And in most jurisdictions, you then get tried for murder because 1) you are not reasonably in fear for your life from a package thief, and 2) the Castle doctrine only applies if someone is trying to enter your house by force, not if they are nabbing packages form your porch or driveway and running away.
Depends on the laws of your state.
In TX, you can pretty much shoot anyone that is illegally on your property trying to steal something.
In many other states, like LA, your car is considered legally and extension of your home and you can defend it the same. Lots of other stand your ground law states too that have very liberal interpretations.
The more the better I say...after awhile if thieves think they'll get shot for stealing shit, it might finally act as a deterrent.
It *should* be, IMHO, perfectly legal in all states.
But then again, I very much respect the US having "states' rights".
That gives the citizenry choice, to live in areas where the laws, regulation and lifestyle of an area are closer in terms to what they want for their lives.
That's why a large Federal one-size-fits-all system is not the best system.
But I don't have a problem with shooting someone on my property, stealing or damaging my property.
Perhaps that's the problem we have with so many kids today, with no respect for elders, laws, socially accepted behavior or often even basic respect for life.
I know a lot of kids don't receive corporal punishment, but I didn't think that was the norm across most parents....?
So are you planning on a quick headshot, or are you more into a gutshot so you can watch them flop around while they bleed out?
Well, let's be realistic.
When you're having to shoot someone, you aren't going to be playing "Lone Ranger" and trying to shoot to wound....and you also don't get any "points" for trying hard things like headshot.
You aim for the largest target mass of the person,the torso.....land about 3x hits with a.40 cal and they'll likely not be bothering you again any time soon.
My first gaming console was the original NES. I have played almost every Mario game released since the first one there up to the first Galaxy game. To me, Mario games aren't about running quickly from start to finish, it's about finding paths through the levels, secrets, warp pipes etc. It's as much exploration as it is jumping from platform to platform.
This seemed to be true for most of Nintendo's own games; Mario, Zelda, Metroid all have this sense of being rewarded for going off the beaten bath, looking around and stopping to think for a moment.
The premise of "always run really fast until you're done" is more Sonic than Mario.
Yeah..I was reading about this new game and thinking, "Really?"...they're banking on a game that you just push one button to jump, and they're counting on this being a hit?
It just sound boring as shit from the description alone. And to base this overly simplistic version on a game set that a couple of generations have grown up with that is a bit more complex, and has more in-depth game play, to me seemed it would be clear that this would not be a popular game.
If they wanted to make a Sonic on Valium type game, that's what they should have come up with, rather than putting their Mario character in there.
I mean, if they had taken the jump button and user control completely out and let the thing run on its own, it would be only slightly more boring as a premise.
If the asshole wasn't stealing, he'd not be in danger of getting shot, now would he?
Depends on the state you live in, but I believe in TX, you can very legally shoot someone on your property trying to steal your property.
Get enough of this going and you'll (finally) have some real deterrent to idiots doing shit like this.
It was not that many years back, in New Orleans East, a guy in his apt saw some thieves in his car trying to steal stuff, he shot at them from his balcony, one got away, the other one was dead.
They actually tried to try this guy, but no jury around here would convict him.
I think it also had to do with in the state of LA, your car is considered and extension of your home, and many same laws about protecting it cover both.
Again, my thought is...FUCK'EM...if they weren't doing something wrong, they'd not have been shot.
Bingo. It's not so much that moral standards have declined, it's just that people are less willing to put up with cheating partners or just prefer not to enter long term relationships in the first place because they see that their parents were miserable in marriage.
And having to wake up next to the same chick, year, after year, after year.......geez, that gets boring, and with no penis bone, you need something new and fresh to keep you excited and interested!!
Completely agreed. Elimination of cash means the government knows everything you are doing.
Exactly, I enjoy having and spending cash.
It is largely anonymous, and I find that if I take out my spending money and see myself spending cash and the amount dwindling away off my money clip...it means more to me.
Credit cards and the like, abstract money like chips in a casino do...and I don't find myself fretting over spending nearly as much when money is abstracted in this manner.
But seriously, growing up, no one ever had the thought that EVERY job out there, must be one that pays a wage that you could make a living on. This is a VERY RECENT trend in thinking.
I mean, you don't consider kids mowing lawns or babysitting or other jobs as requiring one to earn enough to make a living, with full food and shelter in there. This was also extended to very low end W2 jobs like burger flipper, dish washer in a restaurant, etc.
There were always jobs that were side or starter jobs, due to them paying only what they were really worth.
This notion that you should be able to make a living at ANYTHING you do for work is very new...and is the problem here.
What i'm describing for years and years was just common sense and all of society thought the same.
A lot of civil service contractors started getting paid as employees after IR35 came in to force. So, pretty much yeah.
I just looked up this IR35 thing....a UK rule.
Ouch..that sucks.
I'm glad we don't have that in the US so far.
I just don't get it...WHY are governments so fucking afraid to let people make up their own minds how they want to be employed, what jobs to take and HOW they are compensated for it?
I personally LOVE the 1099 contracting method. Sure it takes a bit more paperwork, but I set my own schedule, I am in charge of when I take off work, etc....and since I incorporated myself, I do save a bit on the employment taxes here in the US (SS and medicare).
I mean, it isn't for everyone, but why are they trying to make it so damned hard on those that WANT to do this?
This is an obvious fallacy as the contractors can always negotiate the rates and terms, regardless of how "set" a company says they are when going into the negotiations.
With Uber, you cannot negotiate the rates. There is literally no mechanism for such a contract to be negotiated.
I"ve taken many a contracting job where they said the bill rate is $x/hr.....there was no negotiating, you take it or leave it.
But if drivers rely on Uber to make a living, they need the following:
I would posit, that if you are trying to make a living by driving Uber, then my friend YOU have made some serious vocational errors along your life so far...
NOT every job is meant to be a living wage job, plain and simple. This thought that it is, is a pretty new and puzzling philosophy to me.
Uber is a side job, to earn a bit of extra money.
The best generic answer is, if you are needing to make a living, and your current job doesn't pay you enough, then use common sense and GET DIFFERENT JOB....
:)
If Uber wants to shirk this responsibility, they shouldn't allow workers to work more than 2 hours a day -- allow only hire part-timers.
Eff...by definition, a contractor choose their OWN hours.
There needs to be a fight to preserve the rights to BE and USE independent contractors.
No one holds a gun to anyones' head to drive for Uber. If you want to work this model..do it...if not, don't work it but don't cut the ability to work in this model for others that WANT to....geez!!
And no carbureted engine will provide the throttle response and street flexibility that a 21st century fuel injected, computer engine does, but that's a different story.
Yeah, but there's also the "fun" factor, I'm not thinking this thing will be up to modern performance stats.
But it WILL be different than most anything on the road, and in straight line will still be quite fun to mash the gas and go....stop light to stop light.
I'd rather have a fixed up 70's Trans Am, screaming chicken and all, at a stop light rather than a modern Camero, where you likely will have 2-3 of them that all look alike (even if they have different packages on them).
And, those old big 455's when tuned right, sound fun and cam at idle which is neat too...IMHO.
I've just wanted one since high school when my friend had one. Maybe now, I can get it and have a fun car to bounce around town in.
Every year, older cars get more an more attractive. Seriously considering a restored 80s BMW with an LS1 swap to make it more reliable.
Same here, I've been wanting to for years and it looks like might be my year to do it....
I want to get a '75-'76 Trans Am, 455 4-speed, last year of the big block, and of the round headlights.
You can get almost frame off restore for the low to mid $20's.
They were getting horribly air restricted at the end of the muscle car era, but with a few bucks, can do a resto-mod on it, slightly more aggressive cam, and turn the shaker hood functional again and your already close to 500+ HP.
A little work on the suspension, and you've got modern handling.
Between that and my current car, I could last without a super "modern" car with all this crap on it easily.
And I make enough money to support a habit like I describe above that gets 10 gallons to the mile on a good day.
Ok...on this one, I'm trying to figure how interstate commerce falls into this category....??
How are the Feds able to mandate this? Seems a large stretch to see how this is associated with interstate commerce, which is about the only mechanism that the Feds can use to make US wide laws.
Congress can pass laws that mandate the existence of agencies.
Ok, they *can*..but I do wonder of all these departments and agencies...how many were actually set up and mandated by law vs just being set forth as a decree from the Executive Branch, in order to help enforce the laws from congress....?
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the laws of your state.
In TX, you can pretty much shoot anyone that is illegally on your property trying to steal something.
In many other states, like LA, your car is considered legally and extension of your home and you can defend it the same. Lots of other stand your ground law states too that have very liberal interpretations.
The more the better I say...after awhile if thieves think they'll get shot for stealing shit, it might finally act as a deterrent.
But then again, I very much respect the US having "states' rights".
That gives the citizenry choice, to live in areas where the laws, regulation and lifestyle of an area are closer in terms to what they want for their lives.
That's why a large Federal one-size-fits-all system is not the best system.
But I don't have a problem with shooting someone on my property, stealing or damaging my property.
There's no good reason for someone to break into your car at night.
Err...people don't whip their kids today?
Perhaps that's the problem we have with so many kids today, with no respect for elders, laws, socially accepted behavior or often even basic respect for life.
I know a lot of kids don't receive corporal punishment, but I didn't think that was the norm across most parents....?
Why not?
Depending on the state you live in, you are perfectly within your rights to shoot a thief on your property.
Well, let's be realistic.
When you're having to shoot someone, you aren't going to be playing "Lone Ranger" and trying to shoot to wound....and you also don't get any "points" for trying hard things like headshot.
You aim for the largest target mass of the person,the torso.....land about 3x hits with a .40 cal and they'll likely not be bothering you again any time soon.
Yeah..I was reading about this new game and thinking, "Really?"...they're banking on a game that you just push one button to jump, and they're counting on this being a hit?
It just sound boring as shit from the description alone. And to base this overly simplistic version on a game set that a couple of generations have grown up with that is a bit more complex, and has more in-depth game play, to me seemed it would be clear that this would not be a popular game.
If they wanted to make a Sonic on Valium type game, that's what they should have come up with, rather than putting their Mario character in there.
I mean, if they had taken the jump button and user control completely out and let the thing run on its own, it would be only slightly more boring as a premise.
Yes.
If the asshole wasn't stealing, he'd not be in danger of getting shot, now would he?
Depends on the state you live in, but I believe in TX, you can very legally shoot someone on your property trying to steal your property.
Get enough of this going and you'll (finally) have some real deterrent to idiots doing shit like this.
It was not that many years back, in New Orleans East, a guy in his apt saw some thieves in his car trying to steal stuff, he shot at them from his balcony, one got away, the other one was dead.
They actually tried to try this guy, but no jury around here would convict him.
I think it also had to do with in the state of LA, your car is considered and extension of your home, and many same laws about protecting it cover both.
Again, my thought is...FUCK'EM...if they weren't doing something wrong, they'd not have been shot.
Ok...these two muslims walked into a bar, and ...............*BOOM*
Oh it worked...the problem was, no one could understand what was being said....
And having to wake up next to the same chick, year, after year, after year.......geez, that gets boring, and with no penis bone, you need something new and fresh to keep you excited and interested!!
Exactly, I enjoy having and spending cash.
It is largely anonymous, and I find that if I take out my spending money and see myself spending cash and the amount dwindling away off my money clip...it means more to me.
Credit cards and the like, abstract money like chips in a casino do...and I don't find myself fretting over spending nearly as much when money is abstracted in this manner.
Obviously I'm a bit older than you.
But seriously, growing up, no one ever had the thought that EVERY job out there, must be one that pays a wage that you could make a living on. This is a VERY RECENT trend in thinking.
I mean, you don't consider kids mowing lawns or babysitting or other jobs as requiring one to earn enough to make a living, with full food and shelter in there. This was also extended to very low end W2 jobs like burger flipper, dish washer in a restaurant, etc.
There were always jobs that were side or starter jobs, due to them paying only what they were really worth.
This notion that you should be able to make a living at ANYTHING you do for work is very new...and is the problem here.
What i'm describing for years and years was just common sense and all of society thought the same.
I just looked up this IR35 thing....a UK rule.
Ouch..that sucks.
I'm glad we don't have that in the US so far.
I just don't get it...WHY are governments so fucking afraid to let people make up their own minds how they want to be employed, what jobs to take and HOW they are compensated for it?
I personally LOVE the 1099 contracting method. Sure it takes a bit more paperwork, but I set my own schedule, I am in charge of when I take off work, etc....and since I incorporated myself, I do save a bit on the employment taxes here in the US (SS and medicare).
I mean, it isn't for everyone, but why are they trying to make it so damned hard on those that WANT to do this?
I"ve taken many a contracting job where they said the bill rate is $x/hr.....there was no negotiating, you take it or leave it.
That's pretty common with 1099 work I find.
Sounds like a silly question, but I'll bite....
How did you get your CURRENT job?
Want ads?
Your list of contacts you have made through life (personal and professional)?
Friends?
I mean seriously, it isn't that difficult to look for and find work my friend.
If you are currently employed, or have EVER been employed before, you know what to do.
If not, i"m guessing you're a young teen looking for his first job?
I would posit, that if you are trying to make a living by driving Uber, then my friend YOU have made some serious vocational errors along your life so far...
NOT every job is meant to be a living wage job, plain and simple. This thought that it is, is a pretty new and puzzling philosophy to me.
Uber is a side job, to earn a bit of extra money.
The best generic answer is, if you are needing to make a living, and your current job doesn't pay you enough, then use common sense and GET DIFFERENT JOB....
Eff...by definition, a contractor choose their OWN hours.
There needs to be a fight to preserve the rights to BE and USE independent contractors.
No one holds a gun to anyones' head to drive for Uber. If you want to work this model..do it...if not, don't work it but don't cut the ability to work in this model for others that WANT to....geez!!
Yeah, but there's also the "fun" factor, I'm not thinking this thing will be up to modern performance stats.
But it WILL be different than most anything on the road, and in straight line will still be quite fun to mash the gas and go....stop light to stop light.
I'd rather have a fixed up 70's Trans Am, screaming chicken and all, at a stop light rather than a modern Camero, where you likely will have 2-3 of them that all look alike (even if they have different packages on them).
And, those old big 455's when tuned right, sound fun and cam at idle which is neat too...IMHO.
I've just wanted one since high school when my friend had one. Maybe now, I can get it and have a fun car to bounce around town in.
I don't want them in my car.
Same here, I've been wanting to for years and it looks like might be my year to do it....
I want to get a '75-'76 Trans Am, 455 4-speed, last year of the big block, and of the round headlights.
You can get almost frame off restore for the low to mid $20's.
They were getting horribly air restricted at the end of the muscle car era, but with a few bucks, can do a resto-mod on it, slightly more aggressive cam, and turn the shaker hood functional again and your already close to 500+ HP.
A little work on the suspension, and you've got modern handling.
Between that and my current car, I could last without a super "modern" car with all this crap on it easily.
And I make enough money to support a habit like I describe above that gets 10 gallons to the mile on a good day.
How are the Feds able to mandate this? Seems a large stretch to see how this is associated with interstate commerce, which is about the only mechanism that the Feds can use to make US wide laws.
Hey..sounds like a good thing to me!!
I have two words.....FUCK THIS...
Ok, they *can*..but I do wonder of all these departments and agencies...how many were actually set up and mandated by law vs just being set forth as a decree from the Executive Branch, in order to help enforce the laws from congress....?