IT's not about missing out on the social life. If you don't have FB, then FB isn't bound by their TOS for how they handle your information, and they are collecting information on you. Your friends can tag you and you'll be in pictures, but have no ownership or say in how your information is treated or used, unless there are law changes, or you sign up for your own account.
In 2005, the premium for the same coverage was doubled. From 2004. That's 100% increase in one year. That's well before ACA was even being considered. The increases before and after that year were similar. ACA didn't "cause" anything. Well, I take that back. The insurance companies increased a lot of their plans, and blamed ACA, but the increases were coming anyway, and ACA gave benefits that weren't there before. You can now go to uninsured/underinsured, until you have a problem, then seek a better fit. But lots of the "major medical" plans don't meet the definition of "insurance" because they don't cover enough. So you would be paying more because you are getting more, even if you don't want to use it.
To a $100M company, $4M is payable. $80M is bankruptcy. If they scare away people from becoming the next mega, then they "win". So lie about the settlement, to try to discourage others. It's not about extracting money, but scaring people. You aren't on their radar. $5m is more than you'll make in your life. But Kim Dotcom is their target. People who took on the media companies, made money, and all that. They want to scare people away from being the next Kim.
I tried to explain it like it wasn't the Ballmer Peak, as the performance didn't drop off rapidly after the level was passed. It was more an issue of state-dependent memory. He only ever played pool drunk, so he didn't know how to do it sober.
One of the alcoholics I knew crashed the night of his last DUI. He crashed the "family car" then walked home and came back in his personal car, still drunk. If he had slept it off, he'd have not gotten a DUI. But he went back to the scene, was recognized, and arrested. So he crashed at least once. Low speed. Into a dumpster. I had a friend who in high school killed a family the first time he got behind the wheel drunk.
A college roomate drove better drunk than sober. He was fall-down drunk, but drove fine. Thought he was good after driving 150 miles drunk without incident. Then got on a bicycle (still drunk) and ended up in the hospital. Though DUI is possible for that, he didn't get one for riding a bike drunk.
My experience is like yours. The "joke" is "would you rather your doctor be a heroine addict or not?" Of course the correct answer is "Doesn't matter, so long as if he is, he's had his maintenance dose."
When my dad got his DUI, he didn't crash. He ran a red without incident. Still insists there is no light there. I drove through with him many times since then. He insists it was put up after his incident. He's crashed plenty sober. But never drunk. Amazing when he spent a good portion of time more drunk than sober. That's one reason I know so many alcoholics. They tend to band together. Whether trying to get drunk together, or sober together. And my mom's brother was an alcoholic, as was my dad. And a number of people in my college dorm. The one I talked about before was ex-army with lots of alcohol cash from the GI bill, and 10 years more practice getting drunk than us lightweights.
He was hilarious to go play pool with. He wasn't a hustler, but couldn't play pool sober. But after 3-15 beers, was much better. Then, at some point, he can't play anymore. But that happens close to where he couldn't stand anymore, so it wasn't like 3 great, 4 worse. It was a plateau from heavy-buzz to passed-out. And boy did he pass out. He's the type of guy you could strip naked and drag in the middle of a field and he'd not wake up until security found him in the morning. But you can only do that on a very warm night, or he'd die by morning. Instead, he'd wake up with a sore knee or something, when someone would find him passed out in a more public area, like the lounge, and take a baseball bat to his leg to see if he'd wake. He never woke up until morning.
Nobody else offers plans for one month at anything approaching reasonable rates. I looked. I had recent knee trouble, and didn't want to get hit with a $10,000 bill if I needed work done.
I ended up going without insurance for the period because it was too expensive. I had the quotes from COBRA and personal insurers. Neither was affordable, and this was 5+ years before ACA.
Before the affordable Care Act, I was paying about $175 per month for a $8,000 deductible major medical plan. After ACA, the cheapest plan has a deductible of $12,000, and the premium is now more than $500.
In 2005, my company's insurance costs doubled. Your increase was less than that. Insurance rates have been going up as you describe for quite a while. That's why it became such an issue. Illness is the #1 cause of bankruptcy, followed by divorce. Poor spending habits isn't high on the list. Poor people don't spend themselves into bankruptcy, Donald Trump has 5+ bankruptices. "Normal" people would never be allowed to make such poor choices repeatedly.
If MADD isn't demanding a 10% reduction in BAC, they'd have to close. There's nothing left for MADD to do, so they became a purely prohibitionist organization unrelated to road safety.
And, since MADD started the anti-drinking crusade, drunk driving has increased, not decreased. Why? Because in the '70s, a crash was "alcohol related" only if the drivers vomited on the responding officer's shoes. Today the definition includes the following fictional scenario:
"Tony, a mob boss, kills a subordinate at a dinner. The subordinate had 2 glasses of wine with dinner before the baseball bat rendered him lifeless. Vito (sober) is ordered to drive the body to the dumping spot. He lines the trunk with plastic, drops the body in, throws in some concrete shoes, and takes off for the lake. On his way, he stops at a red light (don't want to get pulled over with a body in the trunk). George is a elderly man with sleep apnea. He's tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He fails to stop at the light and rams Vito from behind (though was under the limit at the time he fell asleep and when impact happened). The police come out and in the autopsy of the head-smashed corpse, they determine he was dead at the time of the crash, and had alcohol in his stomach."
Based on the standard US reporting tools set out by NHTSA, the crash was caused by Speeding and alcohol. Neither driver was speeding, and neither driver was drunk. But that's the reporting standard now. MADD pushed for that to drive up drunk driving numbers to justify their existence. The system is broken and was never about safety.
Is it not he captain of the plane that has the ultimate power to go for a safer route?
He is Captain, but not God. He knows what he's told. No more. He was told "this is safe" so acted on that. It you are a pilot and presume your airline is lying to you every day, you should find another job or another airline.
Before Obamacare there was affordable healthcare insurance available outside of your employer.
When I got a bridge policy to cover a month between jobs (so as not to lose the pre-existing coverage), the bill was more for a single month of health care coverage than I made in a month employed. The insurance plans companies were offered was about 1/10th the cost of the COBRA extortion rates, at least pre-ACA.
Do you know an alcoholic? Rarely are the drunk checkpoints set up in the morning. A "good" alcoholic drives to work drunk. I'd say (based on the alcoholics I know) that 80 times is a under-estimate. If you hide your drinking well (don't go out to bars to drink until they throw you out, then drive home), it's more like 2-times a day for years before you are caught.
Or maybe that's just the rich (the ones that can afford to drink) and mostly functional alcoholics, and is well outside the average. But those are the alcoholics I know. When I was in college, a floormate would go home most weekends. He would drink 12 beers on his drive back Sunday nights. Depending on how pre-loaded he was, he'd crawl up the stairs when he got in, unable to walk. But drove 150 miles. You don't need balance or much of any motor skills left to drive. Never got a DUI in the 5 years I knew him.
Two things, compared to the cost of a DUI, a cab fare is a total bargain.
I know plenty of alcoholics. They all drive drunk. Often. Only two have ever been arrested for it. The chances of getting caught are small. Thus the expected cost (factoring in the chance of getting caught) makes it cheaper than a cab. The "responsible" choice is to drive drunk. Only if enforcement was 100% (or certainly much better than today) does it make it cheaper to take a taxi.
I've seen those complaints before. Nearly always they are lies told by people angry at having to use it, not that it failed as they describe. They are testable and provable. If they were that bad, why isn't there YouTube footage of someone causing a failure by eating a slice of pizza? Because they work. Not all the time, and not perfectly, but certainly much better than the haters claim. I suffered through 3 of the Reddit linked videos. Not a single failure was documented. Just people interviewed who talked about things. Zero proof is given that they do what's claimed.
The difference is that you can test intoxication. The cell user lap-texting will lie and say they weren't, making it impossible to prove in court. You can assert that they should be treated the same, but in practice, it's impossible to convict the (barely) unsafe drivers, unless they crash (or are drunk).
It's already illegal, but unenforceable. That's why there are redundant laws about cell phones and drinking. To make convictions of already illegal impairments easier.
Except that these are the current punishments (up until the third time, where I believe the punishment is rather harsher) in most places.
I know of no place that treats driving on a drink driving ban any more harshly than every other ban. If you can't name a place that does, then you are making up things to prove your (wrong) opinion factual. Why?
I don't see any reasonable way to do this, and cover the costs of hardware, and checking that it works, without charging the people who commit the crime a fee.
And why do you object to fees for dangerous drivers? You want more of them on the roads?
All you are doing is supporting low punishment for drink driving. Why? Do you drive drunk occasionally?
When you don't mention the two you are thinking of, how can we name the 3rd? MH 370, MH17, QZ8501. MH17 wasn't lost in Asia, but the OP didn't specify Asia, you did. MH17 was destined for Malaysia, the same airport MH370 took off from. And Singapore borders Malaysia. They are clustered, even if they didn't all go down in the same place.
Meh, I have children, and I think the "appeal on behalf of the children" calls are stupid and illogical. Having children doesn't give you brain damage, and I find it hilarious all the dumb parents who think that.
The plane was flying the filed pattern and was where it was authorized to be. The airline should have re-routed it, but that's not entirely the pilot's call. Like the weather, they rely on the word of others for the conditions, then do what they can with that information. They were told the flight path was safe, and it was the one the owners of the plane he was flying told him to take. How is that his fault for being off course?
So what you're suggesting is get a DUI, and we'll ruin your life. I mean, I hate people drink driving, but ruining their life is not a good way of turning them into a functioning member of society, it's a good way of turning them into an alcoholic criminal.
The thought is that if they knew getting caught would ruin their lives, they might stop. Today, there's no reason to not drive drunk. The expected cost of driving drunk is less than the cost of a cab. So it's rational to drive drunk. So long as the cheapest/easiest option is driving drunk, people will still do it.
I've not heard of any burning crosses on anyone's lawn in a very long time.
Yeah, you have to keep your eyes open to see things like that. There were two lynchings this year of Black men for dating white women. Or is the fact that you are unwilling to notice such things proof they didn't happen?
No, people, anyone (including blacks!) can live anywhere in this country they choose (and can afford) to.
Again, simply and factually wrong. The Municipality of Anchorage explicitly passed a resolution 5 years ago affirming the right of landlords and sellers to discriminate based on sexual preference. Or does "anyone" not include gays? They aren't alone in that, but I lived there at the time and spoke at the meeting about it.
"Not being fair".
So you are saying that DWB doesn't exist because you find it inconvenient? You are asserting that gays don't have explicit laws against them?
They still have a long way to go to break even, even with Hollywood's underhanded accounting.
Not "even with" but "especially with". You can make a movie for $30M and it grosses $300M and that'll still be a "loss" on the books if anyone is due points on profit.
Are you saying if one court says "x" is illegal and another court disagrees saying same "x" is legal.... illegal determinations are automatically preferred winning out by default?
What are you saying? I don't understand.
I'm saying there is no such thing as "legal". It's illegal or it's not. If it's illegal, then it's illegal. In your question, two courts finding differently, that requires two people convicted of the same thing. That makes it illegal.
Unfortunately not every determination of guilt or legality is correct.
Hence why I lean on the side of "if you can be convicted of it, it's illegal, regardless of how the Supreme Court will rule about it after you've spent 10 years in prison".
Slashdot Mirror
IT's not about missing out on the social life. If you don't have FB, then FB isn't bound by their TOS for how they handle your information, and they are collecting information on you. Your friends can tag you and you'll be in pictures, but have no ownership or say in how your information is treated or used, unless there are law changes, or you sign up for your own account.
In 2005, the premium for the same coverage was doubled. From 2004. That's 100% increase in one year. That's well before ACA was even being considered. The increases before and after that year were similar. ACA didn't "cause" anything. Well, I take that back. The insurance companies increased a lot of their plans, and blamed ACA, but the increases were coming anyway, and ACA gave benefits that weren't there before. You can now go to uninsured/underinsured, until you have a problem, then seek a better fit. But lots of the "major medical" plans don't meet the definition of "insurance" because they don't cover enough. So you would be paying more because you are getting more, even if you don't want to use it.
To a $100M company, $4M is payable. $80M is bankruptcy. If they scare away people from becoming the next mega, then they "win". So lie about the settlement, to try to discourage others. It's not about extracting money, but scaring people. You aren't on their radar. $5m is more than you'll make in your life. But Kim Dotcom is their target. People who took on the media companies, made money, and all that. They want to scare people away from being the next Kim.
I tried to explain it like it wasn't the Ballmer Peak, as the performance didn't drop off rapidly after the level was passed. It was more an issue of state-dependent memory. He only ever played pool drunk, so he didn't know how to do it sober.
One of the alcoholics I knew crashed the night of his last DUI. He crashed the "family car" then walked home and came back in his personal car, still drunk. If he had slept it off, he'd have not gotten a DUI. But he went back to the scene, was recognized, and arrested. So he crashed at least once. Low speed. Into a dumpster. I had a friend who in high school killed a family the first time he got behind the wheel drunk.
A college roomate drove better drunk than sober. He was fall-down drunk, but drove fine. Thought he was good after driving 150 miles drunk without incident. Then got on a bicycle (still drunk) and ended up in the hospital. Though DUI is possible for that, he didn't get one for riding a bike drunk.
My experience is like yours. The "joke" is "would you rather your doctor be a heroine addict or not?" Of course the correct answer is "Doesn't matter, so long as if he is, he's had his maintenance dose."
When my dad got his DUI, he didn't crash. He ran a red without incident. Still insists there is no light there. I drove through with him many times since then. He insists it was put up after his incident. He's crashed plenty sober. But never drunk. Amazing when he spent a good portion of time more drunk than sober. That's one reason I know so many alcoholics. They tend to band together. Whether trying to get drunk together, or sober together. And my mom's brother was an alcoholic, as was my dad. And a number of people in my college dorm. The one I talked about before was ex-army with lots of alcohol cash from the GI bill, and 10 years more practice getting drunk than us lightweights.
He was hilarious to go play pool with. He wasn't a hustler, but couldn't play pool sober. But after 3-15 beers, was much better. Then, at some point, he can't play anymore. But that happens close to where he couldn't stand anymore, so it wasn't like 3 great, 4 worse. It was a plateau from heavy-buzz to passed-out. And boy did he pass out. He's the type of guy you could strip naked and drag in the middle of a field and he'd not wake up until security found him in the morning. But you can only do that on a very warm night, or he'd die by morning. Instead, he'd wake up with a sore knee or something, when someone would find him passed out in a more public area, like the lounge, and take a baseball bat to his leg to see if he'd wake. He never woke up until morning.
I ended up going without insurance for the period because it was too expensive. I had the quotes from COBRA and personal insurers. Neither was affordable, and this was 5+ years before ACA.
Before the affordable Care Act, I was paying about $175 per month for a $8,000 deductible major medical plan. After ACA, the cheapest plan has a deductible of $12,000, and the premium is now more than $500.
In 2005, my company's insurance costs doubled. Your increase was less than that. Insurance rates have been going up as you describe for quite a while. That's why it became such an issue. Illness is the #1 cause of bankruptcy, followed by divorce. Poor spending habits isn't high on the list. Poor people don't spend themselves into bankruptcy, Donald Trump has 5+ bankruptices. "Normal" people would never be allowed to make such poor choices repeatedly.
If MADD isn't demanding a 10% reduction in BAC, they'd have to close. There's nothing left for MADD to do, so they became a purely prohibitionist organization unrelated to road safety.
And, since MADD started the anti-drinking crusade, drunk driving has increased, not decreased. Why? Because in the '70s, a crash was "alcohol related" only if the drivers vomited on the responding officer's shoes. Today the definition includes the following fictional scenario:
"Tony, a mob boss, kills a subordinate at a dinner. The subordinate had 2 glasses of wine with dinner before the baseball bat rendered him lifeless. Vito (sober) is ordered to drive the body to the dumping spot. He lines the trunk with plastic, drops the body in, throws in some concrete shoes, and takes off for the lake. On his way, he stops at a red light (don't want to get pulled over with a body in the trunk). George is a elderly man with sleep apnea. He's tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He fails to stop at the light and rams Vito from behind (though was under the limit at the time he fell asleep and when impact happened). The police come out and in the autopsy of the head-smashed corpse, they determine he was dead at the time of the crash, and had alcohol in his stomach."
Based on the standard US reporting tools set out by NHTSA, the crash was caused by Speeding and alcohol. Neither driver was speeding, and neither driver was drunk. But that's the reporting standard now. MADD pushed for that to drive up drunk driving numbers to justify their existence. The system is broken and was never about safety.
Is it not he captain of the plane that has the ultimate power to go for a safer route?
He is Captain, but not God. He knows what he's told. No more. He was told "this is safe" so acted on that. It you are a pilot and presume your airline is lying to you every day, you should find another job or another airline.
I didn't assert any connection. I'm pointing out the 3 "lost" airplanes linked to SE Asia. Any relation you see is in your own mind.
Before Obamacare there was affordable healthcare insurance available outside of your employer.
When I got a bridge policy to cover a month between jobs (so as not to lose the pre-existing coverage), the bill was more for a single month of health care coverage than I made in a month employed. The insurance plans companies were offered was about 1/10th the cost of the COBRA extortion rates, at least pre-ACA.
What is indecent about placing all humans on an equal scale? Since I'm not a bigot, I'm not decent. Only bigots can be decent people?
Do you know an alcoholic? Rarely are the drunk checkpoints set up in the morning. A "good" alcoholic drives to work drunk. I'd say (based on the alcoholics I know) that 80 times is a under-estimate. If you hide your drinking well (don't go out to bars to drink until they throw you out, then drive home), it's more like 2-times a day for years before you are caught.
Or maybe that's just the rich (the ones that can afford to drink) and mostly functional alcoholics, and is well outside the average. But those are the alcoholics I know. When I was in college, a floormate would go home most weekends. He would drink 12 beers on his drive back Sunday nights. Depending on how pre-loaded he was, he'd crawl up the stairs when he got in, unable to walk. But drove 150 miles. You don't need balance or much of any motor skills left to drive. Never got a DUI in the 5 years I knew him.
Two things, compared to the cost of a DUI, a cab fare is a total bargain.
I know plenty of alcoholics. They all drive drunk. Often. Only two have ever been arrested for it. The chances of getting caught are small. Thus the expected cost (factoring in the chance of getting caught) makes it cheaper than a cab. The "responsible" choice is to drive drunk. Only if enforcement was 100% (or certainly much better than today) does it make it cheaper to take a taxi.
I've seen those complaints before. Nearly always they are lies told by people angry at having to use it, not that it failed as they describe. They are testable and provable. If they were that bad, why isn't there YouTube footage of someone causing a failure by eating a slice of pizza? Because they work. Not all the time, and not perfectly, but certainly much better than the haters claim. I suffered through 3 of the Reddit linked videos. Not a single failure was documented. Just people interviewed who talked about things. Zero proof is given that they do what's claimed.
The difference is that you can test intoxication. The cell user lap-texting will lie and say they weren't, making it impossible to prove in court. You can assert that they should be treated the same, but in practice, it's impossible to convict the (barely) unsafe drivers, unless they crash (or are drunk).
It's already illegal, but unenforceable. That's why there are redundant laws about cell phones and drinking. To make convictions of already illegal impairments easier.
Driving during that period is a felony.
Except that these are the current punishments (up until the third time, where I believe the punishment is rather harsher) in most places.
I know of no place that treats driving on a drink driving ban any more harshly than every other ban. If you can't name a place that does, then you are making up things to prove your (wrong) opinion factual. Why?
I don't see any reasonable way to do this, and cover the costs of hardware, and checking that it works, without charging the people who commit the crime a fee.
And why do you object to fees for dangerous drivers? You want more of them on the roads?
All you are doing is supporting low punishment for drink driving. Why? Do you drive drunk occasionally?
When you don't mention the two you are thinking of, how can we name the 3rd? MH 370, MH17, QZ8501. MH17 wasn't lost in Asia, but the OP didn't specify Asia, you did. MH17 was destined for Malaysia, the same airport MH370 took off from. And Singapore borders Malaysia. They are clustered, even if they didn't all go down in the same place.
That's a lie. I have children, and care no less for adults than I do children.
Meh, I have children, and I think the "appeal on behalf of the children" calls are stupid and illogical. Having children doesn't give you brain damage, and I find it hilarious all the dumb parents who think that.
The plane was flying the filed pattern and was where it was authorized to be. The airline should have re-routed it, but that's not entirely the pilot's call. Like the weather, they rely on the word of others for the conditions, then do what they can with that information. They were told the flight path was safe, and it was the one the owners of the plane he was flying told him to take. How is that his fault for being off course?
So what you're suggesting is get a DUI, and we'll ruin your life. I mean, I hate people drink driving, but ruining their life is not a good way of turning them into a functioning member of society, it's a good way of turning them into an alcoholic criminal.
The thought is that if they knew getting caught would ruin their lives, they might stop. Today, there's no reason to not drive drunk. The expected cost of driving drunk is less than the cost of a cab. So it's rational to drive drunk. So long as the cheapest/easiest option is driving drunk, people will still do it.
Asians don't have skin?
I've not heard of any burning crosses on anyone's lawn in a very long time.
Yeah, you have to keep your eyes open to see things like that. There were two lynchings this year of Black men for dating white women. Or is the fact that you are unwilling to notice such things proof they didn't happen?
No, people, anyone (including blacks!) can live anywhere in this country they choose (and can afford) to.
Again, simply and factually wrong. The Municipality of Anchorage explicitly passed a resolution 5 years ago affirming the right of landlords and sellers to discriminate based on sexual preference. Or does "anyone" not include gays? They aren't alone in that, but I lived there at the time and spoke at the meeting about it.
"Not being fair".
So you are saying that DWB doesn't exist because you find it inconvenient? You are asserting that gays don't have explicit laws against them?
They still have a long way to go to break even, even with Hollywood's underhanded accounting.
Not "even with" but "especially with". You can make a movie for $30M and it grosses $300M and that'll still be a "loss" on the books if anyone is due points on profit.
Are you saying if one court says "x" is illegal and another court disagrees saying same "x" is legal.... illegal determinations are automatically preferred winning out by default?
What are you saying? I don't understand.
I'm saying there is no such thing as "legal". It's illegal or it's not. If it's illegal, then it's illegal. In your question, two courts finding differently, that requires two people convicted of the same thing. That makes it illegal.
Unfortunately not every determination of guilt or legality is correct.
Hence why I lean on the side of "if you can be convicted of it, it's illegal, regardless of how the Supreme Court will rule about it after you've spent 10 years in prison".