Some people have some odd ideas that the stock market creates money, that more money comes out than goes in, etc. by some magic. It doesn't actually work that way; the stock market is a zero-sum game played in multiple non-fixed units. Some units can become relatively bigger or smaller than others. This is itself an illusion, as only the money matters.
In short: you spend $25 for a stock, but then the stock is worth $50. You keep 1 stock, but it's equivalent to $50. This gives the illusion that you've gained profit by the stock becoming worth more dollars.
The next stage in this illusion is that you sell the $50 stock and get $50. Somebody else who has $50 trades you $50 for that stock. So it seems the same number of dollars and the same number of stocks are in the game, just now your stock is worth more dollars equivalent.
This should raise a red flag, and it does.
The only thing in the market is dollars. The rest is lies.
Let's say the market has exactly $10,000 in it, no more. 100 stocks worth $100 each, people have bought them, they now have $10,000 of stocks and $10,000 of money. Then the stock becomes worth $200, and people start selling. As they sell, that $10,000 of money moves *very* quickly; soon there is little money, say $1,000 of money, but there are still 55 stocks left. People will try to hold onto their money, we could conjecture; or we could extrapolate that you may try to sell 10 stocks but that's $2,000 and there are only $1,000. In either case, you need to roll back the price of that stock to sell it. To sell it all off, you'll have to deal with a downward price spiral--lower the price as the last bits of money dry up, until people are buying the stock off you cheap.
In the real market, liquidity rarely runs dry. More money is always put into the market than needed; and more stock is available than desired. When a stock becomes more desirable--the price appears to be increasing, the news indicates it may be desirable, etc--the price goes up high. This is when "smart money" unloads the stock onto "dumb money"--that is, the bright traders give you overvalued pink slips and take your money. Eventually the amount of liquidity from selling causes a price dip, and the desirability of the stock starts to slide. The stock comes down, and then the dumb money panics and sells. The dumb money then walks away with less cash, while the smart money buys back these cheap stocks to cycle again.
The short of it is: You should care because investment bankers basically live by robbing your retirement account dry. Whenever somebody gains money, somebody else loses it. If somebody is cheating, they're cheating people out of their money.
This is why I focus on decreasing my debt rather than making retirement savings; and why my savings are primarily low-risk and cash based. It's hard to rob people blind by playing the game better than them. I can do it, but it's really fucking hard and it's kind of a career-type thing. Sorry, I have better things to do. I'll take an honest job. If I'm not playing to win, I'm not putting my money into the pot to watch it get stolen.
I did the math, and the costs seem to be roughly even assuming worst-case. It's about $8000 for a 100,000 mile battery or 8 cents per mile. At 25mpg, you're talking $2/gal; Tesla's power consumption is 16 cents per gallon equivalent, roughly. You need to hit 40mpg in petrol to make today's gas prices match Tesla's.
That's what I said 'generalization'. A car stopped at a traffic light does NOT have any signal letting those who are coming from behind know that the car is being stopped. A disabled vehicle, most of the time, has a signal as I mentioned earlier. These situations cannot be compared because they are too much different.
Around this time of year, many people experience battery failure. Gassy batteries are fine during the hot summer, but become unreliable during the cold. These people can experience battery failure once the car has been running a while. Their disabled vehicle then has no electrical power to run the emergency lighting.
Most common case of a disabled vehicle in this 2-3 month span.
I can agree with that. If they are creating a poor situation they can take advantage of while trying to mimic the illusion of best intent, they are operating in bad faith and responsible for consequences.
It is reasonable to assume that the worst consequence of obstructing traffic is causing a traffic obstruction, so this isn't operating in such bad faith as to be reckless endangerment of those around you; whereas taking your car into motion while not paying attention IS reckless endangerment and terribly bad faith.
In all of these cases, responsibility for consequences scales. It's not like X is responsible for EVERYTHING because X is responsible for Y.
Guns are sold lawfully by gun manufacturers to distributors for the purpose of distributing them to law enforcement and law-abiding citizens who have passed a background check showing they are in good legal standing and mental health and who do not appear visibly distressed when purchasing a firearm (you're not legally allowed to sell a firearm to someone who seems angry or extremely upset).
Heroin could, in theory, be sold legally to distributors to distribute to hospitals as an anesthetic in life-saving situations. Morphine and Codeine, two similar opiates, are sold this way in practice.
Guns are, as well, obtained and transferred to criminals or to people who seem fine and upstanding but turn out to be crazy or malicious. This is against the direct actionable intent of the manufacturer (so we assume by their documented actions). Similarly, drugs such as heroin are obtained and distributed maliciously with the intent of addicting others to a poison for the purpose of revenue generation.
The difference here is that guns are manufactured and distributed for the purpose of preventing crime; however, they are often obtained for malicious purposes. Similarly, some drugs are manufactured and distributed for the purpose of facilitating life-saving or life-enriching care such as reducing psychologically damaging pain (acute via surgery or chronic); however, these and others manufactured for other purposes are instead used maliciously by other parties for the purpose of obtaining wealth at the expense of the health and livelihood of others.
Similarly, a person whose vehicle remains stationary is not out of control of his vehicle and not posing a danger to others except in highly specialized situations (parked on a rail or runway, in the way of emergency vehicles, etc.). He is an annoyance and committing a minor misdemeanor. That another person then commits a larger misdemeanor by losing control of their vehicle and crashing into the first person's vehicle is a separate event and a separate crime; it does not transfer responsibility to that person.
Consider this: Jaywalking, a misdemeanor, is a crime. That fourteen year old punk rock mohawk kid doesn't belong in the street. When he's killed by a driver not paying attention or traveling excessively fast, is it the teenager's responsibility for being an idiot out in the road where he doesn't belong?
The technical definition of "Parked" varies. It can mean momentarily immobile or unoccupied. The unoccupied definition means that if you put an automatic transmission vehicle in drive and apply the parking brake, then leave, and it remains stationary, it's parked; if you push the gas it will of course overpower the brake and move. In the UK, a vehicle is legally "parked" at a traffic signal and it's legally required to engage the parking brake in this situation. Some people park their car, remove the keys, and sleep in it; this is not the definition of "parked" used for an unoccupied vehicle. You can get a parking ticket for remaining in a car that is in drive in a no-parking zone with no intention of moving.
The "Park" setting on your transmission does not mean "Parked" bidirectionally.
Obstruction of traffic is citeable. That's a separate responsibility and a separate violation of a separate social contract. what's that cliche dumb people use? Two wrongs don't make a right? (But sometimes make a necessary action...)
That actually makes sense. The pole could have been a person. My point is sitting still may make you a public nuisance (obstructing traffic), but it doesn't make you dangerous; somebody else has to do something stupid to create danger. A pedestrian running into you will experience less injury than you running into them with your car--and it's his fault being dumb racing a skateboard down a huge hill. Another car hitting you... is being driven by an idiot who hit you with his car.
Yes, that makes sense. There was an OP here trying to blame the person breaking the law to block traffic for the death caused by another person not paying attention and running into a stopped car that's stopped in an inconvenient place unnecessarily.
It is also your responsibility to not engage in violent behavior because your panties are in a twist. This is why domestic violence is illegal. You can't just beat your woman for running off at the mouth too much. You can't ram your car into shit because you're having a tantrum at that moment either.
They should not be playing with their phone when they start moving. They should not be sitting at a light when the signal says go. They should yield to pedestrians. That's not the same as sitting parked at a signal where it is illegal to proceed and taking the down time to mess with your phone.
I drop my phone into the center console when the light changes. I can see the car ahead of me, look up to validate that the signal has changed, validate that the car is in fact moving and it is safe for me to move, and drop my phone into the center console as I put the car in gear. There is no reason for me to continue handling my phone when it's time to drive, nor to engage in the act of driving without fully validating the situation first. I make enough mistakes trying to evaluate complex road situations--safety is often successfully evaluated without evaluating etiquette completely, as I've learned that it's generally much better to take control when everyone else is lost and sitting around waiting for someone else to do something.
Occasionally a pedestrian pauses before entering a crosswalk to see if I'm going to run them down, and I briefly stop and then proceed.. then they try to proceed (rightly) and stop again to let me pass... which is incorrect and impolite, and a result of me applying the wrong rules. This sort of behavior of taking the right of way when it isn't claimed in a timely manner is optimal when other drivers don't know wtf to do and just sit at an intersection: it removes one variable (me) from the equation and makes the situation simpler, and results in a faster final resolution. It's less optimal with pedestrians, as they are prone to either simply walk out into traffic (stupidly) or apply a healthy amount of caution and yield more right of way than they should, and thus should be afforded greater leeway and, really, full right of way.
I obviously have no time to play with my phone when it's time to drive. When it's not time to drive, I can do what I want, as long as I'm ready to return to the task of driving in full capacity.
"Ma'am, I must take 15 seconds before you purchase this game to inform you that it includes content such as fucking prostitutes in the back seat of a stolen vehicle and then murdering them to get your money back, as well as torturing and murdering... basically anyone. Oh and fucking whores is a good way to make yourself healthy. Is this purchase for a child?"
No, of course not. It was just illegal for women to, oh I don't know, vote? And also blacks couldn't vote either, or go to school. Oh, and if a white man accused a black man of a crime, there was no need for court; until around 1920 it was legal to simply hang them right there. And we bought and sold them--in some states, if you were black, you were property, regardless. Oh and women knew their place, knew they didn't have a right to talk back, and knew they didn't belong... you know... outside, doing things.
Have you actually looked at what made this country great? Our crowning achievement is being a model for Adolf Hitler's extermination of the Jews. He quite liked how we handled the indigenous people of the North American continent.
Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination--by starvation and uneven combat--of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.
Malicious actions are morally your responsibility. Brake check on tailgaters is your fault. Legally, you can be tagged with reckless driving and actually have fault shifted on you for that.
Again, morally, when you are in control of a two-tonne vehicle, you are expected to not hit stationary shit. You are responsible for being in control of your vehicle. Even at highway speeds, if the guy ahead of you needs to suddenly stop, you should have stopping distance. That's what control is.
Being stopped at signal is being in control of your car. You aren't responsible, morally OR legally, for people who ram your car. These people are supposed to be alert to hazards such as pedestrians, road workers, and stopped vehicles in the roadway. That is the social contract. Your social contract is to not impede traffic, and violating it makes you annoying. Intentionally trying to cause someone to collide with you makes you malicious. Being annoying by being stopped, safely, but where you don't belong parked does not make you responsible for the social contract of other drivers whereby they are to keep alert for stopped vehicles and not collide with them; that contract is still wholly theirs.
You're confusing "he was doing something wrong" with "he is responsible for all consequences." It'd be like saying if you have a tail light out, a cop pulls you over and gives you a repair order, and while he's writing the ticket another driver not paying attention creams the cop... it's your fault, because you didn't check your lights and repair the broken tail light promptly, causing the cop to be in a position where another inattentive driver hit him. That's ludicrous. You're responsible for operating a vehicle with a missing warning light, nothing else. The other driver should have been paying attention to the pedestrian in the street!
The OP started by whining that the guy who took 5 seconds longer sitting at the light obstructing traffic caused the death of somebody. He sat at the light, he didn't move, somebody died.
Doesn't matter whose fault it was. The texter disrupted traffic for no good cause and someone died.
Too fucking bad. The guy texting at the light was obstructing traffic; you cannot imply any guilt here for a collision resulting in death. You can imply guilt for being an obstruction to traffic--an annoyance. There could be a disabled vehicle there too--and it's squarely your responsibility to not hit it and kill people. The guy sitting at the light playing with his phone has no legitimate reason to be in the way, and is an obstruction and a public nuisance; he is not responsible for some other guy ramming into his car at speed or any consequences thereof.
This is hilarious. Age of Enlightenment... yes, when blacks were niggers, women were women, and neither of them deserved the right to vote or be treated as any more than property.
lol.... no, not really. I suppose you also think a butterfly can cause a tornado.
A five second delay can cause a five second delay. This delay is not propagated out; traffic slows down a little before it. There is some variation in how fast people are moving, causing way more than five seconds of variance based on when people do and do not land at lights.
In short, a five second delay at a traffic signal means that one more car has to wait at the next cycle. The line is now one car longer, which isn't going to cause hours of delays. Unless the road is so poorly engineered that it can't pass traffic anyway, the impact will be negligible--once the road's input capacity (number of drivers trying to get onto the road) drops, the situation will normalize--the time this takes isn't extended, but the distribution is. That is, if we do this 5 second delay on every cycle, there will be several dozen more cars waiting in line; when the traffic starts to dip off, you'll still have that much of a jam for a little further into the cycle, but at a point you'll equalize with where you'd be in the first place because there's just fewer people trying to get on the road. It's a very shallow point.
Again: The obligation to not crash into stationary objects while driving is that of the vehicle operator. The vehicle operator who has made his vehicle a stationary object is failing to meet a different obligation, and is not responsible for the actions of the vehicle operator who fails to control his vehicle.
"Rights" are just a masturbatory fantasy some people have where they think certain "laws" are something else. You see, when we write a law, we sometimes write down things that sound fancy--like that people are endowed by some higher being with certain "rights". Or like that it is good and proper to help the poor, hence why you must pay extra taxes to shelter homeless drifters. Or like how killing babies is wrong, so birth control and condoms must be illegal because God says every sperm is sacred. That sort of thing.
In Islamic nations, immodesty is also not so much a "law" as a "moral corruption," and the law isn't really a thing that's written by people so much as it's very much a thing just like "rights" we have. That's why it's okay to behead women who wear miniskirts.
The only thing that ensures "rights" are that these laws are written in a medium that's incredibly difficult to change *and* that the government will face consequences for acting contrary to those laws. Constitutional law provides a framework by which certain laws cannot be amended without amending Constitutional law *or* by showing that certain parts of constitutional law conflict and that certain selective interpretation is necessary to best achieve the goals of constitutional law.
Not long ago, Latin and Ancient Greek (not Modern Greek) were taught in public school. Today we say that laws are impossible for the common man to interpret, and that we need lawyers. Is it not fathomable that criteria to be a lawyer would include adequate fluency in Ancient Greek and Latin to interpret laws by existing knowledge or by obtaining a dictionary and expanding your knowledge on the spot? Basic fluency in Latin would allow you to go, "What is that word?" and then expand your knowledge by opening a book and reading it. I'm not talking about "Conversational Latin" here; I'm talking about the ability to read poetry and books and old legal documents, pages and paragraphs. Basic fluency in Japanese is the ability to read a Japanese newspaper with its 2000-ish kanji, hiragana, and katakana, and functionally understand it; you will encounter other words in Japanese you don't know, but you can quickly look those up and your fluency grows. Same deal with Latin and Greek.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people have some odd ideas that the stock market creates money, that more money comes out than goes in, etc. by some magic. It doesn't actually work that way; the stock market is a zero-sum game played in multiple non-fixed units. Some units can become relatively bigger or smaller than others. This is itself an illusion, as only the money matters.
In short: you spend $25 for a stock, but then the stock is worth $50. You keep 1 stock, but it's equivalent to $50. This gives the illusion that you've gained profit by the stock becoming worth more dollars.
The next stage in this illusion is that you sell the $50 stock and get $50. Somebody else who has $50 trades you $50 for that stock. So it seems the same number of dollars and the same number of stocks are in the game, just now your stock is worth more dollars equivalent.
This should raise a red flag, and it does.
The only thing in the market is dollars. The rest is lies.
Let's say the market has exactly $10,000 in it, no more. 100 stocks worth $100 each, people have bought them, they now have $10,000 of stocks and $10,000 of money. Then the stock becomes worth $200, and people start selling. As they sell, that $10,000 of money moves *very* quickly; soon there is little money, say $1,000 of money, but there are still 55 stocks left. People will try to hold onto their money, we could conjecture; or we could extrapolate that you may try to sell 10 stocks but that's $2,000 and there are only $1,000. In either case, you need to roll back the price of that stock to sell it. To sell it all off, you'll have to deal with a downward price spiral--lower the price as the last bits of money dry up, until people are buying the stock off you cheap.
In the real market, liquidity rarely runs dry. More money is always put into the market than needed; and more stock is available than desired. When a stock becomes more desirable--the price appears to be increasing, the news indicates it may be desirable, etc--the price goes up high. This is when "smart money" unloads the stock onto "dumb money"--that is, the bright traders give you overvalued pink slips and take your money. Eventually the amount of liquidity from selling causes a price dip, and the desirability of the stock starts to slide. The stock comes down, and then the dumb money panics and sells. The dumb money then walks away with less cash, while the smart money buys back these cheap stocks to cycle again.
The short of it is: You should care because investment bankers basically live by robbing your retirement account dry. Whenever somebody gains money, somebody else loses it. If somebody is cheating, they're cheating people out of their money.
This is why I focus on decreasing my debt rather than making retirement savings; and why my savings are primarily low-risk and cash based. It's hard to rob people blind by playing the game better than them. I can do it, but it's really fucking hard and it's kind of a career-type thing. Sorry, I have better things to do. I'll take an honest job. If I'm not playing to win, I'm not putting my money into the pot to watch it get stolen.
That doesn't change the details of what a charge cycle is versus what you tried to explain. Here's a good explanation of Lithium battery life.
The gearbox is gone. That's a differential.
Charge cycles don't work that way. If you start at 80%, come down to 30%, then charge back to 80%... twice... that's one charge cycle, not two.
Transmission. Engine parts. Seals, gaskets. Spark plugs. Vacuum lines.
I did the math, and the costs seem to be roughly even assuming worst-case. It's about $8000 for a 100,000 mile battery or 8 cents per mile. At 25mpg, you're talking $2/gal; Tesla's power consumption is 16 cents per gallon equivalent, roughly. You need to hit 40mpg in petrol to make today's gas prices match Tesla's.
I don't see why Tesla can't pull up a trust suit for anticompetitive practice.
That's what I said 'generalization'. A car stopped at a traffic light does NOT have any signal letting those who are coming from behind know that the car is being stopped. A disabled vehicle, most of the time, has a signal as I mentioned earlier. These situations cannot be compared because they are too much different.
Around this time of year, many people experience battery failure. Gassy batteries are fine during the hot summer, but become unreliable during the cold. These people can experience battery failure once the car has been running a while. Their disabled vehicle then has no electrical power to run the emergency lighting.
Most common case of a disabled vehicle in this 2-3 month span.
I can agree with that. If they are creating a poor situation they can take advantage of while trying to mimic the illusion of best intent, they are operating in bad faith and responsible for consequences.
It is reasonable to assume that the worst consequence of obstructing traffic is causing a traffic obstruction, so this isn't operating in such bad faith as to be reckless endangerment of those around you; whereas taking your car into motion while not paying attention IS reckless endangerment and terribly bad faith.
In all of these cases, responsibility for consequences scales. It's not like X is responsible for EVERYTHING because X is responsible for Y.
Guns are sold lawfully by gun manufacturers to distributors for the purpose of distributing them to law enforcement and law-abiding citizens who have passed a background check showing they are in good legal standing and mental health and who do not appear visibly distressed when purchasing a firearm (you're not legally allowed to sell a firearm to someone who seems angry or extremely upset).
Heroin could, in theory, be sold legally to distributors to distribute to hospitals as an anesthetic in life-saving situations. Morphine and Codeine, two similar opiates, are sold this way in practice.
Guns are, as well, obtained and transferred to criminals or to people who seem fine and upstanding but turn out to be crazy or malicious. This is against the direct actionable intent of the manufacturer (so we assume by their documented actions). Similarly, drugs such as heroin are obtained and distributed maliciously with the intent of addicting others to a poison for the purpose of revenue generation.
The difference here is that guns are manufactured and distributed for the purpose of preventing crime; however, they are often obtained for malicious purposes. Similarly, some drugs are manufactured and distributed for the purpose of facilitating life-saving or life-enriching care such as reducing psychologically damaging pain (acute via surgery or chronic); however, these and others manufactured for other purposes are instead used maliciously by other parties for the purpose of obtaining wealth at the expense of the health and livelihood of others.
Similarly, a person whose vehicle remains stationary is not out of control of his vehicle and not posing a danger to others except in highly specialized situations (parked on a rail or runway, in the way of emergency vehicles, etc.). He is an annoyance and committing a minor misdemeanor. That another person then commits a larger misdemeanor by losing control of their vehicle and crashing into the first person's vehicle is a separate event and a separate crime; it does not transfer responsibility to that person.
Consider this: Jaywalking, a misdemeanor, is a crime. That fourteen year old punk rock mohawk kid doesn't belong in the street. When he's killed by a driver not paying attention or traveling excessively fast, is it the teenager's responsibility for being an idiot out in the road where he doesn't belong?
The technical definition of "Parked" varies. It can mean momentarily immobile or unoccupied. The unoccupied definition means that if you put an automatic transmission vehicle in drive and apply the parking brake, then leave, and it remains stationary, it's parked; if you push the gas it will of course overpower the brake and move. In the UK, a vehicle is legally "parked" at a traffic signal and it's legally required to engage the parking brake in this situation. Some people park their car, remove the keys, and sleep in it; this is not the definition of "parked" used for an unoccupied vehicle. You can get a parking ticket for remaining in a car that is in drive in a no-parking zone with no intention of moving.
The "Park" setting on your transmission does not mean "Parked" bidirectionally.
Obstruction of traffic is citeable. That's a separate responsibility and a separate violation of a separate social contract. what's that cliche dumb people use? Two wrongs don't make a right? (But sometimes make a necessary action...)
You're right, of course.
That actually makes sense. The pole could have been a person. My point is sitting still may make you a public nuisance (obstructing traffic), but it doesn't make you dangerous; somebody else has to do something stupid to create danger. A pedestrian running into you will experience less injury than you running into them with your car--and it's his fault being dumb racing a skateboard down a huge hill. Another car hitting you ... is being driven by an idiot who hit you with his car.
Yes, that makes sense. There was an OP here trying to blame the person breaking the law to block traffic for the death caused by another person not paying attention and running into a stopped car that's stopped in an inconvenient place unnecessarily.
It is also your responsibility to not engage in violent behavior because your panties are in a twist. This is why domestic violence is illegal. You can't just beat your woman for running off at the mouth too much. You can't ram your car into shit because you're having a tantrum at that moment either.
They should not be playing with their phone when they start moving. They should not be sitting at a light when the signal says go. They should yield to pedestrians. That's not the same as sitting parked at a signal where it is illegal to proceed and taking the down time to mess with your phone.
I drop my phone into the center console when the light changes. I can see the car ahead of me, look up to validate that the signal has changed, validate that the car is in fact moving and it is safe for me to move, and drop my phone into the center console as I put the car in gear. There is no reason for me to continue handling my phone when it's time to drive, nor to engage in the act of driving without fully validating the situation first. I make enough mistakes trying to evaluate complex road situations--safety is often successfully evaluated without evaluating etiquette completely, as I've learned that it's generally much better to take control when everyone else is lost and sitting around waiting for someone else to do something.
Occasionally a pedestrian pauses before entering a crosswalk to see if I'm going to run them down, and I briefly stop and then proceed.. then they try to proceed (rightly) and stop again to let me pass... which is incorrect and impolite, and a result of me applying the wrong rules. This sort of behavior of taking the right of way when it isn't claimed in a timely manner is optimal when other drivers don't know wtf to do and just sit at an intersection: it removes one variable (me) from the equation and makes the situation simpler, and results in a faster final resolution. It's less optimal with pedestrians, as they are prone to either simply walk out into traffic (stupidly) or apply a healthy amount of caution and yield more right of way than they should, and thus should be afforded greater leeway and, really, full right of way.
I obviously have no time to play with my phone when it's time to drive. When it's not time to drive, I can do what I want, as long as I'm ready to return to the task of driving in full capacity.
"Ma'am, I must take 15 seconds before you purchase this game to inform you that it includes content such as fucking prostitutes in the back seat of a stolen vehicle and then murdering them to get your money back, as well as torturing and murdering ... basically anyone. Oh and fucking whores is a good way to make yourself healthy. Is this purchase for a child?"
No, of course not. It was just illegal for women to, oh I don't know, vote? And also blacks couldn't vote either, or go to school. Oh, and if a white man accused a black man of a crime, there was no need for court; until around 1920 it was legal to simply hang them right there. And we bought and sold them--in some states, if you were black, you were property, regardless. Oh and women knew their place, knew they didn't have a right to talk back, and knew they didn't belong... you know... outside, doing things.
Have you actually looked at what made this country great? Our crowning achievement is being a model for Adolf Hitler's extermination of the Jews. He quite liked how we handled the indigenous people of the North American continent.
Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination--by starvation and uneven combat--of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.
Toland, John. "Adolph Hitler", pg. 202.
Malicious actions are morally your responsibility. Brake check on tailgaters is your fault. Legally, you can be tagged with reckless driving and actually have fault shifted on you for that.
Again, morally, when you are in control of a two-tonne vehicle, you are expected to not hit stationary shit. You are responsible for being in control of your vehicle. Even at highway speeds, if the guy ahead of you needs to suddenly stop, you should have stopping distance. That's what control is.
Being stopped at signal is being in control of your car. You aren't responsible, morally OR legally, for people who ram your car. These people are supposed to be alert to hazards such as pedestrians, road workers, and stopped vehicles in the roadway. That is the social contract. Your social contract is to not impede traffic, and violating it makes you annoying. Intentionally trying to cause someone to collide with you makes you malicious. Being annoying by being stopped, safely, but where you don't belong parked does not make you responsible for the social contract of other drivers whereby they are to keep alert for stopped vehicles and not collide with them; that contract is still wholly theirs.
You're confusing "he was doing something wrong" with "he is responsible for all consequences." It'd be like saying if you have a tail light out, a cop pulls you over and gives you a repair order, and while he's writing the ticket another driver not paying attention creams the cop... it's your fault, because you didn't check your lights and repair the broken tail light promptly, causing the cop to be in a position where another inattentive driver hit him. That's ludicrous. You're responsible for operating a vehicle with a missing warning light, nothing else. The other driver should have been paying attention to the pedestrian in the street!
Doesn't matter whose fault it was. The texter disrupted traffic for no good cause and someone died.
Too fucking bad. The guy texting at the light was obstructing traffic; you cannot imply any guilt here for a collision resulting in death. You can imply guilt for being an obstruction to traffic--an annoyance. There could be a disabled vehicle there too--and it's squarely your responsibility to not hit it and kill people. The guy sitting at the light playing with his phone has no legitimate reason to be in the way, and is an obstruction and a public nuisance; he is not responsible for some other guy ramming into his car at speed or any consequences thereof.
This is hilarious. Age of Enlightenment... yes, when blacks were niggers, women were women, and neither of them deserved the right to vote or be treated as any more than property.
lol.... no, not really. I suppose you also think a butterfly can cause a tornado.
A five second delay can cause a five second delay. This delay is not propagated out; traffic slows down a little before it. There is some variation in how fast people are moving, causing way more than five seconds of variance based on when people do and do not land at lights.
In short, a five second delay at a traffic signal means that one more car has to wait at the next cycle. The line is now one car longer, which isn't going to cause hours of delays. Unless the road is so poorly engineered that it can't pass traffic anyway, the impact will be negligible--once the road's input capacity (number of drivers trying to get onto the road) drops, the situation will normalize--the time this takes isn't extended, but the distribution is. That is, if we do this 5 second delay on every cycle, there will be several dozen more cars waiting in line; when the traffic starts to dip off, you'll still have that much of a jam for a little further into the cycle, but at a point you'll equalize with where you'd be in the first place because there's just fewer people trying to get on the road. It's a very shallow point.
Again: The obligation to not crash into stationary objects while driving is that of the vehicle operator. The vehicle operator who has made his vehicle a stationary object is failing to meet a different obligation, and is not responsible for the actions of the vehicle operator who fails to control his vehicle.
"Rights" are just a masturbatory fantasy some people have where they think certain "laws" are something else. You see, when we write a law, we sometimes write down things that sound fancy--like that people are endowed by some higher being with certain "rights". Or like that it is good and proper to help the poor, hence why you must pay extra taxes to shelter homeless drifters. Or like how killing babies is wrong, so birth control and condoms must be illegal because God says every sperm is sacred. That sort of thing.
In Islamic nations, immodesty is also not so much a "law" as a "moral corruption," and the law isn't really a thing that's written by people so much as it's very much a thing just like "rights" we have. That's why it's okay to behead women who wear miniskirts.
The only thing that ensures "rights" are that these laws are written in a medium that's incredibly difficult to change *and* that the government will face consequences for acting contrary to those laws. Constitutional law provides a framework by which certain laws cannot be amended without amending Constitutional law *or* by showing that certain parts of constitutional law conflict and that certain selective interpretation is necessary to best achieve the goals of constitutional law.
Not long ago, Latin and Ancient Greek (not Modern Greek) were taught in public school. Today we say that laws are impossible for the common man to interpret, and that we need lawyers. Is it not fathomable that criteria to be a lawyer would include adequate fluency in Ancient Greek and Latin to interpret laws by existing knowledge or by obtaining a dictionary and expanding your knowledge on the spot? Basic fluency in Latin would allow you to go, "What is that word?" and then expand your knowledge by opening a book and reading it. I'm not talking about "Conversational Latin" here; I'm talking about the ability to read poetry and books and old legal documents, pages and paragraphs. Basic fluency in Japanese is the ability to read a Japanese newspaper with its 2000-ish kanji, hiragana, and katakana, and functionally understand it; you will encounter other words in Japanese you don't know, but you can quickly look those up and your fluency grows. Same deal with Latin and Greek.
Time to go.