If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one?
Simple: they don't. They show that you are more likely to SURVIVE if you are in an SUV which has a collision. That's why they are safer. http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm
Mainly due to the fact that American SUVs are a con based on 1970s truck designs - half of them don't even have independant rear suspensions.
A con? Whatever. They're designed to be the new, more hip mini-van, and they perform admirably for that task. If you need to carry 8 people on a 4 hour drive, that toyota prius gets awfully crowded. I know how they're advertised, but I don't work for an ad agency so I have no control over that. Everyone with intelligence knows that they are not really designed for driving straight up mountains. If you believe that they are, please remove yourself from the gene pool immediately. (I know *some* are really meant for off-road use, but in general, SUVs fill the same role as mini-vans)
Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany.
Yes, actually, I have. I had NO PROBLEM taking corners at reasonable speeds with reasonable caution. If I wanted a vehicle that drove like a Lotus, guess what? I'd buy a Lotus. If I want a vehicle to cart around a family + friends in comfort, and also be able to shove a ton of groceries/luggage/lumber/whatever in there, then I'm going to buy an SUV.
As for the big vehicle vs. smaller vehicle argument where do you stop? Are you in some kind of arms race? The only reason the Toyota would get totalled is because some moron is driving 15 tons of SUV. If the other car was a normal sized vehicle then they would both be fine. Why not buy yourself an 18 wheeler - then the guy in the Hummer would be toast.
Yeah, the SUV is certainly the largest common passenger vehicle. Of course, pickups and vans have been around far longer, and in many cases have worse rearward vision, worse handling, and worse gas milage. It's not an arms race for me, as I drive a 4 door econo-box. I just don't think that SUVs are Satan. I personally believe that SUVs gained popularity so quickly because people were tired of the 8 foot by 5 foot 'sedans' that have been churned out since the '80s. (yes, I know that's an exaggeration, it's for effect, like your '15 tons of SUV') If you crash two 'normal-sized' vehicles together, people in both cars are equally likely to be killed. If you crash 2 SUVs together, the same applies. (although the chances of being killed at all are smaller) It's when a sedan/coupe/motorcycle and an SUV have a collision that the SUV driver is far more likely to survive. As for why I don't buy an 18-wheeler, well, I don't feel like getting my commercial license. If I felt like I needed an 18-wheeler, say for hauling a large cargo across country, I'd get one. If I need a vehicle for carrying lots of stuff/people, I'll get an SUV. Trying to get soccer moms to buy a prius or a kia rio or something is just stupid.
that's a load of shit. vehicles (yes even the hummer) are designed to have crumple zones in the front and rear. regardless of who hits what there will be irreparable damage to both vehicles.
I'm guessing your knowledge of traffic accidents is limited to TV and what you've read. Hint: irreparable means "not repairable", and most vehicles can be repaired after most crashes.
SUV's don't make the driver and it's occupants any safer, they just make the road more dangerous to everyone else.
http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm
Actually, they *do* make their occupants safer. As far as making the roads 'more dangerous for everyone else', I've been in 3 accidents that were not my fault (and 0 that were) and not once was I hit by an SUV. 1 taxi, 1 accord, and 1 ford pickup have all smashed into me. I drive an economy sedan, and only the accord was damaged in its collision with my car. The large, old taxi had no damage (even though it tore my whole bumper right off) and the pickup was barely scratched, although my car's crumple zones were crumpled enough. Of course, I got my car repaired all three times. SUVs are no worse than vans or large pickups, which have been around forever. Just get over yourself and your class warfare.
sure, if you want to be an ass about it. However, I buy cd's from bands because I like the band. Since I like them I want them to make money. If they don't make money, then they don't make new music for me to enjoy. That sucks for me, capisca?
See, you can want what's best for other people without relying on empathy, altruism, or any of that other stupid hippy crap.
Where did people get the idea that just because you like to do something, that you should be able to make a living at it? I mean, if someone *can* make a living doing what they love, that's great. What I don't get is why I'm supposed to pay $16-$20 (or even *only* $13) for a 30 cent piece of plastic. I fully support anyone's right to make music, and if you can make a living at it fine, but I don't support artificially propping an industry up just so some people can make some music. In case no one remembers, there was music before there were record companies. Mozart never got a record deal, yet other people make money off his music every day. Nero played violin, but he had a day job, too. The music I prefer is that done for love of MUSIC, not love of money. Personally, I enjoy doing lots of things, but I don't think I have some divine right to be paid to make a living doing them. I am under NO obligation to pay for music. I am also under no obligation to support painters, sculptors, dancers, etc., even though I may enjoy their work very much. Fuck record companies, and motherdoublefuck 'artists' who don't make art unless they're getting paid.
Don't forget the the people in the recording studio and everyone else who helped.
Why shouldn't I forget them? They're paid before the CD comes out. I highly doubt 'mic technician junior grade' is getting a cut of the record sales. I don't care to pay the people that helped make the CD. That's the job of the artist/label. I'd prefer to just pay the artist, but since the record companies don't like that, I just listen to musicians who release their music for free, and then donate to them if/when I can. If you want some good free music check out: www.frontalot.com www.optimusrhyme.com www .nibb.net or just cruise around; good, free music isn't hard to find, and I'd far rather support artists than the latest mega-label pop cookie-cutter shill.
And only the americans could come up with something as pointless as an SUV. A 4 wheel drive vehicle that does 2 mpg, tips over in a tight swerve has poor crash protection and if it does go off road it gets stuck. Compared to that an amphibious car sounds pretty sensible.
I guess Suburbans haven't been a staple of farm and ranch life since they were introduced. Oh wait, yes they have. I suppose there aren't any other common vehicles with high centers of gravity, cause vans and trucks don't have 'em. Nope. People's individual driving skill will always trump vehicle limitations. That's why some people roll corvettes and others drive SUVs for years with no problems. As far as 'poor crash protection' um...you *are* smoking something, right? I mean, if I have a choice of which vehicle I'm driving in a Hummer/Corolla collison...well let's just say I'd be scraping the Toyota symbol off my undamaged grill. Even the gas mileage is, these days, comparable to trucks/light duty vehicles. Knee-jerk reactions are fun. Note: I don't drive an SUV.
But I digress from todays true mission, Illitate Reformation.
Nice. I hope tomorrow's mission is Punctuaion Reformation or maybe Spellng Reformation. I also hope you get all the illitates reformed today. Good luck!
sure, because the country bombing most (let's say for the sake of argument) = the only country bombing. you didn't say 'the US is the biggest bomber' you said 'the US is the ONLY bomber', which is not only patently false, but was designed to inflame others. Troll? Only in the eyes of those with intelligence. You want to make a point, fine, just don't use laughably false premises to do so.
credit card photos are easier to forge than drivers license photos.
So what? Their entire ad campaign is based on the 'you don't have to show id' idea. However, in practice, you *do* have to show id. That smacks of false advertising to me.
I thought he was referring to the 'old' method of taking screenshots: using a camera to take a picture of the screen. It isn't that hard to get a (legible) reproduction of a document. How the hell does DRM stop this? That's not even mentioning the inevitable 'hack office docs' script kiddie kit that will show up on the 'net weeks before any product with it is released. It's not even a default, it's easy to defeat, it doesn't do anything that can't already be done a different way, and it's going to keep anti-MS people bitching while 90% of MS users won't ever even know it's there. Sounds like a jillion other MS stories that I've seen here over the years. Don't you MS anti-fanboys all run linux anyhow? Why do you care?
The signature on my credit card says 'Check Photo ID'. Not one clerk ever has.
I represent the opposite end of that spectrum. I got a Visa check card because I was sick and tired of having to show a photo id (with a photo already on my credit card). The commercials would seem to indicate that Visa check cards require no extra ID. However, I get asked for ID about twice as much now as I did before (with a regular credit card). I mean, my picture is RIGHT ON THE DEBIT CARD. *sigh* Why do you retail idiots ID me, when my picture is on my card, but the soccer mom writing a $2.50 check in front of me gets through with no hassle? I'm all for implanting lcd screens in our foreheads that display info like current bank balance. Think how much easier that'd make shopping, and dating! Now she can check out your salary before she even fake smiles at you.
I count comments that reiterate stale old themes with nothing new as "redundant", even if they haven't been posted before. Would you consider a soviet russia joke to be redundant if it hadn't been posted before?
You sound like a very unhappy person. I feel sorry for you. Here's a ray of sunshine, from me to you! May you find at least a small spark of joy in your life.
This being/., your comment was redundant and no longer funny (sorry, just telling it like I percieve it). The only response it would get is a serious one, since redundant jokes don't generally get joking replies. Plus, I just like seriously answering jokes. It's fun.
I guess, this being/., that you don't know what redundant means. Funny is debatable, but in order to be redundant, someone else would have to have had the same comment first....which they didn't. Nice use of words, but next time use some whose meanings you understand.
Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws.
Yes, as can be seen by our solutions to the 'social problems' of drugs, gays, discrimination, and poor people. All those laws we have to eliminate the above sure worked really well. Laws are for punishing lawbreakers, not preventing crime. Responsible, moral people have no need for laws, because they wouldn't behave in an immoral manner anyway. Education does more than legislation ever will, provided it's done in a responsible manner. (which, I am quite aware, is rarely the case these days) As an example relating to spam (last-ditch attempt at getting back on topic), if people were well enough educated about what spam is, why it is bad, and why they shouldn't respond, eventually people would stop giving their money to spammers/businesses who use spammers. That would stop spam with no legislation required. Unfortunately, education requires not only a good teacher, but also students willing to learn. Please note: I am not against drugs, gays, or poor people, and I am not against 'discrimination' per se, although I am against unfounded discrimination. However, there have been and continue to be laws against all of the above.
Just Say No to unenforcible/unneccessary legislation.
They were going to do something similar in Indianapolis, but the papers got wind of it and protests of entrapment scuttled the idea. Personally, I think it's pretty clever...
I do, as well. I'm not sure how entrapment would apply, but I'm no scumbag lawyer so I dunno for sure. It's not like the signs said 'it's not illegal to cross a median on a divided highway' and then they busted em for doing just that. Of course, laws and common sense are not always as closely related as I'd like...and entrapment is one of those. I mean, in some places, it's legal for the cops to take drugs, in order to 'fit in' with criminals. Well, in my opinion, any cop who takes drugs DOES fit in with criminals, by definition. Why is it that the only people in this country who can legally do coke or smack are the vice cops? Sure, sure, I know...they're just trying to do their job and they need to look like criminals blah blah. Does that mean that in order to 'fit in' with hate groups, cops should be legally allowed to burn churches and kill people? Of course not. Find another way to do your job, one that doesn't require special exceptions to the law.
This reminds me of a DUI checkpoint I saw a couple of months ago. They had not one, but TWO signs 6 and 4 blocks, respectively, that said, "DUI checkpoint ahead". There were plenty of opportunities to turn down another street and avoid it altogether.
I actually saw a pretty intelligent use of signs by cops once. lollapalooza was held in an outdoor venue near where I used to live. People leaving the show had to get on a limited-access highway and go about 2 miles before there was an exit, and everyone leaving the show had to drive to that exit. About a mile before the exit, they placed several large signs that said 'Drug checkpoint ahead. All cars will be searched.' Of course, that would be illegal to do, and there was no 'drug checkpoint' at all. Instead, the police waited around for people to illegally u-turn across the median and then busted those people. We just kept driving, and sure enough, no checkpoint. After we made a legal u-turn at the next exit, we saw someone swerve across the median, and then saw two cops streak after them, sirens blazing. I don't think we stopped laughing the whole way home. Sure, it's an underhanded method, but anyone who knows their rights wouldn't fall for it.
It will be more worrying when they fit the guns straight to the cameras in order to weed out the inefficient human in the loop.
Yes, but there exists a highly valuable training video which presents the risks of doing exactly this: Robocop. That's what they did with ED-209, but it turns out that your highly-armored killing machine of a cop must have a human core, or it'll just wax a bunch of highly-paid corporate stooges..er, wait. Now I can't remember why ED-209 wasn't a success.
That doesn't make sense. I can recognise a particular face from a 2D photograph. Therefore it must be possible, just difficult.
Well, I can recognise a person based on a verbal description, too....does that mean a camera can? Just because *you* can do something doesn't mean a computer can. I can also compose parody songs containing socio-political commentary. Can a camera do that? I can also drink too much and end up passed out on top of a hot dog vendor's cart. I'd like to see a camera that can do that.
Wow. You're really bad at comprehending things, aren't you? I don't know why the world must share your beliefs. I never said it did, and I never thought it did, so I can't answer your question. Please buy a clue. Either that, or actually read what I wrote.
Hmm. I was figuring that he meant the porn. I was just kidding. I didn't expect a serious response to my comment....but then again, this being/., I shouldn't be surprised.
I never involved my beliefs at all. i wrote my message using nothing but a conservative christian belief system as a point of reference, referring to god's love as the love of his christian god.
Boy. You missed the point entirely. As I said, I am not impugning your beliefs. Your post was simply a perfect example of what you were accusing the OP of. I don't need to know what you believe to know that you were doing in your post exactly what you accused the OP of doing. I can do that based just on what you *did* write, and it has nothing to do with your beliefs, just your post. All I said about your beliefs, which does not require knowing them, is that if you don't think they are correct, why do you believe them?
I'm assuming that's not a blanket condemnation of being vocal
You're assuming correctly. I'm not against being vocal, and I fully respect people's right to be hypocrits, but it does seem to me that some of the 'i hate gays and i hate hippies and i hate anyone who's a different denomination' types might do well to re-read the New Testament. To me it would be like a vocal vegetarian calling for vegetarians everywhere to eat meat. It's an obvious contradiction of the message. If you're calling for people to eat meat, you probably aren't a true vegetarian. and if you're calling for a group's death or persecution (like the severe anti-abortionists or the extremely anti-gay, anti-criminal, or anti-junkie types) you aren't acting like Jesus Christ. Now, I'm not saying you're under any obligation to be like Jesus Christ, just that it's silly to call yourself a Christian if you aren't going to try and be like Christ. What's the point?
It's the right-wing, religious right who has problems with these issues. Fuck them.
I'd like to point out that right wing and religious are not synonymous. Nor are religious and anti-(insert issue here) Trying to pretend that all religions/religious people are the same is just like trying to pretend that everyone in the country is either right wing or left wing. I'm an agnostic fiscal conservative who could give a fuck less if two guys or two girls wanna get married. I support legalization of all drugs, including making *all* drugs OTC. I hate the Republicrat party as well as the Demopublican party. My family is DEEPLY Christian and they don't have any problems with gay rights either. They also understand that one of the biggest messages of Christianity is to comport yourself well (would Jesus froth at the mouth with hatred for anyone?) and love everyone, regardless of their actions. That doesn't mean you SUPPORT what they do, it just means you don't hate them. Many vocal and visible 'Christian' people seem to have forgotten that they are not responsible for the actions of others, and thus they should have no control over them. I'd also like to point out that disparaging others' beliefs is not likely to convert them to your viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one?
Simple: they don't. They show that you are more likely to SURVIVE if you are in an SUV which has a collision. That's why they are safer.
http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm
Mainly due to the fact that American SUVs are a con based on 1970s truck designs - half of them don't even have independant rear suspensions.
A con? Whatever. They're designed to be the new, more hip mini-van, and they perform admirably for that task. If you need to carry 8 people on a 4 hour drive, that toyota prius gets awfully crowded. I know how they're advertised, but I don't work for an ad agency so I have no control over that. Everyone with intelligence knows that they are not really designed for driving straight up mountains. If you believe that they are, please remove yourself from the gene pool immediately. (I know *some* are really meant for off-road use, but in general, SUVs fill the same role as mini-vans)
Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany.
Yes, actually, I have. I had NO PROBLEM taking corners at reasonable speeds with reasonable caution. If I wanted a vehicle that drove like a Lotus, guess what? I'd buy a Lotus. If I want a vehicle to cart around a family + friends in comfort, and also be able to shove a ton of groceries/luggage/lumber/whatever in there, then I'm going to buy an SUV.
As for the big vehicle vs. smaller vehicle argument where do you stop? Are you in some kind of arms race? The only reason the Toyota would get totalled is because some moron is driving 15 tons of SUV. If the other car was a normal sized vehicle then they would both be fine. Why not buy yourself an 18 wheeler - then the guy in the Hummer would be toast.
Yeah, the SUV is certainly the largest common passenger vehicle. Of course, pickups and vans have been around far longer, and in many cases have worse rearward vision, worse handling, and worse gas milage. It's not an arms race for me, as I drive a 4 door econo-box. I just don't think that SUVs are Satan. I personally believe that SUVs gained popularity so quickly because people were tired of the 8 foot by 5 foot 'sedans' that have been churned out since the '80s. (yes, I know that's an exaggeration, it's for effect, like your '15 tons of SUV') If you crash two 'normal-sized' vehicles together, people in both cars are equally likely to be killed. If you crash 2 SUVs together, the same applies. (although the chances of being killed at all are smaller) It's when a sedan/coupe/motorcycle and an SUV have a collision that the SUV driver is far more likely to survive.
As for why I don't buy an 18-wheeler, well, I don't feel like getting my commercial license. If I felt like I needed an 18-wheeler, say for hauling a large cargo across country, I'd get one. If I need a vehicle for carrying lots of stuff/people, I'll get an SUV. Trying to get soccer moms to buy a prius or a kia rio or something is just stupid.
that's a load of shit. vehicles (yes even the hummer) are designed to have crumple zones in the front and rear. regardless of who hits what there will be irreparable damage to both vehicles.
I'm guessing your knowledge of traffic accidents is limited to TV and what you've read. Hint: irreparable means "not repairable", and most vehicles can be repaired after most crashes.
SUV's don't make the driver and it's occupants any safer, they just make the road more dangerous to everyone else.
http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm
Actually, they *do* make their occupants safer. As far as making the roads 'more dangerous for everyone else', I've been in 3 accidents that were not my fault (and 0 that were) and not once was I hit by an SUV. 1 taxi, 1 accord, and 1 ford pickup have all smashed into me. I drive an economy sedan, and only the accord was damaged in its collision with my car. The large, old taxi had no damage (even though it tore my whole bumper right off) and the pickup was barely scratched, although my car's crumple zones were crumpled enough. Of course, I got my car repaired all three times. SUVs are no worse than vans or large pickups, which have been around forever. Just get over yourself and your class warfare.
sure, if you want to be an ass about it. However, I buy cd's from bands because I like the band. Since I like them I want them to make money. If they don't make money, then they don't make new music for me to enjoy. That sucks for me, capisca?
See, you can want what's best for other people without relying on empathy, altruism, or any of that other stupid hippy crap.
Where did people get the idea that just because you like to do something, that you should be able to make a living at it? I mean, if someone *can* make a living doing what they love, that's great. What I don't get is why I'm supposed to pay $16-$20 (or even *only* $13) for a 30 cent piece of plastic. I fully support anyone's right to make music, and if you can make a living at it fine, but I don't support artificially propping an industry up just so some people can make some music. In case no one remembers, there was music before there were record companies. Mozart never got a record deal, yet other people make money off his music every day. Nero played violin, but he had a day job, too. The music I prefer is that done for love of MUSIC, not love of money. Personally, I enjoy doing lots of things, but I don't think I have some divine right to be paid to make a living doing them. I am under NO obligation to pay for music. I am also under no obligation to support painters, sculptors, dancers, etc., even though I may enjoy their work very much. Fuck record companies, and motherdoublefuck 'artists' who don't make art unless they're getting paid.
Don't forget the the people in the recording studio and everyone else who helped.
w .nibb.net
Why shouldn't I forget them? They're paid before the CD comes out. I highly doubt 'mic technician junior grade' is getting a cut of the record sales. I don't care to pay the people that helped make the CD. That's the job of the artist/label. I'd prefer to just pay the artist, but since the record companies don't like that, I just listen to musicians who release their music for free, and then donate to them if/when I can.
If you want some good free music check out:
www.frontalot.com
www.optimusrhyme.com
ww
or just cruise around; good, free music isn't hard to find, and I'd far rather support artists than the latest mega-label pop cookie-cutter shill.
And only the americans could come up with something as pointless as an SUV. A 4 wheel drive vehicle that does 2 mpg, tips over in a tight swerve
has poor crash protection and if it does go off road it gets stuck. Compared to that an amphibious car sounds pretty sensible.
I guess Suburbans haven't been a staple of farm and ranch life since they were introduced. Oh wait, yes they have. I suppose there aren't any other common vehicles with high centers of gravity, cause vans and trucks don't have 'em. Nope.
People's individual driving skill will always trump vehicle limitations. That's why some people roll corvettes and others drive SUVs for years with no problems. As far as 'poor crash protection' um...you *are* smoking something, right? I mean, if I have a choice of which vehicle I'm driving in a Hummer/Corolla collison...well let's just say I'd be scraping the Toyota symbol off my undamaged grill. Even the gas mileage is, these days, comparable to trucks/light duty vehicles. Knee-jerk reactions are fun.
Note: I don't drive an SUV.
But I digress from todays true mission, Illitate Reformation.
Nice. I hope tomorrow's mission is Punctuaion Reformation or maybe Spellng Reformation. I also hope you get all the illitates reformed today.
Good luck!
sure, because the country bombing most (let's say for the sake of argument) = the only country bombing. you didn't say 'the US is the biggest bomber' you said 'the US is the ONLY bomber', which is not only patently false, but was designed to inflame others. Troll? Only in the eyes of those with intelligence. You want to make a point, fine, just don't use laughably false premises to do so.
It's the US that bombs countries back to the dark age - no one else.
Nice troll. See: USSR re: Afghanistan
credit card photos are easier to forge than drivers license photos.
So what? Their entire ad campaign is based on the 'you don't have to show id' idea. However, in practice, you *do* have to show id. That smacks of false advertising to me.
...taking screen shots...
I thought he was referring to the 'old' method of taking screenshots: using a camera to take a picture of the screen. It isn't that hard to get a (legible) reproduction of a document. How the hell does DRM stop this? That's not even mentioning the inevitable 'hack office docs' script kiddie kit that will show up on the 'net weeks before any product with it is released. It's not even a default, it's easy to defeat, it doesn't do anything that can't already be done a different way, and it's going to keep anti-MS people bitching while 90% of MS users won't ever even know it's there. Sounds like a jillion other MS stories that I've seen here over the years. Don't you MS anti-fanboys all run linux anyhow? Why do you care?
The signature on my credit card says 'Check Photo ID'. Not one clerk ever has.
I represent the opposite end of that spectrum. I got a Visa check card because I was sick and tired of having to show a photo id (with a photo already on my credit card). The commercials would seem to indicate that Visa check cards require no extra ID. However, I get asked for ID about twice as much now as I did before (with a regular credit card). I mean, my picture is RIGHT ON THE DEBIT CARD. *sigh* Why do you retail idiots ID me, when my picture is on my card, but the soccer mom writing a $2.50 check in front of me gets through with no hassle? I'm all for implanting lcd screens in our foreheads that display info like current bank balance. Think how much easier that'd make shopping, and dating! Now she can check out your salary before she even fake smiles at you.
I count comments that reiterate stale old themes with nothing new as "redundant", even if they haven't been posted before. Would you consider a soviet russia joke to be redundant if it hadn't been posted before?
You sound like a very unhappy person. I feel sorry for you. Here's a ray of sunshine, from me to you!
May you find at least a small spark of joy in your life.
This being /., your comment was redundant and no longer funny (sorry, just telling it like I percieve it). The only response it would get is a serious one, since redundant jokes don't generally get joking replies. Plus, I just like seriously answering jokes. It's fun.
/., that you don't know what redundant means. Funny is debatable, but in order to be redundant, someone else would have to have had the same comment first....which they didn't. Nice use of words, but next time use some whose meanings you understand.
I guess, this being
i believe you should eat a bag of dicks.
I'm sure you do. I believe you should put a plastic bag over your head and breeeeeeeathe deep. Fuckwad.
Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws.
Yes, as can be seen by our solutions to the 'social problems' of drugs, gays, discrimination, and poor people. All those laws we have to eliminate the above sure worked really well. Laws are for punishing lawbreakers, not preventing crime. Responsible, moral people have no need for laws, because they wouldn't behave in an immoral manner anyway. Education does more than legislation ever will, provided it's done in a responsible manner. (which, I am quite aware, is rarely the case these days) As an example relating to spam (last-ditch attempt at getting back on topic), if people were well enough educated about what spam is, why it is bad, and why they shouldn't respond, eventually people would stop giving their money to spammers/businesses who use spammers. That would stop spam with no legislation required. Unfortunately, education requires not only a good teacher, but also students willing to learn.
Please note: I am not against drugs, gays, or poor people, and I am not against 'discrimination' per se, although I am against unfounded discrimination. However, there have been and continue to be laws against all of the above.
Just Say No to unenforcible/unneccessary legislation.
They were going to do something similar in Indianapolis, but the papers got wind of it and protests of entrapment scuttled the idea. Personally, I think it's pretty clever...
I do, as well. I'm not sure how entrapment would apply, but I'm no scumbag lawyer so I dunno for sure. It's not like the signs said 'it's not illegal to cross a median on a divided highway' and then they busted em for doing just that. Of course, laws and common sense are not always as closely related as I'd like...and entrapment is one of those. I mean, in some places, it's legal for the cops to take drugs, in order to 'fit in' with criminals. Well, in my opinion, any cop who takes drugs DOES fit in with criminals, by definition. Why is it that the only people in this country who can legally do coke or smack are the vice cops? Sure, sure, I know...they're just trying to do their job and they need to look like criminals blah blah. Does that mean that in order to 'fit in' with hate groups, cops should be legally allowed to burn churches and kill people? Of course not. Find another way to do your job, one that doesn't require special exceptions to the law.
pffftt... Your both wrong it was woodworking.
:)
Hmm...I figured if porn wasn't the joke, then by deductive reasoning, 'wood working' wouldn't be the joke either...I sit corrected.
This reminds me of a DUI checkpoint I saw a couple of months ago. They had not one, but TWO signs 6 and 4 blocks, respectively, that said, "DUI checkpoint ahead". There were plenty of opportunities to turn down another street and avoid it altogether.
I actually saw a pretty intelligent use of signs by cops once. lollapalooza was held in an outdoor venue near where I used to live. People leaving the show had to get on a limited-access highway and go about 2 miles before there was an exit, and everyone leaving the show had to drive to that exit. About a mile before the exit, they placed several large signs that said 'Drug checkpoint ahead. All cars will be searched.'
Of course, that would be illegal to do, and there was no 'drug checkpoint' at all. Instead, the police waited around for people to illegally u-turn across the median and then busted those people. We just kept driving, and sure enough, no checkpoint. After we made a legal u-turn at the next exit, we saw someone swerve across the median, and then saw two cops streak after them, sirens blazing. I don't think we stopped laughing the whole way home. Sure, it's an underhanded method, but anyone who knows their rights wouldn't fall for it.
It will be more worrying when they fit the guns straight to the cameras in order to weed out the inefficient human in the loop.
Yes, but there exists a highly valuable training video which presents the risks of doing exactly this: Robocop. That's what they did with ED-209, but it turns out that your highly-armored killing machine of a cop must have a human core, or it'll just wax a bunch of highly-paid corporate stooges..er, wait. Now I can't remember why ED-209 wasn't a success.
That doesn't make sense. I can recognise a particular face from a 2D photograph. Therefore it must be possible, just difficult.
Well, I can recognise a person based on a verbal description, too....does that mean a camera can?
Just because *you* can do something doesn't mean a computer can. I can also compose parody songs containing socio-political commentary. Can a camera do that? I can also drink too much and end up passed out on top of a hot dog vendor's cart. I'd like to see a camera that can do that.
I do know they're right; they're right for me.
Why must the world share my beliefs?
Wow. You're really bad at comprehending things, aren't you? I don't know why the world must share your beliefs. I never said it did, and I never thought it did, so I can't answer your question. Please buy a clue. Either that, or actually read what I wrote.
Hmm. I was figuring that he meant the porn. I was just kidding. I didn't expect a serious response to my comment....but then again, this being /., I shouldn't be surprised.
I never involved my beliefs at all. i wrote my message using nothing but a conservative christian belief system as a point of reference, referring to god's love as the love of his christian god.
Boy. You missed the point entirely. As I said, I am not impugning your beliefs. Your post was simply a perfect example of what you were accusing the OP of. I don't need to know what you believe to know that you were doing in your post exactly what you accused the OP of doing. I can do that based just on what you *did* write, and it has nothing to do with your beliefs, just your post.
All I said about your beliefs, which does not require knowing them, is that if you don't think they are correct, why do you believe them?
I'm assuming that's not a blanket condemnation of being vocal
You're assuming correctly. I'm not against being vocal, and I fully respect people's right to be hypocrits, but it does seem to me that some of the 'i hate gays and i hate hippies and i hate anyone who's a different denomination' types might do well to re-read the New Testament. To me it would be like a vocal vegetarian calling for vegetarians everywhere to eat meat. It's an obvious contradiction of the message. If you're calling for people to eat meat, you probably aren't a true vegetarian. and if you're calling for a group's death or persecution (like the severe anti-abortionists or the extremely anti-gay, anti-criminal, or anti-junkie types) you aren't acting like Jesus Christ. Now, I'm not saying you're under any obligation to be like Jesus Christ, just that it's silly to call yourself a Christian if you aren't going to try and be like Christ. What's the point?
It's the right-wing, religious right who has problems with these issues. Fuck them.
I'd like to point out that right wing and religious are not synonymous. Nor are religious and anti-(insert issue here)
Trying to pretend that all religions/religious people are the same is just like trying to pretend that everyone in the country is either right wing or left wing.
I'm an agnostic fiscal conservative who could give a fuck less if two guys or two girls wanna get married. I support legalization of all drugs, including making *all* drugs OTC. I hate the Republicrat party as well as the Demopublican party. My family is DEEPLY Christian and they don't have any problems with gay rights either. They also understand that one of the biggest messages of Christianity is to comport yourself well (would Jesus froth at the mouth with hatred for anyone?) and love everyone, regardless of their actions. That doesn't mean you SUPPORT what they do, it just means you don't hate them. Many vocal and visible 'Christian' people seem to have forgotten that they are not responsible for the actions of others, and thus they should have no control over them. I'd also like to point out that disparaging others' beliefs is not likely to convert them to your viewpoint.