You simply rewrite the law to state that the owner is presumed to be in control of the vehicle at all times unless they can specifically identify the other person who was actually operating it. And that the owner is ultimately responsible for the payment of any fines. Then you make it a "civil" or "administrative" penalty, rather than a criminal one. Voila, no proof of face required.
we should have had much better results than we have had so far.
I'd say the results so far have been pretty good. The worst acts of terrorism in the US in the past nine and half years have been occasional mass shootings.
Because they're not intelligence analysts - or at least, they're not interested in really clearing these things up. It's remarkable how much information can be gleaned from ostensibly innocuous sources - one example would be discerning the movement of troop trains in WW2 by alterations to the civilian schedules (although I really can't remember whether I saw that in truth or fiction).
Or you just acknowledge that every political movement has its nutjobs and move on. There are still the 9/11 Truthers, the Clinton Death List/Vince Foster conspiracy theorists...
Actually, depending on the era you're talking about, one parent may well not be enough to make you a citizen. (The first such law excluded those whose fathers never settled in the US.) A similar legal loophole to the one that rose questions about McCain qualifying as natural-born was the heart of the Birther theories I saw (though I don't spend much time in the fever swamps of the Internet).
Nobody has had to do it because there was never any doubt that any of them were born to two American parents. This never came up in all the times that Jesse Jackson ran for office.
Frankly, I found the whole birther thing stupid even on practical grounds - it's not as though Obama's detractors would have been happier with President Joe Biden - but there was some plausible set of circumstances in which (via some odd legal loophole, never cared enough to research it further) he actually would not have qualified for citizenship at birth, but only after having lived in the US for some number of years, due to having only one American citizen parent.
Yeah, because nothing says competence like a guy who shows up an hour late, spouts platitudes to an empty room, and leaves. Seriously, the only competence involved is in the US military and possibly the CIA. Presidents - from Team Red or Team Blue - have next to nil to do with this sort of thing.
No, just ask GHW Bush how well that works out. Short answer: it doesn't, especially when the economy goes to shit. His best hope is for the Republicans to follow tradition and nominate a terrible candidate.
Why? They'll roll out their new voice and video chat service, available for $20/mo. (Option only available on plans costing $59.99/mo or more. Three-year contract required. Voice chat minutes count against your monthly quota; video chat charged at double rate.)
If you can, do it. You won't regret it. I saw STS-133, and though I'd probably not make the all-out push to do it a second time, I'm extremely happy that I did so once.
Well, you can't know, but if someone borrowed the maximum subsidized amount every semester, bought a new car, and had an expensive apartment, then turned around and declared bankruptcy, it certainly would make me wonder.The modern world of credit checks with employment would also make it difficult for someone who did this strategically to get a job.
You do realize that the US corporate tax rates are actually among the highest in the developed world, right? That they've encouraged corporations to finance themselves through debt rather than equity?
At best, free public education was a possibility because the Industrial Revolution had increased the productivity of individuals enough that they could afford, as a society, to pay for it. Horace Mann and his Massachusetts board of education started in 1837 - long after interchangeable parts and the cotton gin had come about. (I'm using those because they were invented on this side of the pond; there can be no question that one country was leading another in that case.)
Education does for minds what nutrition does for bodies: helps them achieve their genetic potential. It doesn't do anything to make the potential larger.
But why would the courts erase the debt, if it appeared that fraud was the intention for borrowing? Judges do have to sign off on those things, you know.
He said that tuition does not track with the cost of providing an education, not that it exceeds it. For-profit schools, of course, must have tuition receipts that exceed their costs, and at all schools there is a tendency toward having more and more layers of administration not directly related to the provision of education. Faculty, chairman, dean, president, board of trustees - that's all the administration that's actually needed to teach.
Er, this is a public university. It's already owned by the government. How much more thoroughly do you want to regulate it?
And what's unethical or unenforceable about making colleges take the hit if their grads don't perform? As it is, universities have a strong incentive to bring students in (to get tuition money), but no real incentive to have them graduate. That would just align incentives properly.
Check your consumer protection laws. They are minimal in the US, which is no small part of why stuff is so much cheaper here. Retailers, for example, do not generally have to accept returns of anything but DOA merchandise - after a minimal period (30 days or less) you have to get your service from the manufacturer. All those two year warranties with service at the store where you bought it aren't free - just look at the UK.
That's my money (and, if you're an American who pays income taxes, yours too) being spent up there. Sorry, if you're going to take my money away from me, I'm going to demand a better rationale than "That's awesome."
There are a lot of good reasons for people to stay the hell out of space, and not very many good ones to put them up there. Now, if we could drastically decrease the cost of putting things in orbit, maybe it would make sense. Until then, it's just a waste of money that could be far better spent on other things.
Slashdot Mirror
You simply rewrite the law to state that the owner is presumed to be in control of the vehicle at all times unless they can specifically identify the other person who was actually operating it. And that the owner is ultimately responsible for the payment of any fines. Then you make it a "civil" or "administrative" penalty, rather than a criminal one. Voila, no proof of face required.
we should have had much better results than we have had so far.
I'd say the results so far have been pretty good. The worst acts of terrorism in the US in the past nine and half years have been occasional mass shootings.
Because they're not intelligence analysts - or at least, they're not interested in really clearing these things up. It's remarkable how much information can be gleaned from ostensibly innocuous sources - one example would be discerning the movement of troop trains in WW2 by alterations to the civilian schedules (although I really can't remember whether I saw that in truth or fiction).
Or you just acknowledge that every political movement has its nutjobs and move on. There are still the 9/11 Truthers, the Clinton Death List/Vince Foster conspiracy theorists...
Actually, depending on the era you're talking about, one parent may well not be enough to make you a citizen. (The first such law excluded those whose fathers never settled in the US.) A similar legal loophole to the one that rose questions about McCain qualifying as natural-born was the heart of the Birther theories I saw (though I don't spend much time in the fever swamps of the Internet).
Nobody has had to do it because there was never any doubt that any of them were born to two American parents. This never came up in all the times that Jesse Jackson ran for office.
Frankly, I found the whole birther thing stupid even on practical grounds - it's not as though Obama's detractors would have been happier with President Joe Biden - but there was some plausible set of circumstances in which (via some odd legal loophole, never cared enough to research it further) he actually would not have qualified for citizenship at birth, but only after having lived in the US for some number of years, due to having only one American citizen parent.
You need to look up "charisma" in a dictionary of your choice.
Barely survived? Hell, they were the only things that worked! Remember when the NYT went to *text-only* on the home page?
Yeah, because nothing says competence like a guy who shows up an hour late, spouts platitudes to an empty room, and leaves. Seriously, the only competence involved is in the US military and possibly the CIA. Presidents - from Team Red or Team Blue - have next to nil to do with this sort of thing.
No, just ask GHW Bush how well that works out. Short answer: it doesn't, especially when the economy goes to shit. His best hope is for the Republicans to follow tradition and nominate a terrible candidate.
Why? They'll roll out their new voice and video chat service, available for $20/mo. (Option only available on plans costing $59.99/mo or more. Three-year contract required. Voice chat minutes count against your monthly quota; video chat charged at double rate.)
Although I think there's little better use for one's money than promoting education
Too bad that universities are largely in the business of granting degrees, not educating.
If you can, do it. You won't regret it. I saw STS-133, and though I'd probably not make the all-out push to do it a second time, I'm extremely happy that I did so once.
I personally can't stand the things, but they also have multiple-day battery life with even fairly heavy usage.
Well, you can't know, but if someone borrowed the maximum subsidized amount every semester, bought a new car, and had an expensive apartment, then turned around and declared bankruptcy, it certainly would make me wonder.The modern world of credit checks with employment would also make it difficult for someone who did this strategically to get a job.
You do realize that the US corporate tax rates are actually among the highest in the developed world, right? That they've encouraged corporations to finance themselves through debt rather than equity?
At best, free public education was a possibility because the Industrial Revolution had increased the productivity of individuals enough that they could afford, as a society, to pay for it. Horace Mann and his Massachusetts board of education started in 1837 - long after interchangeable parts and the cotton gin had come about. (I'm using those because they were invented on this side of the pond; there can be no question that one country was leading another in that case.)
Education does for minds what nutrition does for bodies: helps them achieve their genetic potential. It doesn't do anything to make the potential larger.
But why would the courts erase the debt, if it appeared that fraud was the intention for borrowing? Judges do have to sign off on those things, you know.
none charge students close to the cost
Are you sure about that? Numerous schools are over $50k/year for all fees. I'm pretty sure that some of the for-profits do it cheaper than that.
He said that tuition does not track with the cost of providing an education, not that it exceeds it. For-profit schools, of course, must have tuition receipts that exceed their costs, and at all schools there is a tendency toward having more and more layers of administration not directly related to the provision of education. Faculty, chairman, dean, president, board of trustees - that's all the administration that's actually needed to teach.
Er, this is a public university. It's already owned by the government. How much more thoroughly do you want to regulate it?
And what's unethical or unenforceable about making colleges take the hit if their grads don't perform? As it is, universities have a strong incentive to bring students in (to get tuition money), but no real incentive to have them graduate. That would just align incentives properly.
They just have to check to see where it spends the most time parked. In almost all cases, those will be your home and your job/school.
Check your consumer protection laws. They are minimal in the US, which is no small part of why stuff is so much cheaper here. Retailers, for example, do not generally have to accept returns of anything but DOA merchandise - after a minimal period (30 days or less) you have to get your service from the manufacturer. All those two year warranties with service at the store where you bought it aren't free - just look at the UK.
I can come up with a better rationale for defense spending than "it's awesome". Can't you?
As for ".... Somalia!", it's a dull mind that can't imagine a government that fits somewhere in size between the current US govt and anarchy.
That's my money (and, if you're an American who pays income taxes, yours too) being spent up there. Sorry, if you're going to take my money away from me, I'm going to demand a better rationale than "That's awesome."
There are a lot of good reasons for people to stay the hell out of space, and not very many good ones to put them up there. Now, if we could drastically decrease the cost of putting things in orbit, maybe it would make sense. Until then, it's just a waste of money that could be far better spent on other things.