What about the alternate juror or jurors? Usually there is at least one alternate who sits through the evidence, and often more than one. So while your logic is unassailable in a 12 person jury with no alternates, you could have real problems if there are thirteen jurors (12+1 alternate).
Sin is an antiquated myth. It's about punishing people who endanger others. I feel no compassion for those who get caught putting other people in danger.
I'm not talking about getting trashed the night before and not riding. If I've had a beer, I'm not riding that day.
As for you're glass of wine, I sure won't cry for you (I think I'd have myself a good laugh instead) when you have to spend thousands just to get to work:
Results: The mean blood alcohol concentration measured in the moderate alcohol condition was 0.043% and in the low alcohol condition 0.011%. Moderate dose alcohol consumption significantly impaired both static and dynamic contrast with a greater effect for moving targets. Conclusions: Objective and subjective measures of intoxication were unrelated to the alcohol-related losses in contrast sensitivity. Although most states currently prohibit driving with BACs of 0.08-0.10%, the present data indicate reliable visual impairment at approximately half of that level (.44%). (J. Stud. Alcohol 56: 261-266, 1995)
How about just not drinking at all when driving? I won't even get on my motorcycle if I've had anything to drink in the past 12 hours. It really isn't all that hard you know.
People who get the interlock are inherently deficient in foresight. If they had foresight, they'd have gotten a cab or a friend to drive and wouldn't have needed the interlock.
As a side note, a local cab company had a billboard that said something like "getting a DUI costs as much as a cab ride to NY City". NY City is about 3000 miles away from here.
Why not just have that beer when you get home? Even if you aren't impaired, if you cause a fender-bender because you are adjusting the radio, guess who is gonna get raped?
0.05 BAC because they may have a 5% (or some shit) reduction in their ability to drive -- even if that still leaves them far above the driving abilities of a typical driver
Why is it that people who like to drink and drive so often think that their car driving abilities are so superior? Honestly, I tend to think that everyone who brags about how great they are at driving, is at least 100% more likely to be a menace on the road -- and apparently, also imbibing.
I'm sure there is a subjective component to feeling drunk, but after three beers in a row, I'd feel trashed. After one drink, I can definitely tell that my coordination has taken a hit even though I'm at 180 pounds and could theoretically drink more. Some people say they don't feel any effects after one beer -- but I wonder if that is simply evidence of a lack of self awareness. Of course, it could be that I'm just a lightweight.
Either way, I really don't see how laws against driving after consuming intoxicants are bad. It's not like there is a constitutional right to drink and drive, nor could I see how one could reasonably argue it is some natural right of all humans. I'm not into nanny state stuff at all -- if a person wants to do harm to himself, more power to him -- just don't endanger me by doing it on the public roads.
When I was playing around with cantennas, I paid special attention to not look down the things while they were operating. I had read, but now cannot find a link, that directional antennas powered to 100mw or more can do eye damage because wifi is a microwave, and our eyes are mostly water. Seemed to make sense and be a reasonable precaution. That said, non-directional low wattage wifi is probably a lot less intense than the output of 2.4ghz cordless phones that were once so popular when people used land lines. I don't think there was any outrage at schools using cordless phones, but the internet is I guess, kinda still "newfangled" to a lot of people while most people alive today have always had a phone.
Other possible actual causes, aside from just wanting to play hooky, could be allergic reactions to chemicals (some cleaners are really nasty) or some kinds of mold.
As for wifi, that should be easy to test -- do the kids get sick in malls? Somehow I doubt it, but lots of stores use wifi. If the kids don't feel the same in the mall (except perhaps when walking withing 50' of a "Body Shop" store's stench), then it's not likely wifi.
I'm probably a left of center libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, wants low simple taxes and small government, but I do value environmental protection (which some might say makes me soft on property rights). Anyway, I'm also probably not the core stereotypical Greenwald reader, but I do love the way he writes and I agree with a good percentage of it.
Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.
So yes, aside from some trivial diction things (although is it just me -- Obama doesn't sound all that articulate at all), Obama sucks as badly as Bush.
Without the soldiers, the leaders cannot perpetuate evil, so soldiers actually are as much at fault as the leaders. If I don't support the leaders, why should I support those who follow the leader's orders?
Before insurrection, a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary secession of the states should be passed around. If it passed, a state could simply withdraw from the union and become a separate country. I think Washington State would make an awesome independent nation.
Democrats==Republicans for the most part. They only try to distinguish themselves by adhering to one side or the other of a limited number of hot-button issue.
I think what we need is a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary secession of the states. The system is beyond fixable, and it would be nice to be able to start over locally.
Totally off topic, but while Victoria is pretty on the surface, all its sewage and whatever other toxics go down the drain, are dumped untreated directly into the Puget Sound. People shouldn't forget that, and till it is fixed, should definitely avoid visiting Victoria. I've been waiting since the early 90s to feel that visiting Victoria would be morally acceptable.
Fact is, we can not sustain the endless growth economic model we've embraced which includes other thoughtless growth problems like overpopulation.
I agree with you completely. I'm intentionally child-free precisely because I feel that we are reproducing like yeast. Back on topic though, I think that the political push toward more immigration, even though many of their "constituents" (*) are negative on the concept, is to patch up the future problems with SS and the baby boomers. Unless our population continues to grow at an exponential pace, SS is in huge trouble, and politicians are more worried about that than they are about a sustainable economy and population level.
(*) Although most voters consider themselves constituents, to politicians, the only constituents that matter are those who can donate gazillions to the next reelection campaign. Regular voters are just peons.
If your skillset is such that other people can compete easily then distinguish yourself, don't just advocate the medieval practice of limiting people's freedom of movement.
So if you went to school to become a nurse, but now the employers are importing them the Philippines, you should go back to school to become what, a programmer? After figuring out employers are just importing programmers, what do you, go back to school to become an accountant? But that won't be safe either. Maybe the only good thing to train for is college professor.
In the medieval system you advocate, the middle class disappears because there is no hope for having a middle class job. Some few people become super-rich, and most Americans become poorer and poorer until we look any third world country. In essence, you say we should give up 70 or 80% of our income so we can become a poor unstable country with all chaos that goes with that. I think it is a bad deal for us. Yeah, selfish, but when did it become our duty to impoverish ourselves?
While the starting salary may be $65k under our present system, it can't be said that in the absence of the H1-B program, the starting salary would still be only $65k. It used to be that when labor was short wages would rise, and that when labor was abundant, wages would fall. Since the whole globalization craze, that sea-saw balance of power between between labor and industry is gone, because with a whole world out there capable of living on dollars/day (something completely impossible in America), there is never a chance for labor to be short and for workers to get their payoff for suffering through the times when labor is abundant. In essence, we've created a system that always has a labor surplus leading to lower wages (or no wages) for everyone -- from the low skilled workers in the textile industry, to highly educated people in technical fields.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the alternate juror or jurors? Usually there is at least one alternate who sits through the evidence, and often more than one. So while your logic is unassailable in a 12 person jury with no alternates, you could have real problems if there are thirteen jurors (12+1 alternate).
Not Stalin's USSR yet, but Obama definitely represents a continued worsening of the neo-con BS Bush II took to heights once thought unsurpassable.
Sin is an antiquated myth. It's about punishing people who endanger others. I feel no compassion for those who get caught putting other people in danger.
As for you're glass of wine, I sure won't cry for you (I think I'd have myself a good laugh instead) when you have to spend thousands just to get to work:
How about just not drinking at all when driving? I won't even get on my motorcycle if I've had anything to drink in the past 12 hours. It really isn't all that hard you know.
People who get the interlock are inherently deficient in foresight. If they had foresight, they'd have gotten a cab or a friend to drive and wouldn't have needed the interlock.
As a side note, a local cab company had a billboard that said something like "getting a DUI costs as much as a cab ride to NY City". NY City is about 3000 miles away from here.
Why not just have that beer when you get home? Even if you aren't impaired, if you cause a fender-bender because you are adjusting the radio, guess who is gonna get raped?
Why is it that people who like to drink and drive so often think that their car driving abilities are so superior? Honestly, I tend to think that everyone who brags about how great they are at driving, is at least 100% more likely to be a menace on the road -- and apparently, also imbibing.
I'm sure there is a subjective component to feeling drunk, but after three beers in a row, I'd feel trashed. After one drink, I can definitely tell that my coordination has taken a hit even though I'm at 180 pounds and could theoretically drink more. Some people say they don't feel any effects after one beer -- but I wonder if that is simply evidence of a lack of self awareness. Of course, it could be that I'm just a lightweight.
Either way, I really don't see how laws against driving after consuming intoxicants are bad. It's not like there is a constitutional right to drink and drive, nor could I see how one could reasonably argue it is some natural right of all humans. I'm not into nanny state stuff at all -- if a person wants to do harm to himself, more power to him -- just don't endanger me by doing it on the public roads.
When I was playing around with cantennas, I paid special attention to not look down the things while they were operating. I had read, but now cannot find a link, that directional antennas powered to 100mw or more can do eye damage because wifi is a microwave, and our eyes are mostly water. Seemed to make sense and be a reasonable precaution. That said, non-directional low wattage wifi is probably a lot less intense than the output of 2.4ghz cordless phones that were once so popular when people used land lines. I don't think there was any outrage at schools using cordless phones, but the internet is I guess, kinda still "newfangled" to a lot of people while most people alive today have always had a phone.
Other possible actual causes, aside from just wanting to play hooky, could be allergic reactions to chemicals (some cleaners are really nasty) or some kinds of mold.
As for wifi, that should be easy to test -- do the kids get sick in malls? Somehow I doubt it, but lots of stores use wifi. If the kids don't feel the same in the mall (except perhaps when walking withing 50' of a "Body Shop" store's stench), then it's not likely wifi.
Yeah - but what has that got to do with not supporting people who do things I think are wrong?
We can "whatif" till we're blue in the face (or red), but McCain would have been nothing but a palefaced Obama. They're both evil.
I'm probably a left of center libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, wants low simple taxes and small government, but I do value environmental protection (which some might say makes me soft on property rights). Anyway, I'm also probably not the core stereotypical Greenwald reader, but I do love the way he writes and I agree with a good percentage of it.
You believe this only if you haven't been watching the news:
Obama endorses indefinite detention w/o trial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html
Plus, Obama has graduated to assassinating Americans without any due process -- he says you're a bady, you die:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
So yes, aside from some trivial diction things (although is it just me -- Obama doesn't sound all that articulate at all), Obama sucks as badly as Bush.
Without the soldiers, the leaders cannot perpetuate evil, so soldiers actually are as much at fault as the leaders. If I don't support the leaders, why should I support those who follow the leader's orders?
Before insurrection, a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary secession of the states should be passed around. If it passed, a state could simply withdraw from the union and become a separate country. I think Washington State would make an awesome independent nation.
Democrats==Republicans for the most part. They only try to distinguish themselves by adhering to one side or the other of a limited number of hot-button issue.
I think what we need is a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary secession of the states. The system is beyond fixable, and it would be nice to be able to start over locally.
Remember, a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for the status quo, no matter what BS they vomit during the campaign.
Totally off topic, but while Victoria is pretty on the surface, all its sewage and whatever other toxics go down the drain, are dumped untreated directly into the Puget Sound. People shouldn't forget that, and till it is fixed, should definitely avoid visiting Victoria. I've been waiting since the early 90s to feel that visiting Victoria would be morally acceptable.
Open your eyes. Who do you think makes the rules? It is very easy for MS and Intel to play by the rules they write.
Is that in nominal dollars or inflation adjusted. Makes a big difference.
I agree with you completely. I'm intentionally child-free precisely because I feel that we are reproducing like yeast. Back on topic though, I think that the political push toward more immigration, even though many of their "constituents" (*) are negative on the concept, is to patch up the future problems with SS and the baby boomers. Unless our population continues to grow at an exponential pace, SS is in huge trouble, and politicians are more worried about that than they are about a sustainable economy and population level. (*) Although most voters consider themselves constituents, to politicians, the only constituents that matter are those who can donate gazillions to the next reelection campaign. Regular voters are just peons.
So if you went to school to become a nurse, but now the employers are importing them the Philippines, you should go back to school to become what, a programmer? After figuring out employers are just importing programmers, what do you, go back to school to become an accountant? But that won't be safe either. Maybe the only good thing to train for is college professor.
In the medieval system you advocate, the middle class disappears because there is no hope for having a middle class job. Some few people become super-rich, and most Americans become poorer and poorer until we look any third world country. In essence, you say we should give up 70 or 80% of our income so we can become a poor unstable country with all chaos that goes with that. I think it is a bad deal for us. Yeah, selfish, but when did it become our duty to impoverish ourselves?
While the starting salary may be $65k under our present system, it can't be said that in the absence of the H1-B program, the starting salary would still be only $65k. It used to be that when labor was short wages would rise, and that when labor was abundant, wages would fall. Since the whole globalization craze, that sea-saw balance of power between between labor and industry is gone, because with a whole world out there capable of living on dollars/day (something completely impossible in America), there is never a chance for labor to be short and for workers to get their payoff for suffering through the times when labor is abundant. In essence, we've created a system that always has a labor surplus leading to lower wages (or no wages) for everyone -- from the low skilled workers in the textile industry, to highly educated people in technical fields.