2. While I was hoping for an explanation of the nickname, DAMN--this is still really cool. It's times like this that I wonder how much more of this stuff I'd remember if I had thought history was interesting while I was lectured it for thirteen years straight (attention smart asses: this includes kindergarten).
Heh. Thanks. It was the first thing that hit me as I saw the top photo--before even reading one word--and I thought, "Okay, another bad joke that will be posted a hundred times, so who's gonna win THIS race?" I lucked out. fp!
Good point. And since they claim there was $1000 in twenties, that many metal strips packed together would reflect even that much more crap back at the AF detectors.
Me Three, several years ago. Got out of that jonk FAST. I'll never accept another management position. I'd rather be doing the actual "trenches" work than managing those who are. Much less stressful.
2. Yes, you're right. That's why I got a headset. I can answer by pressing any button on the keypad. From there, the conversation is unobtrusive to my driving. I rarely dial unless I'm sitting at a light. If not, I'm extremely cautious. Even if my conscience and sense of community responsibility were to vanish tomorrow, I've still got a sixteen-month-old reason to be sure I live a long time.
2b. The headset is also great for getting stuff done while I'm on hold with the phone company--without killing my neck.
4. Good point. For reassurance, the headset helps there too.
5. I only mentioned my record because the near-miss I first posted was the closest I've been to causing someone else bodily harm, and cellphone-driving criticisms are generally followed up by questioning the driving record of the offending phone user.
5b. Heheheheh. VERY good point. Karma isn't nearly as important to me as it was when I first signed up, but having my account makes certain things much more convenient. I hit my home page, and I saw that my post had a reply. I probably wouldn't have checked, since it's close to 24 hours old now.
Also, I track other users who have said interesting things. I can tell I'd follow your posts as well, if you had an account. Differing opinion, sure, but the ability to apologize--On Slashdot? Blasphemy!--coherently present your argument, and make thought-provoking points? That's read-worthy to me. If you change your mind and create one, let me know.
I mentioned above that there are stereotypes, right or wrong. Anything about your appearance that would fit one? Mullets? Troublemaker? "Fat-Skinny" Tires?
The police perspective (and no, I'm not a cop): They don't know who's drinking too much, eluding a warrant in a stolen car with a gun under the seat, or taking cookies to Grandma. If someone swerves, they ignore it or pay closer attention, based on what they know. Every traffic stop could be their last. They have a job that I would NOT want. If I had to walk to your car but didn't know if you'd shoot me when I got there, I'd be pissed if you acted rudely. Most cops are pretty cool if you treat them with genuine courtesy--not the "yes sir no sir" bullshit, just like a fellow human being--and give them a couple minutes to realize you're not going to make any trouble. They're just people trying to do their jobs. Like America's military, they are far too taken for granted and under-appreciated.
From the MADD article you linked:
First, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporing System (FARS) data show that the average BAC level in a fatal crash where a driver was actually tested is.17% -- more than double the proposed.08% BAC standard. Second, the typical DWI fatality is caused by a person who has had more than NINE DRINKS before driving. And third, nearly two-thirds of alcohol-related deaths involve drivers with BACs of.15% and above.
So does this mean that accidents where someone was only disabled or merely hospitalized for a couple months don't COUNT?!? Okay no problem with your sister's incident, because no one died. Someone who's only had EIGHT drinks is not dangerous at all? Come ON! That's just a retarded line of thinking. These data are all based on exclusively-fatal accidents.
Ah, you're probably only drunk enough to break someone's leg, not kill anyone, so you can go.
Look, the interlock stems from a good thought, but it could never be truly practical; it's a bad idea. Plus, I foresee tons of lawsuits filed, because a medical emergency was delayed. Just don't buy a car so equipped.
0.05%? Give me a break. Some people can hit that with two drinks -- that doesn't make them drunk
If the alcoholic portion of blood surging through your brain doesn't make you drunk, what does? If you hit.05 with two drinks, DRINK ONE!
There's gotta be a way to quantify how drunk someone is and remove the guesswork, so for now, the BAC is how it's done.
"Well, your honor, we didn't give the defendant a BAC test, but I'm confident that he would have caused someone between 20 and 40 thousand dollars in damages, so I'm recommending a one year sentence." Misplaced priorities? Should the police wait until a "fatality" actually occurs and then make the arrest? Do you want them to ignore more than just your helpful phone calls? The line has to be drawn somewhere, preferably before the point where fatalities are expected. If you're SO concerned about getting pulled over, drink soda when you're the designated driver. If one drink is an absolute necessity to having a good time, you have a more serious problem than mere harassment.
Well, Mister Coward, I guess I owe you an apology. I used the phrase "intelligent discretion," which distributes SEVEN syllables between only two words. Clearly the title "stupid bitch" can also apply to someone claiming to be capable of analytical reading, yet is not.
To clarify: I wait until I'm in the open, so you'll never see me dial my phone, because the proximity would mean you're too close for me to consider dialing; once the numbers have been dialed, the call is no more a distraction than chatting with a passenger, which you will never convince me that you're above doing. I used this story as an example to an entirely different argument, and I openly admitted that the old brick phone was a distraction--and that I had been stupid --but apparently I wasn't obvious enough about relating how I have learned from my experience and am now a better driver as a result.
Everyone eventually discovers--as I did, thirteen years ago--that driving is little more than a series of decisions, some of which must be made in a fraction of a second. One learns to "read" the environment better as one's driving skills develop, and the frequency of those last-minute decisions decreases. Everyone is a bad, inexperienced driver at first; I was just someone fortunate enough to learn this particular lesson without a collision.
As you become more experienced, you learn to recognize the times when a momentary distraction is an acceptable and responsible thing to do. Because you will never take a trip where you are not even once required to take your eyes off the road:
There are traffic signs to read.
You have to check your blind spots.
You have your mirrors (my driver's ed. book recommended checking the rear-view once every seven seconds).
Other drivers swerve into your lane because they aren't looking at you.
These are just examples required by driving, but there are countless other things to distract drivers. The trick is learning to recognize the situation where it's okay to allow yourself to become momentarily distracted.
If you're so lacking in confidence and/or coordination that you can't grab your phone from your belt, put it against your head, and press the "talk" button all without taking your eyes off the road (or...what's that, a hands-free kit?), then please do us all a favor and get rid of that pesky car stereo. Because if you're entering a school zone right when the DJ suddenly announces that he just found out he's getting fired at the end of his shift so fsck it, he's going to play a 30-minute block of Michael Bolton, all will be lost. Honestly, if you can't answer a telephone without looking at it first, then I question your ability to use a turn signal or the windshield wipers. Heaven forbid you try to drive a vehicle with a manual transmission.
I as so sick of assholes like you, all "oh, it's a distraction, but I'm good enough with it, and I can control it" and then trying to plow your car into me
And I'm sick of stupid loudmouths who can target what they consider a flaw as if they're incapable of making mistakes and yet have nearly identical flaws that they seem to think are above consideration. While I've been in five traffic accidents, I've caused only ONE; I fell asleep on the way home from work at 3 a.m. and trashed some lady's bushes. Three of the rest were the result of someone else running a stop sign into me, but I was also in an accident caused by a kid who was changing his stereo, so he didn't see that I was slowing down for a traffic light.
Somehow I doubt anyone will follow this post with a "hear hear!" because too many people let the radio distract them.
When the shoe is on the other foot, why doesn't the criticism follow? I am a very courteous and responsible driver, and I am 100% positive that I am distracted by my phone no more than anyone else is distracted by:
Is there something about your appearance or your vehicle that might make pulling you to the side of the road more attractive to the police? For example:
I am a guy, but I have long hair, around 14-16". Had it for over half my life. Part of choosing my appearance is being pre-judged by people I don't even know, and that includes getting extra-long looks from the law. Just goes with the territory. It's never been bad enough that I would cut it, but I can certainly visualize situations where it would be.
The truck I used to have was bright red. I never was wild about that, but I got a good price on it, and it ran great, so I kept it until it was smashed for me. The replacement is sky blue, and even though my driving habits haven't changed, I don't get pulled over anymore for going 5 mph over the speed limit. That "little red sports car" look apparently applies to sport utility vehicles.
As long as there are individuals, there will be unfortunate stereotypes that many people can't help falling victim to. I haven't seen your car, so I can only list the options I can think of. If it calls attention to you with a loud stereo, bright yellow paint, flashy decals, neon lights, etc, then you will always spend more than your fair share of time on the shoulder, explaining away what other people won't have to explain.
why do we need separate offenses to cover all these "risk" situations anyway? Just have one offense: reckless driving. Doesn't matter if you're drunk, tired, angry, distracted, senile, having sex or yammering on a cell phone...
A good idea, but there's at least one major difference: When my first cellphone was a few days old, I nearly caused an accident because the damn thing was on my shoulder and I didn't look far enough into my left-side blind spot before attempting a lane change. This was on the highway where I could have killed myself and/or several others. Fortunately, she decelerated and honked, right about the same time I saw her in my mirror, and nothing happened save for my embarassed wave of apology and a guilty nervous stomach for awhile. I realized that I had made a very stupid oversight, and now I never dial unless I'm on a straight stretch of road with no vehicles close by. But I know the phone is still a distraction.
But now it's a distraction that I can control by exercising intelligent discretion, such as taking it from my belt and answering without taking my eyes off the road to see who is calling, or not dialing if I'm in heavy traffic. Or not even answering when I'm in "chaos" traffic.
When I get in the car after having had too many drinks--not to say that I would--I can try to drive carefully knowing I'm not in full control, but I can't slow down enough to make my reactions what they usually are; I can't rub my eyes enough to make them stop watering and clouding my vision; I can't keep my mind focused on the fact that I--being drunk--am not going to be able to concentrate like I should when I'm navigating a ton of steel around other human beings who can't possibly be aware that I'm impaired. I'm getting in the car when I know it will be very easy for me to make a mistake and cost someone their life. And most drunk drivers can't accurately judge how impaired they really are. Most likely including me, so I never drive if I'm unsure.
The difference is this: My cellphone oversight was a momentary lapse of judgement that would have made an accident my fault, but it would have been just an innocent accident. When someone gets behind the wheel, they're driving recklessly even before they turn the key, because it's not a distraction they can "put down" or "get better at." Anyone old enough to drink should be fully aware of that difference and the fact that alcohol impairs your judgement too much for safe driving--I really hate it when I hear someone say, "I drive pretty good drunk." No, you've just been lucky enough to not have received a ticket or killed someone.
There's an intolerable amount of risk in driving when you've had too much to drink. An unforgiveable amount. That's why it defeinitely should be a more severe penalty than the guy who just didn't see the stop sign and winds up smashing some little old lady's flower bed.
I think what jpallas meant was that it's difficult to "remain silent" when you're presenting yourself in such a public forum. Like it or not, we all express ourselves through our driving; it's a natural extension of how we live our lives.
That being said, no, driving in the US is not a right but a priviledge, one that can be revoked upon demonstration that we exercise it irresponsibly or in a way dangerous to others.
I'm surprised at your apparent resistance towards the efforts against drunk driving, since you say you nearly lost your sister to it. A friend of mine was killed 6 months before earning her degree (she was the first to go of our high school's graduating class), and after seeing her car, I can appreciate what a few moments of poor judgement can accomplish, and 12 years later, I can think of her family and appreciate the permanence of one person's momentary indescretion.
I think this interlock idea is pretty bullshit, myself. I paid $14,600 cash for my truck 3 years ago, and when another driver decided to not stop at that stop sign, it was reduced to a $7,000 check that took three months to write. If this law were going into effect in my state, would the truck I bought as a repleacement require an interlock, even though it doesn't even have the airbags that helped me avoid injury in my last truck? Lame. I agree that the penalties for convicted drunk drivers should be much more stringent.
My job is 18 miles away -- I have no means of getting there with mass transit -- a taxi would cost me $20 each way. I can't have a life unless I have a car
1. There is always another option. some are not very attractive, but very few people would be physically unable to ride a bike a mere 18 miles in less than two hours. After getting into shape, this could be reduced--depending on traffic--to even as low as 45 minutes or less. While it's lame to spend four hours a day getting to/from work, it's possible to those who REALLY need the money.
2. If you didn't have the payment on your "brand new 2003 car with less then 12,000 miles on it", you would be able to afford $20 per day. There's always another way.
Something similar happened to a friend of mine with around $12,000 worth of stage lighting gear stolen by a hired hand who turned out to like crystal meth a lot more than earning money. He got a pretty good deal when the pawn shop only charged him what THEY had paid for it.
no wait... that's a good deal, right?
-------
By the way, does anyone know how high the bid was before the auction was killed? Last I saw, it was 201k. No, I can't RTFA; it was slashdotted when I tried to hit it.
Well, a fifteen-minute phone call is still communication, no matter who dialed. But I remember an old plan I had that gave free incoming calls after something like 6:00 pm.
It's not all that bad, since caller ID is getting to be such a common feature that it's pretty much expected to be included in your service plan. You never have to answer a call you don't feel like taking. Also, many providers still offer a "1st minute on incoming calls is free" option, or even by default.
My son is at this age, has been for a few months. He started with just light switches as I carried him to them, but now he's expanding his skillset. I've seen him demonstrate this on everything from the TV remote (it's great when he hits the volume) to the phone to my keyboard and/or lighted Logitech mouse. He's probably upstairs dialing Mitch Hedburg right now.
I also couldn't help but notice that even though the site seems to be devoted to dispelling the common misconception that the sole symptom of Tourette Syndrome is the uncontrollable shouting of randomly-placed profanity, the logo that the Tourette Syndrome Association has chosen for itself certainly looks to me like it could very well be representing a person shouting profanity.
Completely ignoring the potential for political uproar of this (also ignoring the existence of BF1942, SoF, and Counterstrike-less obvious others), I would say it's only a concern if you are so drawn into the action by the gameplay that you find yourself saying, "Hey! I could probably do this in real life too! Why don't I sign up?"
Please be sure to note that compared to the game, you'll likely get
Slashdot Mirror
2. While I was hoping for an explanation of the nickname, DAMN--this is still really cool. It's times like this that I wonder how much more of this stuff I'd remember if I had thought history was interesting while I was lectured it for thirteen years straight (attention smart asses: this includes kindergarten).
3. Welcome to my friends list.
Heh. Thanks. It was the first thing that hit me as I saw the top photo--before even reading one word--and I thought, "Okay, another bad joke that will be posted a hundred times, so who's gonna win THIS race?" I lucked out. fp!
and I think the idea would be to be more along the lines of making it difficult for you to print legal-looking money at home on your HP deskjet.
*gag*
See the post below by Robotech Master. I'll bet it'll work if you try it with about forty bills stacked.
Good point. And since they claim there was $1000 in twenties, that many metal strips packed together would reflect even that much more crap back at the AF detectors.
And GEEZ. I remember being 12 and having a twenty burn a hole in my pocket, but...
*smacks forehead* Sorry.
found this in metamod. Figured I'd come over and encourage you. ;)
For 2 and a half years, I thought the money was worth it, but never again.
Me Three, several years ago. Got out of that jonk FAST. I'll never accept another management position. I'd rather be doing the actual "trenches" work than managing those who are. Much less stressful.
2. Yes, you're right. That's why I got a headset. I can answer by pressing any button on the keypad. From there, the conversation is unobtrusive to my driving. I rarely dial unless I'm sitting at a light. If not, I'm extremely cautious. Even if my conscience and sense of community responsibility were to vanish tomorrow, I've still got a sixteen-month-old reason to be sure I live a long time.
2b. The headset is also great for getting stuff done while I'm on hold with the phone company--without killing my neck.
4. Good point. For reassurance, the headset helps there too.
5. I only mentioned my record because the near-miss I first posted was the closest I've been to causing someone else bodily harm, and cellphone-driving criticisms are generally followed up by questioning the driving record of the offending phone user.
5b. Heheheheh. VERY good point. Karma isn't nearly as important to me as it was when I first signed up, but having my account makes certain things much more convenient. I hit my home page, and I saw that my post had a reply. I probably wouldn't have checked, since it's close to 24 hours old now.
Also, I track other users who have said interesting things. I can tell I'd follow your posts as well, if you had an account. Differing opinion, sure, but the ability to apologize--On Slashdot? Blasphemy! --coherently present your argument, and make thought-provoking points? That's read-worthy to me. If you change your mind and create one, let me know.
1b (should be 1a). Glad he missed you.
The police perspective (and no, I'm not a cop): They don't know who's drinking too much, eluding a warrant in a stolen car with a gun under the seat, or taking cookies to Grandma. If someone swerves, they ignore it or pay closer attention, based on what they know. Every traffic stop could be their last. They have a job that I would NOT want. If I had to walk to your car but didn't know if you'd shoot me when I got there, I'd be pissed if you acted rudely. Most cops are pretty cool if you treat them with genuine courtesy--not the "yes sir no sir" bullshit, just like a fellow human being--and give them a couple minutes to realize you're not going to make any trouble. They're just people trying to do their jobs. Like America's military, they are far too taken for granted and under-appreciated.
From the MADD article you linked: .17% -- more than double the proposed .08% BAC standard. Second, the typical DWI fatality is caused by a person who has had more than NINE DRINKS before driving. And third, nearly two-thirds of alcohol-related deaths involve drivers with BACs of .15% and above.
First, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporing System (FARS) data show that the average BAC level in a fatal crash where a driver was actually tested is
So does this mean that accidents where someone was only disabled or merely hospitalized for a couple months don't COUNT?!? Okay no problem with your sister's incident, because no one died. Someone who's only had EIGHT drinks is not dangerous at all? Come ON! That's just a retarded line of thinking. These data are all based on exclusively-fatal accidents.
Ah, you're probably only drunk enough to break someone's leg, not kill anyone, so you can go.
Look, the interlock stems from a good thought, but it could never be truly practical; it's a bad idea. Plus, I foresee tons of lawsuits filed, because a medical emergency was delayed. Just don't buy a car so equipped.
0.05%? Give me a break. Some people can hit that with two drinks -- that doesn't make them drunk
If the alcoholic portion of blood surging through your brain doesn't make you drunk, what does? If you hit .05 with two drinks, DRINK ONE!
There's gotta be a way to quantify how drunk someone is and remove the guesswork, so for now, the BAC is how it's done.
"Well, your honor, we didn't give the defendant a BAC test, but I'm confident that he would have caused someone between 20 and 40 thousand dollars in damages, so I'm recommending a one year sentence."
Misplaced priorities? Should the police wait until a "fatality" actually occurs and then make the arrest? Do you want them to ignore more than just your helpful phone calls? The line has to be drawn somewhere, preferably before the point where fatalities are expected. If you're SO concerned about getting pulled over, drink soda when you're the designated driver. If one drink is an absolute necessity to having a good time, you have a more serious problem than mere harassment.
Well, Mister Coward, I guess I owe you an apology. I used the phrase "intelligent discretion," which distributes SEVEN syllables between only two words. Clearly the title "stupid bitch" can also apply to someone claiming to be capable of analytical reading, yet is not.
To clarify: I wait until I'm in the open, so you'll never see me dial my phone, because the proximity would mean you're too close for me to consider dialing; once the numbers have been dialed, the call is no more a distraction than chatting with a passenger, which you will never convince me that you're above doing. I used this story as an example to an entirely different argument, and I openly admitted that the old brick phone was a distraction--and that I had been stupid --but apparently I wasn't obvious enough about relating how I have learned from my experience and am now a better driver as a result.
Everyone eventually discovers--as I did, thirteen years ago--that driving is little more than a series of decisions, some of which must be made in a fraction of a second. One learns to "read" the environment better as one's driving skills develop, and the frequency of those last-minute decisions decreases. Everyone is a bad, inexperienced driver at first; I was just someone fortunate enough to learn this particular lesson without a collision.
As you become more experienced, you learn to recognize the times when a momentary distraction is an acceptable and responsible thing to do. Because you will never take a trip where you are not even once required to take your eyes off the road:
These are just examples required by driving, but there are countless other things to distract drivers. The trick is learning to recognize the situation where it's okay to allow yourself to become momentarily distracted.
If you're so lacking in confidence and/or coordination that you can't grab your phone from your belt, put it against your head, and press the "talk" button all without taking your eyes off the road (or...what's that, a hands-free kit?), then please do us all a favor and get rid of that pesky car stereo. Because if you're entering a school zone right when the DJ suddenly announces that he just found out he's getting fired at the end of his shift so fsck it, he's going to play a 30-minute block of Michael Bolton, all will be lost. Honestly, if you can't answer a telephone without looking at it first, then I question your ability to use a turn signal or the windshield wipers. Heaven forbid you try to drive a vehicle with a manual transmission.
I as so sick of assholes like you, all "oh, it's a distraction, but I'm good enough with it, and I can control it" and then trying to plow your car into me
And I'm sick of stupid loudmouths who can target what they consider a flaw as if they're incapable of making mistakes and yet have nearly identical flaws that they seem to think are above consideration. While I've been in five traffic accidents, I've caused only ONE; I fell asleep on the way home from work at 3 a.m. and trashed some lady's bushes. Three of the rest were the result of someone else running a stop sign into me, but I was also in an accident caused by a kid who was changing his stereo, so he didn't see that I was slowing down for a traffic light.
When the shoe is on the other foot, why doesn't the criticism follow? I am a very courteous and responsible driver, and I am 100% positive that I am distracted by my phone no more than anyone else is distracted by:
Is there something about your appearance or your vehicle that might make pulling you to the side of the road more attractive to the police? For example:
As long as there are individuals, there will be unfortunate stereotypes that many people can't help falling victim to. I haven't seen your car, so I can only list the options I can think of. If it calls attention to you with a loud stereo, bright yellow paint, flashy decals, neon lights, etc, then you will always spend more than your fair share of time on the shoulder, explaining away what other people won't have to explain.
A good idea, but there's at least one major difference: When my first cellphone was a few days old, I nearly caused an accident because the damn thing was on my shoulder and I didn't look far enough into my left-side blind spot before attempting a lane change. This was on the highway where I could have killed myself and/or several others. Fortunately, she decelerated and honked, right about the same time I saw her in my mirror, and nothing happened save for my embarassed wave of apology and a guilty nervous stomach for awhile. I realized that I had made a very stupid oversight, and now I never dial unless I'm on a straight stretch of road with no vehicles close by. But I know the phone is still a distraction.
But now it's a distraction that I can control by exercising intelligent discretion, such as taking it from my belt and answering without taking my eyes off the road to see who is calling, or not dialing if I'm in heavy traffic. Or not even answering when I'm in "chaos" traffic.
When I get in the car after having had too many drinks--not to say that I would--I can try to drive carefully knowing I'm not in full control, but I can't slow down enough to make my reactions what they usually are; I can't rub my eyes enough to make them stop watering and clouding my vision; I can't keep my mind focused on the fact that I--being drunk--am not going to be able to concentrate like I should when I'm navigating a ton of steel around other human beings who can't possibly be aware that I'm impaired. I'm getting in the car when I know it will be very easy for me to make a mistake and cost someone their life. And most drunk drivers can't accurately judge how impaired they really are. Most likely including me, so I never drive if I'm unsure.
The difference is this: My cellphone oversight was a momentary lapse of judgement that would have made an accident my fault, but it would have been just an innocent accident. When someone gets behind the wheel, they're driving recklessly even before they turn the key, because it's not a distraction they can "put down" or "get better at." Anyone old enough to drink should be fully aware of that difference and the fact that alcohol impairs your judgement too much for safe driving--I really hate it when I hear someone say, "I drive pretty good drunk." No, you've just been lucky enough to not have received a ticket or killed someone.
There's an intolerable amount of risk in driving when you've had too much to drink. An unforgiveable amount. That's why it defeinitely should be a more severe penalty than the guy who just didn't see the stop sign and winds up smashing some little old lady's flower bed.
That being said, no, driving in the US is not a right but a priviledge, one that can be revoked upon demonstration that we exercise it irresponsibly or in a way dangerous to others.
I'm surprised at your apparent resistance towards the efforts against drunk driving, since you say you nearly lost your sister to it. A friend of mine was killed 6 months before earning her degree (she was the first to go of our high school's graduating class), and after seeing her car, I can appreciate what a few moments of poor judgement can accomplish, and 12 years later, I can think of her family and appreciate the permanence of one person's momentary indescretion.
I think this interlock idea is pretty bullshit, myself. I paid $14,600 cash for my truck 3 years ago, and when another driver decided to not stop at that stop sign, it was reduced to a $7,000 check that took three months to write. If this law were going into effect in my state, would the truck I bought as a repleacement require an interlock, even though it doesn't even have the airbags that helped me avoid injury in my last truck? Lame. I agree that the penalties for convicted drunk drivers should be much more stringent.
My job is 18 miles away -- I have no means of getting there with mass transit -- a taxi would cost me $20 each way. I can't have a life unless I have a car
1. There is always another option. some are not very attractive, but very few people would be physically unable to ride a bike a mere 18 miles in less than two hours. After getting into shape, this could be reduced--depending on traffic--to even as low as 45 minutes or less. While it's lame to spend four hours a day getting to/from work, it's possible to those who REALLY need the money.
2. If you didn't have the payment on your "brand new 2003 car with less then 12,000 miles on it" , you would be able to afford $20 per day. There's always another way.
Something similar happened to a friend of mine with around $12,000 worth of stage lighting gear stolen by a hired hand who turned out to like crystal meth a lot more than earning money. He got a pretty good deal when the pawn shop only charged him what THEY had paid for it.
no wait... that's a good deal, right?
-------
By the way, does anyone know how high the bid was before the auction was killed? Last I saw, it was 201k. No, I can't RTFA; it was slashdotted when I tried to hit it.
OOOO! Put THAT on eBay!!!!
6 days, 17 hours, and it's already up to 22.3k
It's not all that bad, since caller ID is getting to be such a common feature that it's pretty much expected to be included in your service plan. You never have to answer a call you don't feel like taking. Also, many providers still offer a "1st minute on incoming calls is free" option, or even by default.
Of course they all still suck.
My son is at this age, has been for a few months. He started with just light switches as I carried him to them, but now he's expanding his skillset. I've seen him demonstrate this on everything from the TV remote (it's great when he hits the volume) to the phone to my keyboard and/or lighted Logitech mouse. He's probably upstairs dialing Mitch Hedburg right now.
Probably "Jenny."
I also couldn't help but notice that even though the site seems to be devoted to dispelling the common misconception that the sole symptom of Tourette Syndrome is the uncontrollable shouting of randomly-placed profanity, the logo that the Tourette Syndrome Association has chosen for itself certainly looks to me like it could very well be representing a person shouting profanity.
Please be sure to note that compared to the game, you'll likely get
At the bottom of the image produced by following your (fixed) link, there is an address:
42-40 Bell Boulevard
Is there a Tourette joke in there as well?