Between games and hardware I spend over $100/month on gaming, of which Ubisoft has seen $0 this year. Here's the current value of my steam account: $1,927.88.
How about altering the penalties for DUI and reckless/careless driving, and speeding based upon the weight or dangerousness of the vehicle you are driving? Something like 10 cents/pound or something. Why should someone drunk on a moped who is likely only going to hurt himself face the same penalty as someone driving a dump truck while drunk?
Caught speeding on a moped? That'll be $15. Oops, speeding in an Expedition? That'll be $607. Same for DUI's except maybe a little more expensive. 50 cents/pound or Half-day in prison per pound.
So at checkpoints you can let sub-compacts go right through, but stop the heavy trucks and SUV's to check for sobriety since they're creating a much larger potential hazard on the road.
"Hey, let's make our product shittier and harder to use, I bet that will make us some money!"
I hope Ubisoft fires the moron who first pitched this idea to them over a year ago. I haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since they announced this last February.
In most, if not all states, you agree to surrender to breath testing at the discretion of law enforcement as part of getting your license.
This doesn't sound right. Why do I have to "agree" to something in order for a state to enforce its own laws? And does that mean if I just drive around without a license I can refuse breath tests (having never agreed to anything), thus avoiding DUI charges, and only face the consequences of driving without a license? What if I, the moment before the test is requested, decide I no longer agree to the terms of getting a driver's license and would like to turn mine in? What if I only have a learner's permit or live in a state where you don't even need a learner's permit so long as you're accompanied by a licensed driver and so haven't signed or agreed to anything?
And you can get DUI's for driving vehicles that don't require a license, like mopeds, tractors, bicycles, atv's, boats, snow-mobiles, farm equipment. Presumably there is no contract between you and the state when operating those vehicles regarding any agreement to take a breath test.
In my state, Massachusetts, you don't agree to take a breath test at the legal request of an officer (which requires articulable suspicion and that you be driving on a public way) when you get your license, you either agree to it or not at the side of the road when he requests you to take it. And if you don't, that information can't be introduced in court as it would violate our state constitution which affords far more liberties than the US Constitution.
I agree drunk driving should be harshly punished. But I don't agree someone with a.08 BAL is necessarily a drunk driver or.05 like the legal limit in Australia or.04 like in some states for drivers who hold CDL's. Or.0001 like MADD probably wants it to be. I'd like to see the statutory limit raised to something like.20 or.18 for strict liability drunk driving (meaning the ONLY evidence against you is the breathalyzer/blood test). And something like.10 or.12 for people who are pulled over because they demonstrated impaired driving by crossing a line, moving at odd speeds, driving carelessly, etc.
It's a little ridiculous though to convict someone of a DUI when they blow a.04 (half a beer) and have not demonstrated any semblance of impairment.
If you have a laptop, you are required to sit in the front 2 rows of the class.
That's an interesting policy. I had a professor who had the opposite policy. If you use a laptop you have to sit in the back so that whatever's happening on your screen won't distract the people behind you who are trying to pay attention to the lecture.
How is someone finding an email on your computer "outing yourself"? Or being quiet when all the OTHER guys are talking about sex? Or having a friend absent-mindedly post a video on your myspace page?
The DADT discharges by vocal activists where people walk up to their CO and say, "I'm a homosexual," are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time it's a slip of the tongue, or confiding in your closest friend, or someone finding a letter you wrote.
You say you have gay buddies in your unit. If any day, for whatever reason someone wanted to stick it to those guys, all they would have to do would be to send an anonymous note to the guy's CO to trigger an investigation that would lead to a discharge. The policy might be to not pursue but investigations of DADT violations did happen.
Tell that to the 13,389 people dishonorably discharged under DADT. Or the 1,037 soldiers discharged just in the past 2 years alone.
It's nice some units are already accepting of their gay brothers. But you try living through and building a 20 year career where any day anyone could decide they just don't like you and choose to invoke the DADT policy to have you fired.
If you can't handle it, then you're not good enough to be a U.S. Soldier. You will be replaced, easily. The U.S. has practically unlimited money for increases in salary and enlistment bonuses to cover any losses. With morons getting out of the way, pay going up, policies becoming more in line with mainstream values, a whole new pool of smarter, fitter, more ambitious applicants will arrive.
I personally know 4 gay military members in the service right now and have one gay friend who retired from 20 years in the Army. Good odds they're smarter than you, better shots, could beat you at arm wrestling and as a bonus they don't throw a fit when the military enforces a policy they disagree with.
So if there's a guy who can speak a half dozen languages, bench press a buick, and shoot a dime from a mile away, we should kick him out because someone saw him off-base on his off-time holding hands with a guy, and make room for some moron who barely meets the minimum standards but is still preferable because he's heterosexual?
How does that make for a stronger military?
How about we keep the over-achieving homosexuals and just ask the immature redneck with no coping skills to get out of the way so that a real man take his place?
It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Wrong. It was a way to ostracize and degrade homosexuals because they're disliked.
If it is about the professionalism of not talking about sexuality, why not make the policy apply to heterosexuals too? If a man was witnessed on a date or courting a woman on or off duty, on or off base, by another soldier, that soldier would be obligated to report it to his superior and the soldier would be summarily dishonorably discharged.
Other grounds for dismissal: wearing a wedding ring, mentioning a wife/gf, using gender-specific pronouns when talking about a spouse/gf or ex-gf, mentioning your biological children, even by accident, keeping a photo of you with another person that suggests intimate heterosexuality, bringing a date/wife/gf to any work-related event, having books/movies with overtly heterosexual story-lines or themes on display, mentioning a gender pronoun when applying for benefits for a spouse.
It irks me when heterosexuals say they don't like when homosexuals are 'overt' about their sexuality. What you don't realize is heterosexuals are overt about their sexuality ALL THE TIME. You just don't notice it.
You'd think that would be so, since it's only fair. If homosexuals aren't allowed to serve, then they shouldn't be allowed to be drafted, right? Sadly, this wasn't the case. Expelling homosexuals from the military was suspended all the time when there were personnel shortages.
So, if you are openly gay, they would draft you anyway, send you to the front lines, and if you somehow survived, saved 10 lives, were a model soldier for years, got promoted up through the ranks, it didn't matter. They'd give you a dishonorable discharge as soon as you got back home.
You noodle-armed nancy pants. Get your head out of your ass. This about improving the US military, not furthering civil rights.
It used to be if you had one spot open but two applicants, one who could bench-press a buick and speak half a dozen languages and the other who barely met the minimum requirements, we had to give the spot to the lesser qualified guy because he's a heterosexual. That was moronic.
A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.
Give me a break. What if there is a society of people openly and actively torturing and killing homosexuals as a policy and all diplomatic efforts have failed? Militarism, violence and the use of force would not only be in line with furthering civil rights, it would be required for it.
More like you're telling it like your moronic moralistic pea-brain wishes it was. You do know people with STD's reproduce just as successfully as people without them? And that people who have more sex, that is to say, the promiscuous, reproduce at a much greater rate than monogamous people?
Not to mention I ought to be able to travel within my own country without answering to a government official about the purpose of my trip.
I think we all just need to accept that some people are going to be struck by lightning, some people will die from trees falling on them, some people will die of food poisoning, and some people will die in exploding planes. People will go 80mph, driving with one hand while nursing a coffee and puffing a cigarette, while passing other vehicles going in the opposite direction also going 80mph only 5 feet away and think nothing of it. We should take the stupidity/bravery that allows us to do that and use it to just get on the damn airplane with our fingers crossed.
Approximately 100% since those are exactly the same kinds of questions you get when you cross the border into the US.
Just because people accept a certain invasion of privacy when crossing an international border doesn't mean they will accept it during a domestic flight when no borders are crossed.
Sure, but it all it takes is ONE attack, even a pathetically failed attack, and see what that approval rating shoots up to? Is it possible for it to pass 100%?
People who make $380,354 or more (1% of the population) already pay 38% of ALL income taxes earned
The fact that this is even possible indicates to me that there exists an inequity problem that NEEDS to be corrected through taxation.
So we should go back to the high taxes on rich folks like we had before Reagan? Yea, the 70s were really productive years for the US.
Sure, the 70's weren't so great when taxes were at 70%. But the 50's were pretty good when the top income bracket rate was 91%. So maybe the key is to get it back up to 91%.
All he is saying is that election media coverage is too much about the horse race and the political games, rather than about the issues. e.g. After a debate, commentators are more likely to comment on who scored more political 'points' that night rather than discuss the merits of the arguments the candidates brought up.
He says nothing about restricting speech, the 1st amendment, or government control of the media. He's just criticizing the media, and rightly so.
When someone responds to criticism with, "FREE SPEECH! I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY OPINION!!!11!!!1" To me that tends to mean, 99% of the time, that that person does not have an intelligent response to the criticism of their idea, and so instead they must respond by trumpeting that they have the right to their idea. The fact that they talk about their right to have their idea, rather than the merits of their idea, indicates to me that the merits are either weak or non-existent. We're challenging the ideas expressed in their speech, not their right to say it.
The sooner people see through this sham of a response, the better off we'll be.
Slashdot Mirror
New Years Jokes. Blah.
Between games and hardware I spend over $100/month on gaming, of which Ubisoft has seen $0 this year. Here's the current value of my steam account: $1,927.88.
Not if I have to be online to boot the game up. Which isn't the case with all of their titles.
How about altering the penalties for DUI and reckless/careless driving, and speeding based upon the weight or dangerousness of the vehicle you are driving? Something like 10 cents/pound or something. Why should someone drunk on a moped who is likely only going to hurt himself face the same penalty as someone driving a dump truck while drunk?
Caught speeding on a moped? That'll be $15. Oops, speeding in an Expedition? That'll be $607. Same for DUI's except maybe a little more expensive. 50 cents/pound or Half-day in prison per pound.
So at checkpoints you can let sub-compacts go right through, but stop the heavy trucks and SUV's to check for sobriety since they're creating a much larger potential hazard on the road.
The guy who thought this up is a dope.
"Hey, let's make our product shittier and harder to use, I bet that will make us some money!"
I hope Ubisoft fires the moron who first pitched this idea to them over a year ago. I haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since they announced this last February.
In most, if not all states, you agree to surrender to breath testing at the discretion of law enforcement as part of getting your license.
This doesn't sound right. Why do I have to "agree" to something in order for a state to enforce its own laws? And does that mean if I just drive around without a license I can refuse breath tests (having never agreed to anything), thus avoiding DUI charges, and only face the consequences of driving without a license? What if I, the moment before the test is requested, decide I no longer agree to the terms of getting a driver's license and would like to turn mine in? What if I only have a learner's permit or live in a state where you don't even need a learner's permit so long as you're accompanied by a licensed driver and so haven't signed or agreed to anything?
And you can get DUI's for driving vehicles that don't require a license, like mopeds, tractors, bicycles, atv's, boats, snow-mobiles, farm equipment. Presumably there is no contract between you and the state when operating those vehicles regarding any agreement to take a breath test.
In my state, Massachusetts, you don't agree to take a breath test at the legal request of an officer (which requires articulable suspicion and that you be driving on a public way) when you get your license, you either agree to it or not at the side of the road when he requests you to take it. And if you don't, that information can't be introduced in court as it would violate our state constitution which affords far more liberties than the US Constitution.
I agree drunk driving should be harshly punished. But I don't agree someone with a .08 BAL is necessarily a drunk driver or .05 like the legal limit in Australia or .04 like in some states for drivers who hold CDL's. Or .0001 like MADD probably wants it to be. I'd like to see the statutory limit raised to something like .20 or .18 for strict liability drunk driving (meaning the ONLY evidence against you is the breathalyzer/blood test). And something like .10 or .12 for people who are pulled over because they demonstrated impaired driving by crossing a line, moving at odd speeds, driving carelessly, etc.
.04 (half a beer) and have not demonstrated any semblance of impairment.
It's a little ridiculous though to convict someone of a DUI when they blow a
If you have a laptop, you are required to sit in the front 2 rows of the class.
That's an interesting policy. I had a professor who had the opposite policy. If you use a laptop you have to sit in the back so that whatever's happening on your screen won't distract the people behind you who are trying to pay attention to the lecture.
How is someone finding an email on your computer "outing yourself"? Or being quiet when all the OTHER guys are talking about sex? Or having a friend absent-mindedly post a video on your myspace page?
The DADT discharges by vocal activists where people walk up to their CO and say, "I'm a homosexual," are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time it's a slip of the tongue, or confiding in your closest friend, or someone finding a letter you wrote.
You say you have gay buddies in your unit. If any day, for whatever reason someone wanted to stick it to those guys, all they would have to do would be to send an anonymous note to the guy's CO to trigger an investigation that would lead to a discharge. The policy might be to not pursue but investigations of DADT violations did happen.
The military does not witch hunt anymore
Tell that to the 13,389 people dishonorably discharged under DADT. Or the 1,037 soldiers discharged just in the past 2 years alone.
It's nice some units are already accepting of their gay brothers. But you try living through and building a 20 year career where any day anyone could decide they just don't like you and choose to invoke the DADT policy to have you fired.
If you can't handle it, then you're not good enough to be a U.S. Soldier. You will be replaced, easily. The U.S. has practically unlimited money for increases in salary and enlistment bonuses to cover any losses. With morons getting out of the way, pay going up, policies becoming more in line with mainstream values, a whole new pool of smarter, fitter, more ambitious applicants will arrive.
I personally know 4 gay military members in the service right now and have one gay friend who retired from 20 years in the Army. Good odds they're smarter than you, better shots, could beat you at arm wrestling and as a bonus they don't throw a fit when the military enforces a policy they disagree with.
Also the case in the modern day Russian military.
So if there's a guy who can speak a half dozen languages, bench press a buick, and shoot a dime from a mile away, we should kick him out because someone saw him off-base on his off-time holding hands with a guy, and make room for some moron who barely meets the minimum standards but is still preferable because he's heterosexual?
How does that make for a stronger military?
How about we keep the over-achieving homosexuals and just ask the immature redneck with no coping skills to get out of the way so that a real man take his place?
It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Wrong. It was a way to ostracize and degrade homosexuals because they're disliked.
If it is about the professionalism of not talking about sexuality, why not make the policy apply to heterosexuals too? If a man was witnessed on a date or courting a woman on or off duty, on or off base, by another soldier, that soldier would be obligated to report it to his superior and the soldier would be summarily dishonorably discharged.
Other grounds for dismissal: wearing a wedding ring, mentioning a wife/gf, using gender-specific pronouns when talking about a spouse/gf or ex-gf, mentioning your biological children, even by accident, keeping a photo of you with another person that suggests intimate heterosexuality, bringing a date/wife/gf to any work-related event, having books/movies with overtly heterosexual story-lines or themes on display, mentioning a gender pronoun when applying for benefits for a spouse.
It irks me when heterosexuals say they don't like when homosexuals are 'overt' about their sexuality. What you don't realize is heterosexuals are overt about their sexuality ALL THE TIME. You just don't notice it.
You'd think that would be so, since it's only fair. If homosexuals aren't allowed to serve, then they shouldn't be allowed to be drafted, right? Sadly, this wasn't the case. Expelling homosexuals from the military was suspended all the time when there were personnel shortages.
So, if you are openly gay, they would draft you anyway, send you to the front lines, and if you somehow survived, saved 10 lives, were a model soldier for years, got promoted up through the ranks, it didn't matter. They'd give you a dishonorable discharge as soon as you got back home.
Thanks for your service.
You noodle-armed nancy pants. Get your head out of your ass. This about improving the US military, not furthering civil rights.
It used to be if you had one spot open but two applicants, one who could bench-press a buick and speak half a dozen languages and the other who barely met the minimum requirements, we had to give the spot to the lesser qualified guy because he's a heterosexual. That was moronic.
A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.
Give me a break. What if there is a society of people openly and actively torturing and killing homosexuals as a policy and all diplomatic efforts have failed? Militarism, violence and the use of force would not only be in line with furthering civil rights, it would be required for it.
I've got mod points tonight but I'm going to post instead.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
More like you're telling it like your moronic moralistic pea-brain wishes it was. You do know people with STD's reproduce just as successfully as people without them? And that people who have more sex, that is to say, the promiscuous, reproduce at a much greater rate than monogamous people?
Yeah, because cheating spouses never come back home again and spread disease back to their faithful spouses...
Try again.
ooooh, so being a selfish-prick is in some people's genes. Who'd have thought?
Not to mention I ought to be able to travel within my own country without answering to a government official about the purpose of my trip.
I think we all just need to accept that some people are going to be struck by lightning, some people will die from trees falling on them, some people will die of food poisoning, and some people will die in exploding planes. People will go 80mph, driving with one hand while nursing a coffee and puffing a cigarette, while passing other vehicles going in the opposite direction also going 80mph only 5 feet away and think nothing of it. We should take the stupidity/bravery that allows us to do that and use it to just get on the damn airplane with our fingers crossed.
Approximately 100% since those are exactly the same kinds of questions you get when you cross the border into the US.
Just because people accept a certain invasion of privacy when crossing an international border doesn't mean they will accept it during a domestic flight when no borders are crossed.
Sure, but it all it takes is ONE attack, even a pathetically failed attack, and see what that approval rating shoots up to? Is it possible for it to pass 100%?
People are fickle and have short memories.
People who make $380,354 or more (1% of the population) already pay 38% of ALL income taxes earned
The fact that this is even possible indicates to me that there exists an inequity problem that NEEDS to be corrected through taxation.
So we should go back to the high taxes on rich folks like we had before Reagan? Yea, the 70s were really productive years for the US.
Sure, the 70's weren't so great when taxes were at 70%. But the 50's were pretty good when the top income bracket rate was 91%. So maybe the key is to get it back up to 91%.
All he is saying is that election media coverage is too much about the horse race and the political games, rather than about the issues. e.g. After a debate, commentators are more likely to comment on who scored more political 'points' that night rather than discuss the merits of the arguments the candidates brought up.
He says nothing about restricting speech, the 1st amendment, or government control of the media. He's just criticizing the media, and rightly so.
When someone responds to criticism with, "FREE SPEECH! I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY OPINION!!!11!!!1" To me that tends to mean, 99% of the time, that that person does not have an intelligent response to the criticism of their idea, and so instead they must respond by trumpeting that they have the right to their idea. The fact that they talk about their right to have their idea, rather than the merits of their idea, indicates to me that the merits are either weak or non-existent. We're challenging the ideas expressed in their speech, not their right to say it.
The sooner people see through this sham of a response, the better off we'll be.