Cyclists have better all-around vision than cars. They should be allowed to slow at a stop sign or red signal, check for cross traffic/pedestrians, then go. There are plenty of times when this is safe, as long as one actually checks.
Lane splitting -- cycles are narrower than cars. It's safer to keep moving than to risk being squashed between cars. Anyway, people need to figure out what they want cyclists to do. They bitch when they're part of traffic and ride in the lane, and keep bitching if they ride on the side/shoulder, affording the opportunity to filter/split past traffic.
Typical American Puritanism -- they want to control what employees do with each other, on their own damn time, outside of work. Hope this new intrusive policy leads to massive lawsuits for privacy violation.
Picture this -- two employees in different departments start dating. Boss has a crush on one of them, and they disclose whom they're dating. Let the shitshow begin.
US employers are far too intrusive as to employees' personal lives.
Used cars: do the work yourself.
Laptops/phones: you don't need "security support" to make phone calls or surf the Web. If you can't run Win 10, run 7 or Linux.
Appliances: fridge may be worth it, others are not energy-wise.
Being a landlord: it's a vocation like anything else -- all jobs and careers involve being paid from "others' labors."
The idea is to live somewhere walkable (older suburb or real city) where kids don't have to be hauled around everywhere in a steel-and-glass isolation bubble. Also, people the world over manage to raise kids and have smaller (like Camry/Corolla) sized cars.
Screw the ecahhhhnamy and most so-called economists. It's not environmentally sustainable for a country to be sustained by the constant production and destruction of throw-away junk.
That's where driverless subway/rail systems can really improve things as well. Instead of a "train" of 10 cars coming every 10 minutes, you can have a single car (or pair of cars) stopping every minute or two. You no longer need to spread the costs of a motorman across 10 rail cars for the system to make sense.
The "land cows" have always been there. Before SUVs and crossovers, Americans bought Oldsmobile station wagons with fake wood siding and land barges like the Ford LTD. And then mooooomyvans like the Dodge Caravan...
Lower your expectations: buy used cars, don't renovate your damn kitchen and toilet every 2.5 years to keep up with the Joneses (20 or 30 year old appliances work fine), don't switch phones/laptops/iPads every year, buy a small house with a small yard, or better yet, a 2-family where some other schmoe pays your mortgage.
Then you won't need a second income or to job-jump to "advance" every 2-3 years.
And pay their craftsmen/women the equivalent of $10/hr for skilled work. Uberize and gig-economize it, like everything else. Fuck that idea and fuck Scamazon.
We tried that -- a ban didn't mean people stopped drinking, just that criminal gangs controlled the trade. More deaths, more adulterated alcohol (methanol blindness, anyone?). The cheaper alternative? Provide treatment and counseling on the public dime to people who abuse alcohol, before it becomes a problem.
There's also a psychological difference between saying: we're giving you something more for your tax money vs no, you can't drink that. Why? Because we said so! It's BAD!
Mental health care in an outpatient setting is a lot cheaper than having people go in and out of jail because they either (a) can't deal with life well or (b) have an addiction issue.
This $16 billion includes compensation payouts by insurance for wrongful deaths, lost income, etc, which won't be the business of a public health insurer, but will be baked into car and motorcycle insurance. Mostly car, since most fatal motorcycle accidents involve the rider being hit by a brain-dead idiot in a car. Early deaths may in fact REDUCE long-term medical costs, since people who crash their bikes and die at age 20 or 40 won't live to develop diabetes and Alzheimer's at age 80.
As far as the alcohol thing, there are, again, lies, fucking fibs, and damn statistics. Only 11% of the $2.05 cost listed (about 23 cents) is due to medical expenses.
The majority (72%) is due to "lost productivity at work" - translation, people being hung over and taking a day to sleep it off instead of slaving like good worker bees. 10% is due to "criminal justice" -- this could be fixed by loosening Puritanical laws. Save money by not enforcing public drinking (it's mostly not enforced in Europe), lower the liquor age to 18. 5% is due to alcohol-related vehicle accidents, which are the province of auto insurers, and will likely be reduced by improved automation anyway.
It also has to do with interaction with police. Most American cops are power-hungry filth -- put it this way, if I saw a cop get hit by a drunk driver in the US, I'd see if the drunk was OK first. Most of a chance of them being a decent human being than a cop.
Why bother banning things like the typical American Puritan? There's a better way. Figure out what they cost the healthcare system, then tax them accordingly. If the government is paying for healthcare, it can also tax things to recoup the costs seamlessly.
Motorcycles and cars? Bake it into the registration fee. Alcohol/drugs? Sales taxes. Extreme sports? Tax the equipment.
Sports? Not clear that the costs outweigh the health benefits.
He didn't remove it; states still could create a public option under the law. Some states did -- NY and MN have one for incomes under 200% of poverty level, I think.
The point is to deny the authorities the information, EVEN IF they have a legitimate case. The idea is to enable crime and immorality, and make the enforcement of the state's idea of morality more difficult. A cash economy makes things like drug and prostitution laws harder to enforce. A cash economy makes things like adultery easier and "safer" from shark lawyers.
The trick is to not have responsibilities -- delay marriage and kids as late as possible, own a small condo where the HOA takes care of most of the boring shit you have to deal with in a h**se.
The quality of most security footage is terrible to absymal. Also, facial matching is only done AFTER a serious crime is committed, so 99.999% of purchases won't ever end up in a database linked to an ID.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, this is the kindergarten system of rule-making. Wait your turn! Why, teacher? Because I SAID SO, KIDDO!
As they should be ...
Cyclists have better all-around vision than cars. They should be allowed to slow at a stop sign or red signal, check for cross traffic/pedestrians, then go. There are plenty of times when this is safe, as long as one actually checks.
Lane splitting -- cycles are narrower than cars. It's safer to keep moving than to risk being squashed between cars. Anyway, people need to figure out what they want cyclists to do. They bitch when they're part of traffic and ride in the lane, and keep bitching if they ride on the side/shoulder, affording the opportunity to filter/split past traffic.
Wrong. Puritanism can take liberal as well as conservative forms. Puritanism is a philosophy that may or may not be tied to a specific religion.
Both liberals and conservatives can be meddlesome, anti-sexuality arseholes.
Typical American Puritanism -- they want to control what employees do with each other, on their own damn time, outside of work. Hope this new intrusive policy leads to massive lawsuits for privacy violation.
Picture this -- two employees in different departments start dating. Boss has a crush on one of them, and they disclose whom they're dating. Let the shitshow begin.
US employers are far too intrusive as to employees' personal lives.
Time for some trust-busting, Sherman Act style. Where's Theodore Roosevelt when we need him?
Used cars: do the work yourself. Laptops/phones: you don't need "security support" to make phone calls or surf the Web. If you can't run Win 10, run 7 or Linux. Appliances: fridge may be worth it, others are not energy-wise. Being a landlord: it's a vocation like anything else -- all jobs and careers involve being paid from "others' labors."
The idea is to live somewhere walkable (older suburb or real city) where kids don't have to be hauled around everywhere in a steel-and-glass isolation bubble. Also, people the world over manage to raise kids and have smaller (like Camry/Corolla) sized cars.
Screw the ecahhhhnamy and most so-called economists. It's not environmentally sustainable for a country to be sustained by the constant production and destruction of throw-away junk.
Everyone can survive without keeping up with the neighbors. It's kind of like needing water, pooping, or pissing,
That's where driverless subway/rail systems can really improve things as well. Instead of a "train" of 10 cars coming every 10 minutes, you can have a single car (or pair of cars) stopping every minute or two. You no longer need to spread the costs of a motorman across 10 rail cars for the system to make sense.
The "land cows" have always been there. Before SUVs and crossovers, Americans bought Oldsmobile station wagons with fake wood siding and land barges like the Ford LTD. And then mooooomyvans like the Dodge Caravan...
Lower your expectations: buy used cars, don't renovate your damn kitchen and toilet every 2.5 years to keep up with the Joneses (20 or 30 year old appliances work fine), don't switch phones/laptops/iPads every year, buy a small house with a small yard, or better yet, a 2-family where some other schmoe pays your mortgage.
Then you won't need a second income or to job-jump to "advance" every 2-3 years.
And pay their craftsmen/women the equivalent of $10/hr for skilled work. Uberize and gig-economize it, like everything else. Fuck that idea and fuck Scamazon.
Amazon is the new Sears.
Kim-chi is actually healthy and rich in vitamin C... :)
We tried that -- a ban didn't mean people stopped drinking, just that criminal gangs controlled the trade. More deaths, more adulterated alcohol (methanol blindness, anyone?). The cheaper alternative? Provide treatment and counseling on the public dime to people who abuse alcohol, before it becomes a problem.
There's also a psychological difference between saying: we're giving you something more for your tax money vs no, you can't drink that. Why? Because we said so! It's BAD!
Mental health care in an outpatient setting is a lot cheaper than having people go in and out of jail because they either (a) can't deal with life well or (b) have an addiction issue.
This $16 billion includes compensation payouts by insurance for wrongful deaths, lost income, etc, which won't be the business of a public health insurer, but will be baked into car and motorcycle insurance. Mostly car, since most fatal motorcycle accidents involve the rider being hit by a brain-dead idiot in a car. Early deaths may in fact REDUCE long-term medical costs, since people who crash their bikes and die at age 20 or 40 won't live to develop diabetes and Alzheimer's at age 80.
As far as the alcohol thing, there are, again, lies, fucking fibs, and damn statistics. Only 11% of the $2.05 cost listed (about 23 cents) is due to medical expenses.
The majority (72%) is due to "lost productivity at work" - translation, people being hung over and taking a day to sleep it off instead of slaving like good worker bees. 10% is due to "criminal justice" -- this could be fixed by loosening Puritanical laws. Save money by not enforcing public drinking (it's mostly not enforced in Europe), lower the liquor age to 18. 5% is due to alcohol-related vehicle accidents, which are the province of auto insurers, and will likely be reduced by improved automation anyway.
Maybe you shouldn't live in a state that deliberately sabotaged the ACA.
It also has to do with interaction with police. Most American cops are power-hungry filth -- put it this way, if I saw a cop get hit by a drunk driver in the US, I'd see if the drunk was OK first. Most of a chance of them being a decent human being than a cop.
Why bother banning things like the typical American Puritan? There's a better way. Figure out what they cost the healthcare system, then tax them accordingly. If the government is paying for healthcare, it can also tax things to recoup the costs seamlessly.
Motorcycles and cars? Bake it into the registration fee.
Alcohol/drugs? Sales taxes.
Extreme sports? Tax the equipment.
Sports? Not clear that the costs outweigh the health benefits.
He didn't remove it; states still could create a public option under the law. Some states did -- NY and MN have one for incomes under 200% of poverty level, I think.
The point is to deny the authorities the information, EVEN IF they have a legitimate case. The idea is to enable crime and immorality, and make the enforcement of the state's idea of morality more difficult. A cash economy makes things like drug and prostitution laws harder to enforce. A cash economy makes things like adultery easier and "safer" from shark lawyers.
The trick is to not have responsibilities -- delay marriage and kids as late as possible, own a small condo where the HOA takes care of most of the boring shit you have to deal with in a h**se.
The quality of most security footage is terrible to absymal. Also, facial matching is only done AFTER a serious crime is committed, so 99.999% of purchases won't ever end up in a database linked to an ID.