Your assumption that Pakistan won't become Talibanistan is fetching.
Fetching or not, cutie, it doesn't matter. If it happens, fine. I don't care. As I mentioned before, once you've got something to lose, you're a lot more careful.
Secondly, it's not our problem. We can't dictate what the people there do.
Lastly, if a nation has a nuke and their willing to use it, it's still a straightforward, above-board problem.
In no way will this affect me in the least, nor will it change the fact that someday I'll die of heart disease or cancer, conditions that do not respond well to wiretapping or ill-advised invasion.
I got my new state's driver's license, and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote"
You need to be able to drive to vote? About the only thing dafter is only selling alcohol to drivers.
Voter registration at time of getting license is just a convenience for the newly moved, they're not related.
OTOH, regarding your alcohol quip -- visit New Mexico, where liquor stores are exclusively "drive-thru". They've also got the highest concentration of those little roadside shrines to loved ones I've ever seen in all my travels.
A example of shit being tied together in the weird vein you were thinking of would be the fact that men have to be registered with Selective Service to get government loans for college.
You could do that at the drivers license station too. Also, you could attach a living will to your DL -- I wondered if they'd honor "DNR" for an otherwise healthy adult . . . but I didn't check.
"National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board." That's an interesting concept and totally unworkable. Suppose the NSA get's a hint Al Qaeda is planning to piss on Obama's rose bushes. Should they (a) tell the New York Times and advertise we caught them being sneaky, (b) tell no one in hopes of catching the perpetrators in the act. Easy call. Now do that with intelligence in general. After Al Qaeda ferrets out all the rats in their organization because we advertise every time we catch hold of a scheme to long dick us (figuring out who ratted won't be hard), they will have a bullet proof organization all set to receive their complimentary nuke from those nice Pakistanis who only desire Islamic Oneness.
There's no good reason to be afraid of al Quaeda or any other such organization. The threat has been totally blown out of proportion simply because they caused a spectacular one-time catastrophe. You will die, and you will probably suffer, but it will not be at the hands of a wild-eyed ululating brown guy with an AK or a bomber belt: it will be something much more banal, everyday, and "what a shame" inducing amongst your friends and family. When we spend disproportionate treasure and freedom on unrealistic and unlikely threats we do nothing but provide the anxiety the powers-that-be need to keep us in check. They can do this because no more than 2% of the population can recognize if a probability or statistic is just made up.
Pakistan -- or any other nation -- won't hand a nuke over to terrists. Nuclear weapons have been around for 65 years now, and no one's ever given one to some free lance organization to use on an enemy or perceived enemy. There's a good reason for this. Any nation with a nuclear arsenal is by definition rich and prosperous to have a great deal to lose in the very likely event that they get caught. There's certainly been plenty of opportunities for Russia or the US or England or France or Israel or India to pull a stunt like this and hand a nuke to the enemy of their enemy.
Say what you like, but one person acting lethally on their own one-eyed interpretation of the law is still murder. And yes, despite your sig, it would make you a crackpot.
Assuming you and the GP are correct and the Attorney General is indeed breaking the law, he is still entitled to a fair trial in which to tell his side of the story to a jury of his peers.
And since Holder is entitled to protection under the law, so are the victims of his wiretapping. See how that works? We turned around the situation and you said - "Hey, wait, that would be wrong!" Well duh. That's the whole point of the "Sauce for the goose" argument employed here, and you proved it, albeit unintentionally.
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
I hear you on the need to break up the collusion betweens the R's and D's against the wishes and interests of the people.
Since I never investigated the Constitution Party, I took a look at the their Website. Here's Doug Stewart's story of how he became a member from the front page of the aforementioned site:
George W. Bush had just been re-elected to a second term, but his remark, "the Constitution is nothing but a G.. D... piece of paper", really turned me off, but I had not voted for a Democrat since I was compelled into the Kingdom of God on the evening of 8/19/85.
Being a VA native and devotee of Southern history and heritage, though I went along for the ride after my conversion, I had always had a problem with "the Party of Lincoln". Bush's desire to expand the U.S. Empire abroad showed me what one of the big problems was. I began doing some research.
Seeing the reprobate Democratic platform, especially where abortion and homosexuality were concerned, I knew I needed to select a third party. The Libertarian Party was eliminated because they'll believe anything. More research showed me that the Constitution Party was tailor-made for me. I've now been a member for nearly five years, and am more politically active here than I ever was with the Republican Party.
From this "testimony" (published right there on the home page of the party), it sounds like the Constitution Party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.
The one thing that had kept me a Republican for so long (too long) was the fact that they were the "Party of Lincoln," which is precisely what turned off Stewart. If it's tailor made for Mr. Stewart -- a christian fundamentalist, unreconstructed Confederate -- it's exactly wrong for me. I'm still looking, believe me.
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
For once, I agree with you. Maybe this is twice now.. If Holder doesn't feel he should be constrained by the rule of law, then I don't see how he could argue he should be protected by it either. It's simple hermeneutics, you just can't interpret the law to protect you and not others (unless you're power crazed or insane).
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be..
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I paid for it. National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board. I have no sympathy with the fear-mongers who hyperbolically exaggerate risk just to justify their actions. Put it in perspective for once, and quit arguing that there are big-bad-scaries out there who can only be fought by lawless thugs who will just do the right thing, trust us.
Vote Libertarian. Not for long, and don't give them total control. Just enough swaying power to have a voice that says we don't need *SO* much government.
The only answer is to destroy the "one ring to control them all."
Libertarians only really support freedom to be a laissez-faire capitalist, and freedom from stuff like public school. if Ron Paul were president, I guarantee you that he'd keep the new surveillance powers, too. They don't want *SO* much government, as you say, but that part will stay.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
I got my new state's driver's license, and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote". More that I just don't want to put down roots here, but still a bit because of political pissed-offness. I also declined to be an organ donor, so to anyone who says "Don't vote, can't complain", I can reply: "No liver transplant for you, punk!"
Republicans are just out-and-out evil corporate scum with their armies of undead idiot-fundamentalist zombies desperate to protect themselves from any benefit of living in a civilized society, and the Democrats, when they're not going along with them are pissing their pants to avoid keeping their promises. Pussies.
Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
Precisely, man. I want ongoing operations to be compromised. Ruined, even. Because they are illegal, immoral and wrong. If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern? How do they expect to get juries to convict anyone, if nothing is really illegal as long as you want it bad enough.
That's not really a "subsidy" but simply reducing the State gas tax from ~50 to ~30 cents, if you buy E85 ethanol. It's unfair to have disproportionate taxation like that, but E85 users are still paying a gasoline tax per gallon. They are not getting-off scotfree.
"Subsidy" doesn't imply I'm buying all their Ethanol/Gas for them. The word doesn't imply that and I didn't either. Subsidize has nothing to do with scotfreeage.
But it's pointless hair-splitting to debate calling something a "subsidy" for A but not B vs. "reduced tax" for A, but not B, when both products A and B are essentially fungible, as is the money paid for them. It's makes no difference in the wallet how you got to spend less.
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
The problem with a petrol tax is that as auto makers increase fuel economy across their product lines, that source of revenue will diminish with time. A better alternative would be a combination of congestion pricing and miles-travelled metering, which would be directly proportional to actual road usage.
Just because it wont work forever doesn't mean you can do it for now. Consider a car analogy -- within a car analogy -- why repair your car when in the long run it will be junked, and furthermore, you'll eventually be dead?
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars. Then what do you tax? Electricity? Now you're taxing people who may or may not use the roads.
Now that's the first time I've heard someone talking about the negatives of getting people to use less gas and buy more fuel-efficient cars. Is my sarcasm meter broken this morning? Are you sure you mean "regressive" when you write of the gas tax, because your previous sentence implied that people would use less gas as a consequence of higher taxes? We're not talking something as egregious as sales tax on food -- something I'm finally free of, BTW.
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads. Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
Look, I'm not suggesting that we do away with roads. And I even think we should support them to some extent from general taxation. I believe that the extent that we currently do, however, is too great. If we'd concentrated a bit less on promoting road-building, we might have avoided the sprawl problems in the US today that makes a public transport solution so hard to implement. Since we're still adding to the problem, we can still try to re-allocate funding more logically. I'm also not sure that better roads bring in more business better than other amenities. Workforce quality and availability, proximity to similar or synergistic businesses, nearby natural resources, even access to other modes of transportation besides roads also contribute. Furthermore, passenger cars operating on roads are not the only viable form of surface transportation.
Also, I was born with myopia, you insensitive clod.
Problem solved. Actually I bet just the threat alone would be enough to make TDS fall on its knees and obey the government.
You don't even need to go that far. Just revoke their privilege to have their buried cable and utility lines be unmolested by the people whose yards they are planted in.
If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax.
I think you're getting a tad too literal there. Perhaps the statement would be better phrases as: "If you don't use the roads . .." Although, I don't pay a specific "bike-tax", so I guess there are exceptions.
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains.
Show me a "light rail" in my state and I'll eat it. Light rail is just a tease in most places. Where I live, I subsidize gasoline (actually gasohol blend) with my general taxes. That's right -- you get a state-subsidized discount (around 20 cents/gallon) if you buy blended gas/ethanol.
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
So you want higher gas taxes?
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
Also a device like a GPS may actually decrease accidents, because it reduces stress... You no longer have to worry about getting lost, and try to read a map as you drive (you used to see this a lot - people with maps open on their steering wheel as they drove), you just relax and let the GPS guide you, no stress.
You're not referring to my father-in-law's GPS: "As soon as possible, make illegal U-turn." "Turn right on you ass sixty-seven." Between its suggestions for law-breaking and its vague insults, I am anything but less stressed. And that's just the syntha-voice. Damn thing fairly regularly decides it doesn't want you to exit the highway when you're already down the ramp per its instructions. When you get back on, it changes its mind again. I reduced stress by switching it off and using the Force. Perhaps a well-designed GPS would indeed reduce stress
In other news, a number of large companies have suffered downtime recently from switching from data center servers to Arduinos for their mission critical applications.
But the lawsuit said they were practically the same!
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumption that Pakistan won't become Talibanistan is fetching.
Fetching or not, cutie, it doesn't matter. If it happens, fine. I don't care. As I mentioned before, once you've got something to lose, you're a lot more careful.
Secondly, it's not our problem. We can't dictate what the people there do.
Lastly, if a nation has a nuke and their willing to use it, it's still a straightforward, above-board problem.
In no way will this affect me in the least, nor will it change the fact that someday I'll die of heart disease or cancer, conditions that do not respond well to wiretapping or ill-advised invasion.
I got my new state's driver's license, and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote" You need to be able to drive to vote? About the only thing dafter is only selling alcohol to drivers.
Voter registration at time of getting license is just a convenience for the newly moved, they're not related.
OTOH, regarding your alcohol quip -- visit New Mexico, where liquor stores are exclusively "drive-thru". They've also got the highest concentration of those little roadside shrines to loved ones I've ever seen in all my travels.
A example of shit being tied together in the weird vein you were thinking of would be the fact that men have to be registered with Selective Service to get government loans for college.
You could do that at the drivers license station too. Also, you could attach a living will to your DL -- I wondered if they'd honor "DNR" for an otherwise healthy adult . . . but I didn't check.
"National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board." That's an interesting concept and totally unworkable. Suppose the NSA get's a hint Al Qaeda is planning to piss on Obama's rose bushes. Should they (a) tell the New York Times and advertise we caught them being sneaky, (b) tell no one in hopes of catching the perpetrators in the act. Easy call. Now do that with intelligence in general. After Al Qaeda ferrets out all the rats in their organization because we advertise every time we catch hold of a scheme to long dick us (figuring out who ratted won't be hard), they will have a bullet proof organization all set to receive their complimentary nuke from those nice Pakistanis who only desire Islamic Oneness.
There's no good reason to be afraid of al Quaeda or any other such organization. The threat has been totally blown out of proportion simply because they caused a spectacular one-time catastrophe. You will die, and you will probably suffer, but it will not be at the hands of a wild-eyed ululating brown guy with an AK or a bomber belt: it will be something much more banal, everyday, and "what a shame" inducing amongst your friends and family. When we spend disproportionate treasure and freedom on unrealistic and unlikely threats we do nothing but provide the anxiety the powers-that-be need to keep us in check. They can do this because no more than 2% of the population can recognize if a probability or statistic is just made up.
Pakistan -- or any other nation -- won't hand a nuke over to terrists. Nuclear weapons have been around for 65 years now, and no one's ever given one to some free lance organization to use on an enemy or perceived enemy. There's a good reason for this. Any nation with a nuclear arsenal is by definition rich and prosperous to have a great deal to lose in the very likely event that they get caught. There's certainly been plenty of opportunities for Russia or the US or England or France or Israel or India to pull a stunt like this and hand a nuke to the enemy of their enemy.
Say what you like, but one person acting lethally on their own one-eyed interpretation of the law is still murder. And yes, despite your sig, it would make you a crackpot.
Assuming you and the GP are correct and the Attorney General is indeed breaking the law, he is still entitled to a fair trial in which to tell his side of the story to a jury of his peers.
And since Holder is entitled to protection under the law, so are the victims of his wiretapping. See how that works? We turned around the situation and you said - "Hey, wait, that would be wrong!" Well duh. That's the whole point of the "Sauce for the goose" argument employed here, and you proved it, albeit unintentionally.
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
I hear you on the need to break up the collusion betweens the R's and D's against the wishes and interests of the people.
Since I never investigated the Constitution Party, I took a look at the their Website. Here's Doug Stewart's story of how he became a member from the front page of the aforementioned site:
George W. Bush had just been re-elected to a second term, but his remark, "the Constitution is nothing but a G.. D... piece of paper", really turned me off, but I had not voted for a Democrat since I was compelled into the Kingdom of God on the evening of 8/19/85.
Being a VA native and devotee of Southern history and heritage, though I went along for the ride after my conversion, I had always had a problem with "the Party of Lincoln". Bush's desire to expand the U.S. Empire abroad showed me what one of the big problems was. I began doing some research.
Seeing the reprobate Democratic platform, especially where abortion and homosexuality were concerned, I knew I needed to select a third party. The Libertarian Party was eliminated because they'll believe anything. More research showed me that the Constitution Party was tailor-made for me. I've now been a member for nearly five years, and am more politically active here than I ever was with the Republican Party.
From this "testimony" (published right there on the home page of the party), it sounds like the Constitution Party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.
The one thing that had kept me a Republican for so long (too long) was the fact that they were the "Party of Lincoln," which is precisely what turned off Stewart. If it's tailor made for Mr. Stewart -- a christian fundamentalist, unreconstructed Confederate -- it's exactly wrong for me. I'm still looking, believe me.
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
For once, I agree with you. Maybe this is twice now.. If Holder doesn't feel he should be constrained by the rule of law, then I don't see how he could argue he should be protected by it either. It's simple hermeneutics, you just can't interpret the law to protect you and not others (unless you're power crazed or insane).
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be..
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I paid for it. National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board. I have no sympathy with the fear-mongers who hyperbolically exaggerate risk just to justify their actions. Put it in perspective for once, and quit arguing that there are big-bad-scaries out there who can only be fought by lawless thugs who will just do the right thing, trust us.
know how you feel:
Leadership Eric Holder Attorney General Contact Office of the Attorney General (202) 514-2001
Couldn't you just call any number, and figure he's listen in?
So, are you saying you don't like Calabash?
Vote Libertarian. Not for long, and don't give them total control. Just enough swaying power to have a voice that says we don't need *SO* much government.
The only answer is to destroy the "one ring to control them all."
Libertarians only really support freedom to be a laissez-faire capitalist, and freedom from stuff like public school. if Ron Paul were president, I guarantee you that he'd keep the new surveillance powers, too. They don't want *SO* much government, as you say, but that part will stay.
I believe the only thing that has changed is the people and the rhetoric.
This disappointed consumer (fka citizen) hasn't really noticed that the rhetoric changed that much, either.
...we no longer have a democracy.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
I got my new state's driver's license, and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote". More that I just don't want to put down roots here, but still a bit because of political pissed-offness. I also declined to be an organ donor, so to anyone who says "Don't vote, can't complain", I can reply: "No liver transplant for you, punk!"
Republicans are just out-and-out evil corporate scum with their armies of undead idiot-fundamentalist zombies desperate to protect themselves from any benefit of living in a civilized society, and the Democrats, when they're not going along with them are pissing their pants to avoid keeping their promises. Pussies.
Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard. Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
Precisely, man. I want ongoing operations to be compromised. Ruined, even. Because they are illegal, immoral and wrong. If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern? How do they expect to get juries to convict anyone, if nothing is really illegal as long as you want it bad enough.
Looks like it's time to send in one honest copper to clean house!
That's not really a "subsidy" but simply reducing the State gas tax from ~50 to ~30 cents, if you buy E85 ethanol. It's unfair to have disproportionate taxation like that, but E85 users are still paying a gasoline tax per gallon. They are not getting-off scotfree.
"Subsidy" doesn't imply I'm buying all their Ethanol/Gas for them. The word doesn't imply that and I didn't either. Subsidize has nothing to do with scotfreeage.
But it's pointless hair-splitting to debate calling something a "subsidy" for A but not B vs. "reduced tax" for A, but not B, when both products A and B are essentially fungible, as is the money paid for them. It's makes no difference in the wallet how you got to spend less.
And as for your sig, real men use pitch torches.
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
The problem with a petrol tax is that as auto makers increase fuel economy across their product lines, that source of revenue will diminish with time. A better alternative would be a combination of congestion pricing and miles-travelled metering, which would be directly proportional to actual road usage.
Just because it wont work forever doesn't mean you can do it for now. Consider a car analogy -- within a car analogy -- why repair your car when in the long run it will be junked, and furthermore, you'll eventually be dead?
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars. Then what do you tax? Electricity? Now you're taxing people who may or may not use the roads.
Now that's the first time I've heard someone talking about the negatives of getting people to use less gas and buy more fuel-efficient cars. Is my sarcasm meter broken this morning? Are you sure you mean "regressive" when you write of the gas tax, because your previous sentence implied that people would use less gas as a consequence of higher taxes? We're not talking something as egregious as sales tax on food -- something I'm finally free of, BTW.
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads. Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
Look, I'm not suggesting that we do away with roads. And I even think we should support them to some extent from general taxation. I believe that the extent that we currently do, however, is too great. If we'd concentrated a bit less on promoting road-building, we might have avoided the sprawl problems in the US today that makes a public transport solution so hard to implement. Since we're still adding to the problem, we can still try to re-allocate funding more logically. I'm also not sure that better roads bring in more business better than other amenities. Workforce quality and availability, proximity to similar or synergistic businesses, nearby natural resources, even access to other modes of transportation besides roads also contribute. Furthermore, passenger cars operating on roads are not the only viable form of surface transportation.
Also, I was born with myopia, you insensitive clod.
Problem solved. Actually I bet just the threat alone would be enough to make TDS fall on its knees and obey the government.
You don't even need to go that far. Just revoke their privilege to have their buried cable and utility lines be unmolested by the people whose yards they are planted in.
If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax.
I think you're getting a tad too literal there. Perhaps the statement would be better phrases as: "If you don't use the roads . . ." Although, I don't pay a specific "bike-tax", so I guess there are exceptions.
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains.
Show me a "light rail" in my state and I'll eat it. Light rail is just a tease in most places. Where I live, I subsidize gasoline (actually gasohol blend) with my general taxes. That's right -- you get a state-subsidized discount (around 20 cents/gallon) if you buy blended gas/ethanol.
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
So you want higher gas taxes?
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
What is it that makes a copper less likely to be distracted by a hand held device than you or me?
The intense weekend of training they have to complete before joining the force.
Also a device like a GPS may actually decrease accidents, because it reduces stress... You no longer have to worry about getting lost, and try to read a map as you drive (you used to see this a lot - people with maps open on their steering wheel as they drove), you just relax and let the GPS guide you, no stress.
You're not referring to my father-in-law's GPS: "As soon as possible, make illegal U-turn." "Turn right on you ass sixty-seven." Between its suggestions for law-breaking and its vague insults, I am anything but less stressed. And that's just the syntha-voice. Damn thing fairly regularly decides it doesn't want you to exit the highway when you're already down the ramp per its instructions. When you get back on, it changes its mind again. I reduced stress by switching it off and using the Force. Perhaps a well-designed GPS would indeed reduce stress
we'd be using our 1200bps modems connecting to the local BBS and swapping email over fido.
Glad you didn't say 300 baud, cause then I'd have to revert back to ASCII porn.
In other news, a number of large companies have suffered downtime recently from switching from data center servers to Arduinos for their mission critical applications.
But the lawsuit said they were practically the same!