Hi. Some guy keyed my car. It is not my fault. Please pay me for my loss.
Yeah, it is the gov't that is demolishing the house. But it is the actions of the tenant that caused it. The gov't is not the ones who caused the loss of value. The landlord is the one who entered a contract with the tenant. The landlord can sue the tenant if he chooses.
One, this happened over a period of years, not weeks.
Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you. For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property. I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.
Huh? Whut? Who is more responsible for this... the landlord or the government? What the government should do is bill the landlord for the cost of the cleanup as well as not compensating for the house.
I had to dig long and hard to find the answer to this one...
"The NanoSail-D flight results will help to mature this technology so it could be used on future large spacecraft missions to aid in de-orbiting space debris created by decommissioned satellites without using valuable mission propellants."
It appears that it might have something to do with not wanting to waster mission propellants. My keen insight into human psychology tells me that since the satellite is dead, colliding with it is someone else's problem so the cost/benefit ratio is nearly infinity. Free markets are wonderful things, but externalities tend to get ignored and our government lacks the nuts to correct these situations.
According to the stats I saw, half of the bike deaths were due to failures to navigate turns. Either some asshole going way too fast, or not taking into account that when it rains, you must go slower.
So, while car drivers can be pricks, it sounds like bikers do it to themselves more often than not.
Then you have those who don't wear a helmet. Accidents are practically inevitable given a long time period. When an idiot biker doesn't wear a helmet, he is asking for a death penalty.
I agree that we have a huge problem with distracted driving. I just think it is a false dichotomy to see we either need to crack down on it or institute cameras in the car. We can do both. Whether we should is another story.
Like you, I find 292 deaths to be a small number compared to the tens of billions we have to spend to implement. Additionally, I doubt this will save 292 lives... maybe 1/2 of this is a good estimate.
That is why I'd like to see the cost of these systems... to see what the real cost/benefit is.
This is insignificant, seeing as how there are about 40,000 automobile fatalities per year, 0.7%?
So if there were only 1000 automobile fatalities a year and 292 were from backing up accidents, this would be worthwhile? I think your logic is flawed.
The government has taken other actions over the past few decades, and in that time fatalities from car accidents have dropped... and this is while seeing more idiots riding motorcycles skewing the number upward. In fact, over the past 30 years, you are only half as likely to get killed driving each mile.
I think the gov't actually is doing a good job in this arena.
Ah, yes, the brilliant "take personal responsibility" argument. So.... you must be against seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. After all, if people "took responsibility" we wouldn't need these. Hell, let's get rid of food safety laws... those farmers should just use personal responsibility. Get off the libertarian kick and realize that additional safety measures are not the same as taking away your responsibility... they can coexist.
Yup. Because kids shouldn't be allowed to ride bikes up and down sidewalks since there are card that may pull in and out. Better keep those little tykes in the house and in front of the TV.
What I would like to see is what the total cost of this program is and how many lives will it save? If the answers are to be found in the article, I wouldn't know... it is Slashdotted.
No. You just see that 1/6 of all automobile/motorcycle fatalities are motorcycle riders. I don't have an exact # on the percentage of vehicles that are bikes, but I guarantee it is a hell of a lot less than 1/6. Motorcycles and SUVs should be banned from public roads.
WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national?
Canada? I am not aware of anyone in the US, except Palin who is not an elected official.
Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites?
Huh? Whut? If you mean the gov't telling its employees to stay off wikileaks, your argument is weak. As a private individual, I am not restricted, except for some illegal activities.
Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?
What site is the US gov't taking down with a DDOS?
Well, your exaggeration is far off base. I have a healthy skepticism for my gov't. However, when Isee that America was taking a position that other countries were publically rallying against, but then privately supporting, it makes me nauceous.
There is plenty that I have read about already that supports my dim view of American politics... but even more for other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi. Some guy keyed my car. It is not my fault. Please pay me for my loss.
Yeah, it is the gov't that is demolishing the house. But it is the actions of the tenant that caused it. The gov't is not the ones who caused the loss of value. The landlord is the one who entered a contract with the tenant. The landlord can sue the tenant if he chooses.
One, this happened over a period of years, not weeks.
Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you. For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property. I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.
Then the landlord can sue the tenant. Simple solution.
Huh? Whut? Who is more responsible for this... the landlord or the government? What the government should do is bill the landlord for the cost of the cleanup as well as not compensating for the house.
I had to dig long and hard to find the answer to this one...
"The NanoSail-D flight results will help to mature this technology so it could be used on future large spacecraft missions to aid in de-orbiting space debris created by decommissioned satellites without using valuable mission propellants."
It appears that it might have something to do with not wanting to waster mission propellants. My keen insight into human psychology tells me that since the satellite is dead, colliding with it is someone else's problem so the cost/benefit ratio is nearly infinity. Free markets are wonderful things, but externalities tend to get ignored and our government lacks the nuts to correct these situations.
Heh. My mod bomber friend continues to waste points on me :)
Wow. This is some old school BASIC. Yet you forgot your "Next" statement.
Woot! Flamebait. 10 downmods in a matter of 15 minutes! I got someone pissed off :)
Even presuming that your uncaring answer is valid... What happens when the un-belted driver causes a worse wreck because he cannot control his car?
According to the stats I saw, half of the bike deaths were due to failures to navigate turns. Either some asshole going way too fast, or not taking into account that when it rains, you must go slower.
So, while car drivers can be pricks, it sounds like bikers do it to themselves more often than not.
Then you have those who don't wear a helmet. Accidents are practically inevitable given a long time period. When an idiot biker doesn't wear a helmet, he is asking for a death penalty.
Um... yeah. Sorry, but Star Trek is not a history book.
I agree that we have a huge problem with distracted driving. I just think it is a false dichotomy to see we either need to crack down on it or institute cameras in the car. We can do both. Whether we should is another story.
Like you, I find 292 deaths to be a small number compared to the tens of billions we have to spend to implement. Additionally, I doubt this will save 292 lives... maybe 1/2 of this is a good estimate.
That is why I'd like to see the cost of these systems... to see what the real cost/benefit is.
This is insignificant, seeing as how there are about 40,000 automobile fatalities per year, 0.7%?
So if there were only 1000 automobile fatalities a year and 292 were from backing up accidents, this would be worthwhile? I think your logic is flawed.
The government has taken other actions over the past few decades, and in that time fatalities from car accidents have dropped... and this is while seeing more idiots riding motorcycles skewing the number upward. In fact, over the past 30 years, you are only half as likely to get killed driving each mile.
I think the gov't actually is doing a good job in this arena.
Ah, yes, the brilliant "take personal responsibility" argument. So.... you must be against seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. After all, if people "took responsibility" we wouldn't need these. Hell, let's get rid of food safety laws... those farmers should just use personal responsibility. Get off the libertarian kick and realize that additional safety measures are not the same as taking away your responsibility... they can coexist.
Yup. Because kids shouldn't be allowed to ride bikes up and down sidewalks since there are card that may pull in and out. Better keep those little tykes in the house and in front of the TV.
Wow. You came out of retirement after four years. Amazing!
What I would like to see is what the total cost of this program is and how many lives will it save? If the answers are to be found in the article, I wouldn't know... it is Slashdotted.
Off the Lithium again?
No. You just see that 1/6 of all automobile/motorcycle fatalities are motorcycle riders. I don't have an exact # on the percentage of vehicles that are bikes, but I guarantee it is a hell of a lot less than 1/6. Motorcycles and SUVs should be banned from public roads.
WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national?
Canada? I am not aware of anyone in the US, except Palin who is not an elected official.
Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites?
Huh? Whut? If you mean the gov't telling its employees to stay off wikileaks, your argument is weak. As a private individual, I am not restricted, except for some illegal activities.
Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?
What site is the US gov't taking down with a DDOS?
Self-referential comment FTW!
I love it when an AC argues with himself.
(oh wait)
What a moronic retort. So every time I see something wrong in the world, I must either correct it or shut up?
You were born.
Well, your exaggeration is far off base. I have a healthy skepticism for my gov't. However, when Isee that America was taking a position that other countries were publically rallying against, but then privately supporting, it makes me nauceous.
There is plenty that I have read about already that supports my dim view of American politics... but even more for other countries.