stop from laughing at your "if you survive the collision". Um... While accidents kill more people than terrorism, the average accident is survived, and this goes for rear endings too. 40,000 fatalties a year dividied by 50 states divided by 365 days is about 2 deaths per day per year. I'm pretty sure there are probably well over 100 rear-endings in each state per day, but I am far too lazy to try to find numbers to back this up. It's common sense based on what I've personally observed. So no, I think you're nowhere close in being sensible when you say "if you sruvive the equation". Oh, you think I'd hit the brakes so hard as to smoosh myself? All you need to do to cause someone to rear-end you, in theory, is decrease the mileage differential by about 5-10MPH. Accidents are pretty damn surviveable at those speeds, especially if it was only a 30MPH situation in the first place! (Virginia traffic sucks.)
But here's the part where you've completely lost your sanity:
would cite you for obstructing the flow of traffic
bwahaha. hahahaha. hahahaAAH.. haahHAHAHA. So now anyone who gets rear-ended is automatically cited for obstructing the flow of rtraffic? WRONG. Have you EVER heard of ANYONE getting a ticket BECAUSE THEY WERE REAR-ENDED? Or do you think this conversation is about passing someone in the left lane, because IT'S NOT. That's YOUR personal battle. That's NOT what the article is about. The article is about TAILGATING, not PASSING. Tailgating happens on all roads at all times. People get rear ended constantly; it's one of the most common accidents. BTW, I got rear ended in march, the police came, and nobody got a ticket, so how does that fit into your carefully-constructed fantasy world?
Okay, next you say: "if the evidence demonstrates that you braked for no reason other than to antagonize him". Are you reatarded, or do you realize that THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE? You can't prove intent. A child ran to the edge of the road, and I braked because I don't hate children. End of story. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are following so close that you can't stop -- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER A CHILD IS REALLY THERE OR NOT. One could have been there, you are the hazard, and I will be the one to make you pay. Personally. Check payable to me. Virginia finds the person who rear-ends in fault nearly 100% of the time.
P.S. Oooh, don't let the high premiums GET me! Fortunately my wife & I make a 6-figure combined income so I don't have to worry about such banal things. I can afford to be an asshole.
You quoted something as being illegal when it's not even illegal in your own state! Way to slant the debate. I'm from Virginia and passing on the right is fine. There are sections (I-81) where there are posted signs for slower traffic to keep right. But this is not posted on most highways here.
The first google link is a post from 1995 saying that "New Jersey is one of the FEW states left to still have this law on the book". Wikipedia, as well, provided 0 examples of a state that enforces this, though it said it's still on the books in Massachusetts (which we fondly call 'mass of two shits').
Seems to me that if you'd done half the research yourself you'd have realized you were wrong. But to make an argument that "most places are X" when EVEN YOUR OWN STATE is not X just proves that you are a tailgaiting apologist in my book.
If you find a chart of current laws, that encompasses all 50 states, I'd be happy to review it and declare myself wrong, if more than 25 of those states actively enforce what you claim.
"Prove me wrong, children. Proove me wrong."
-Seymour Skinner
You're lying in a ditch, bleeding. I've continued to drive away. How exactly are you going to prove that I did it on purpose? My own testimony? The data recorder in my car? There are valid reasons to hit a brake any time. Can you prove that the car in front of me didn't break? No, you can't.
No one is ever going to be convicted of anything like this, ever, unless they incriminate themself.
Actually, in my Virginia court-mandated traffic school (got clocked speeding when I was 16), they made it a big point to specifically tell us that YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MOVE OUT OF THE LEFT LANE, *OR* GO A SINGLE MPH FASTER THAN THE SPEED LIMIT.
Indicates that you are one of the tailgaters. In fact, tailgating goes on in 100% of the lanes, and about 75% of cars do it 100% of the time. You are one of them, an asshole, don't realize this, and thus can make the false claim that all tailgating is only slow people in the right lane. In fact, you are probably part of the problem yourself without realizing it. Hypocracy sensors are reading off the scales....
Slashdot Mirror
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/all-hail- allofmp3com/
If it's only $300 more than what I paid for a NON-hdtv in 1999 (just broke 35,000 hours used -- do the math on that one), that might actually be worth it *IF* (and that's a big if) there are NO ISSUES.
I would like to repost your rant on my blog.
they COULD sell them at a break-even, and simply make more money off of the capitalists who have no choice but to pay full price for these things.... (And yes, I know that has a ripple effect into our health care prices, so you could say it's forced charity again.) I'm a bit suspect of any corporation tooting its own horn. ):
You are right about the happiness thing. I'll be happy when housing contractors are out of my life, but that's a different story.
"There just isn't enough tax money out there to give every citizen best-in-class medical care, even if you thought it were ethical to use tax money to do so." :))
That's very true. The cost of keeping an old person alive for another 6 weeks is often greater than the cost of saving 1,000 lives (of, say, premature babies). There are all kinds of issues to work out, but I think simply giving 0 care to people who can't pay it ignores the problem, and creates many more problems; problems that likely exceed the scope of this conversation. (For example, being carjacked and shot to death because someone needed money for an operation. Contrived example? Yes. Has it happened? I bet. Do I come up with shitty examples? Usually, but if you have imagination, you can hopefully think of a better one.
Lucent.. hahahahaha..... At least you didn't have MCI or C&W.
348 pages? I'm a bit ADHD and PDF-hating for that. Got something closer to THIS? (Well, maybe not, but that link is interesting -- check out the others.) I believe you though; we just still spend A LOT on military, and that money could go elsewhere.
I guess... I'd like to live in a world where charity isn't necesary. Wouldn't that be nice? I'd also like sugar faries and gumdrop lanes...<sigh>
Like a mathematician, I can define more problems than solutions.
if corporations are giving free drugs to indigents, why are they fighting so hard to NOT release cheap AIDS drugs to africa? I call shenanigans on that one :) Helping 10 people at place X while hurting 10000 people at place Y is a great p.r. move "against" those who live in place X.
I think that was true in the 1800s, and even in the 1900s, but I think as technology progresses, and things get cheaper, capitalism just wont hold up. The limit of pure capitalism as time reaches infinity is corpratism and/or fascism. Capitalist ideas were based on a smaller world with less technology, and I do not think they scale one-to-one to the world today.
What happens when there are fewer jobs than people? When robots run our farms, our manufacturing, our service. What happens when there is only 1 job to 1000 people? Do we let the rest starve? What if person X could afford to save their life for $1, but can't make $1 simply because there are no jobs? Yes, this is a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical situation, but if we suceed as a species, in 1,000 years this is how it should be.
We can still create art, entertainment, etc. But honestly, will we become a species of slackers and dreamers who wont have to work? I think so. I actually hope so. We don't NEED to be constnatly consuming and producing to be happy. That is a paradigm thrust upon us by the system. The american flavor of capitalism isn't making me particularly happy, and seems to be screwing everybody left-and-right (I'm at least fortunate enough to have a positive net worth, but most of my friends making >$50K/yr are still in debt!).
Admittedly, this discourse is completely impractical. But I hope it at least illustrates why I think the way I do.
I think it IS in your best interest to keep these extra people alive, rather than let them die because there's "not enough money to save them" (when there IS -- just look at how much we spend on DESTROYING life! Take half that, put it to medicine, bam, problem solved. Rich people can still pay for extra service, but at least poor people would have baseline services. This isn't changing capitalism to communism; this is a mashup. Health Care 2.0.). These people can provide value. A person is worth more alive than dead. "The illogic of waste." It is illogical to let people die from lack of health care when SO MUCH MONEY is being spent. It makes sense in the 1800s, and the 1900s, but not in the 2000s. And it will make even less sense in the 3000s.
Now give me a time machine so I can prove myself right! :)
But I wasn't arguing for communism, athiesm, concentrating political power, forcing doctors to work for free, or any of that. You put words in my mouth.
Your equating my tax distribution to that is what... a straw man? (I'm not too versed on the names of logical fallacies as I find them a bit pedantic, but still I want to join the pedant bandwagon nonetheless.)
Not everything is 0's and 1's, and this is the problem in many people's thinking. I'm saying that we need something like 0.9, but you are saying there is only 1 or 0. There are many shades of grey to how many things can be done.
40 million americans without health care would not agree with you one bit about socialized medicine. Go tell some of them dying of cancer that it's for their own good. Wake up to reality. Not everything in reality must be the implementation of an unyielding idealism.
Remember: As we progress as a species, with more robots, nanotech, genetics, the cost of technology and medicine go down to 0. But the # of jobs will decrease as well, once everything is automated (I'm talking more about 1,000 years in the future.) At some point, free handouts WILL become the norm, as a species. It *is* possible for everybody to have everything, eventually -- but not with your attitude. (IMNSHO)
Both communism and capitalism are idealist paradigms, both destined to fail utterly. The best solution is a mashup. (I really want to use "2.0" in a joke here.)
Another anology: Imagine if a single hair on your head could save a life. It's no harm to use to use it, so is it really a crime if I pull that hair out? Maybe, but I think that's a bit idealist, and not very practical.
Communism is a good idea. It just doesn't work because there's no incentive. Why be a rocket scientist when I can be a garbageman and make the same money? I'm not talking about converting to communism; I kind of think your leap to that is a bit of a slippery slope.
Robin Hood was on to something...
So while it may not be the government's job to do it, it is happening whether you or I like it. Accept it, or revolt. Now, given that this is happening no matter what, I would prefer it to be done using an algorithm that creates the most help while creating the least harm. The simple matter is that the rich can afford to help the poor. If we're already being "forced to help our common man by the government", then we should be forced to do it in a proper way.
This isn't about being objective. It's about being purposely subjective and realizing, the poor need the money more than the rich. If you are going to tax $X, most of it should come from the rich. If the toop 2% own 98% of everything out there, they can certainly afford to pay for the bottom 2%. Hell, probably the bottom 50% (considering the top 1% pay 30% of all taxes -- I'm sure they could afford to pay 100% of all taxes and STILL have money left over).
The consolodation of wealth is one of the things that is holding us back, as a species. I vote libertarian, but I think some libertarian ideas are completely unyeilding in thier acceptance of certain subjective realities, such as fairness.
Say you were only worth $1000, and someone took 10%, $100. That hurts. You have $900 left.
Say you were worth $100,000,000, and someone took 10%, $10,000,000. That hurts. On paper. In real life, you still have $90M and are still going to be able to live the exact same lifestyle that you were before.
It's not about the number of dollar bills, it's about the harm associated with losing them. Harm those who can afford to be harmed...
I also meant to say -- the extra $10M could offset all the taxes for thousands of poor families, allowing them to possibly be able to afford things like, say, COLLEGE TUITION SO THEY DON'T STAY POOR.))
Taxing just one billionairre another single percent (10 million dollars) could offset large taxes (30%) from poor familes ( It's not just a matter of everyone paying the same percentage. You have an M&M. I have a chocolate cake. We adopt a child. We each agree to give the child 10% of our food. Now, you have 0.9 M&Ms for yourself, and I have 90% of a cake for myself. Is that fair? In a strict libertarian sense, it is. But in a sense of wanting to do good for your common man, it is absolutely unfair. (Yes, my analogy is all fucked up, and I'm too lazy to fix it, simply hoping you can see past my presentation to MY POINT.)
Women over 50 talk. A LOT. As coworkers, 100% of women over 50 have talked to me 500% more than ANY other person of ANY other age group, man or woman. And by "talked to me" I mean "shared minute details about their life that I don't really care about until I would rather have my ears bleed."
That's 100,000 rear endings in JUST ONE STATE, and only 1400 fatalties FOR ALL KINDS OF ACCIDENTS.
Certainly looks to me that you would survive a rear-ending about 99% of the time.
You, sir, are still causing me to laugh. You tricked me into doing a LITTLE BIT of work, true. But I'm still laughing. Joke's on you.
Because I, and everyone else with common sense and experience, know you are wrong. Most rear-endings are not fatal, period. So saying "if you survive" is indeed laughable because you usually will. I know tons of people who have been rear ended (including me and my wife). I know very few people who were killed in such accidents (0 to my knowledge). Of course, it's hard to know dead people.
Using copyright protection to disable copyright protection? Priceless.
News to me.
I know a girl named Scott, and a guy named Stacy...
Any intelligent reader has already made conclusions about you. The fact that you defended such a stupid statement actually makes you look even stupider than you already did.
You just said getting rear-ended is like getting in a head-on collision. I think this speaks for itself. Do not pass Go, go directly to high school physics.
But that's not worth my time debating.
I'm here to respond to your laughable series of events here. First off, most rear-endings are survived. I had to stop from laughing at your "if you survive the collision". Um... While accidents kill more people than terrorism, the average accident is survived, and this goes for rear endings too. 40,000 fatalties a year dividied by 50 states divided by 365 days is about 2 deaths per day per year. I'm pretty sure there are probably well over 100 rear-endings in each state per day, but I am far too lazy to try to find numbers to back this up. It's common sense based on what I've personally observed. So no, I think you're nowhere close in being sensible when you say "if you sruvive the equation". Oh, you think I'd hit the brakes so hard as to smoosh myself? All you need to do to cause someone to rear-end you, in theory, is decrease the mileage differential by about 5-10MPH. Accidents are pretty damn surviveable at those speeds, especially if it was only a 30MPH situation in the first place! (Virginia traffic sucks.)
But here's the part where you've completely lost your sanity:
bwahaha. hahahaha. hahahaAAH.. haahHAHAHA. So now anyone who gets rear-ended is automatically cited for obstructing the flow of rtraffic? WRONG. Have you EVER heard of ANYONE getting a ticket BECAUSE THEY WERE REAR-ENDED? Or do you think this conversation is about passing someone in the left lane, because IT'S NOT. That's YOUR personal battle. That's NOT what the article is about. The article is about TAILGATING, not PASSING. Tailgating happens on all roads at all times. People get rear ended constantly; it's one of the most common accidents. BTW, I got rear ended in march, the police came, and nobody got a ticket, so how does that fit into your carefully-constructed fantasy world?
Okay, next you say: "if the evidence demonstrates that you braked for no reason other than to antagonize him". Are you reatarded, or do you realize that THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE? You can't prove intent. A child ran to the edge of the road, and I braked because I don't hate children. End of story. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are following so close that you can't stop -- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER A CHILD IS REALLY THERE OR NOT. One could have been there, you are the hazard, and I will be the one to make you pay. Personally. Check payable to me. Virginia finds the person who rear-ends in fault nearly 100% of the time.
P.S. Oooh, don't let the high premiums GET me! Fortunately my wife & I make a 6-figure combined income so I don't have to worry about such banal things. I can afford to be an asshole.
The first google link is a post from 1995 saying that "New Jersey is one of the FEW states left to still have this law on the book". Wikipedia, as well, provided 0 examples of a state that enforces this, though it said it's still on the books in Massachusetts (which we fondly call 'mass of two shits').
Seems to me that if you'd done half the research yourself you'd have realized you were wrong. But to make an argument that "most places are X" when EVEN YOUR OWN STATE is not X just proves that you are a tailgaiting apologist in my book.
If you find a chart of current laws, that encompasses all 50 states, I'd be happy to review it and declare myself wrong, if more than 25 of those states actively enforce what you claim.
"Prove me wrong, children. Proove me wrong."
-Seymour Skinner
No one is ever going to be convicted of anything like this, ever, unless they incriminate themself.
Where I drive, all lanes are full all the time. There isn't the luxury of an empty lane just for you to use to pass me. Who's laughing now?
Then again, Virginia > Texas.
Indicates that you are one of the tailgaters. In fact, tailgating goes on in 100% of the lanes, and about 75% of cars do it 100% of the time. You are one of them, an asshole, don't realize this, and thus can make the false claim that all tailgating is only slow people in the right lane. In fact, you are probably part of the problem yourself without realizing it. Hypocracy sensors are reading off the scales....