I was recently in Rome and the primary thing I got was the locals lamenting the crumbling infrastructure including the decaying and inadequate public transportation. One running joke was be careful taking the bus since they tend to spontaneously combust. Although I'm sure there was a certain pride in living in the Eternal City and desire for preserving that history, trying to survive day to day tends to take priority over that.
Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee".
Certain types of control get into a gray area, yes. Regulating the type of cars allowed would likely cross that line. Regulating the the cars must meet certain minimum standers likely shouldn't. Regulating the services provided is fundamental to the business. The standard of the service is too. Guidelines on sexual contact isn't in that gray area. Actually not regulating this would likely raise safe workplace environment issues. The list of the regulations that would cross over to employee is list below. Please explain how rules on sexual contact between contractors and customers could be shoehorned in.
When and where to do the work.
What tools or equipment to use.
What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
Where to purchase supplies and services.
What work must be performed by a specified individual.
What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.
Putting all that aside, the idiots suing over this are pretty much going to kill the goose. The only one who benefits are the lawyers. If they're employees suddenly Uber/Lyft gets to control much much more of how and when they work. That kinda destroys the whole attraction of driving for Uber. Also looking over your own page I'm not seeing where Uber crosses any of the lines towards employee.
But if drivers really were contractors, it would be none of Uber's business if flirtation or consensual sex were on the menu of services offered.
Ummm, that's just stupid. They're contractors. There's a contract between the drivers and Uber. Both sides have to agree to and abide by the terms of the contract. Uber sets all kinds of conditions in the contract. Including this condition is no different than condition regulating the type of car or anything else.
In other words your argument is completely fallacious both logically and legally.
Point out the how I misrepresented GPs arguments. And I'm not pro democrat nor is the post. The post is anti-appeasement. Hillary should be in jail for the email fiasco.
Remember that the "great men" in Rand were born that way and the ones that got somewhere on their own ability like the slimy little chief scientist are figures to hold in contempt and be bullied by the "great men".
I'm thinking you read some different books than I did. That's pretty much the opposite of what I took from Rand's writing.
That weird anti-democratic screed with Galt in it was about Rand's wish for Tsarist nobility to come back and run things "properly" but in a American setting.
Wow. I've heard some bizarre interpretations of Rand's writings but never anything that resembled that one.
No, Trump is bringing to light that most NATO countries aren't paying their share of the deal.
That may be the case but the answer to that problem most definitely isn't to appease Russian aggression. The only result there would be an exponentially increasing cost to stop them as each act of aggression is appeased.
You'd do well to read up on what actually happened regarding Chamberlain, appeasement, and the ramping up pre-war manufacturing under his watch rather than believing the shit you've been spoon-fed in school, mostly due to his political opponents at the time.
I have. His guaranty of Poland and at least standing up at that point took some backbone. The problem is it was too late then. German had caught France and Britain in base strength and surpassed them in production at that point. He probably takes more blame than he deserves primarily because he was being provided bad information about pre-war manufacturing ramping. The facts at that time were Germany was ramping up much faster than England and France combined and was starting from a much lower base. Chamberlain was told England wasn't ready for war in 1938 and needed time wherein he brought home the Munich accord. The problem is Germany was even less ready than England and France at that point and that year (really 2) allowed Germany to surpass England and France. It also threw away a strong allied force in Czechoslovakia. If either had said 'Boo' during the re-occupation of the Rhineland or the Sudetenland crisis Germany would have been forced to back down or get run over. At that point even the incompetent French military leadership, especially with Czechoslovakian help, almost certainly could have rolled over the scrap of a German army that existed then. Now I realize this is all hindsight but it doesn't lessen the fact that the Munich accord was a disastrously bad case of appeasement diplomacy.
That is inevitable at this point anyway because Russia has not been countered for eight years.
If that had even an inkling of truth to it the Ukraine and Baltic States would have been gone years ago. The Crimea was a difficult one to oppose. Historically it was never a part of the Ukraine and even after it was assigned to the Ukraine in 1954 (by the Soviet government) it retained a certain level of autonomy. Add to that the native population of the Crimea was relocated and/or killed after WWII for Nazi collaboration so the population was close to 50% pro-Russian. On top of all that Putin performed a fairly masterful job of brinkmanship maneuvering to split it off. Yes the West was badly out maneuvered but it was also a bit of a wake up call. And key, the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
But regardless it wouldn't be AMERICA starting the war, as it would be under Hillary.
If you mean Hillary would actually oppose a Russian invasion of say Latvia rather than sit blindly on the side as Trump has hinted he might, I would back Hillary 100% in that. Trump's appeasement stance would result in a situation much like that which occurred in WWII. At some point you would have to oppose him. Do you do so when he invades Latvia? Or do you wait until he goes into Poland? Or even wait until he crosses the German border? The longer you wait the stronger his the position will be and the weaker the West's will be.
Good, this sort of thing is supposed to be their job. Given that they've been so focused on domestic surveillance since 9-11-01, let's see how well they do at it.
Come on. They're way too focused on SERIOUS domestic threats like OWS and Black Lives Matter to squander resources on stopping foreign spying and misinformation campaigns inside the US. Besides, spying on innocent US citizens and coercing half wits into FBI originated terror plots is far easier than catching foreign spies. It gets them bigger headlines too.
The media try to paint Trump as some kind of warmonger, but he's not even sure about backing all NATO countries!
Wow. You Trump supporters are terrifyingly ignorant. It should be obvious (at least to anyone who's read even a bit of history) that Trump's wishy washy support of NATO is far more likely result in war in Europe than strong support for NATO would. If or when the US participates is another question but I would strongly suggest you read about a little period of recent history in the 1930's. Putin wants his Empire back and one requirement to accomplishing that is the weakening of NATO to the point they don't oppose Putin when he starts taking it back. You sound like you would be a Neville Chamberlain fan. You might ask him how well an appeasement policy against an aggressive state works out. You'll see how well a weak Western Europe and an isolationist US turned out last time. The most efficient and effective time to oppose an aggressive state is before their tanks start rolling through neighboring countries.
show everyone how undermining the security measures of the global tech. economy and culture is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.
Are you kidding? The powers that be will spin this as proving their point:
If it weren't for all this evil encryption they would have no problem catching the villainous hackers that perpetrated these crimes against humanity by these supporters of terrorism and child pornography for the children. It's only because of un-backdoored evil encryption that the angelic powers of all good failed to stop these terroristic endeavours which exposed this good company that has help the FBI foil 1 million terrorist plots by providing means of accessing evilly encrypted systems.
I honestly don't think a real "organized" war of that kind is likely to ever happen again. We have long since passed the point where the major actors are just too big and powerful to risk war with eachother, so they engage in little more than proxy wars against eachother's minor interests.
Even that doesn't really seem to describe the present day since the major powers major interests are so aligned they don't even proxy war with eachother so much as with the fallout from the decades worth of mess they made with their proxy wars.
Man are you out of touch with what's happening in the world. It's exactly that type of thinking which predominated prior to WW I and is considered a major contributing factor to it starting. Putin's rhetoric and brinkmanship likely has the risk of a major war closer now than it was during the cold war.
I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.
Bullshit. They've got you brainwashed by the "terrorism" threat also. You're misunderstanding the whole function of his job. He is not trying to protect the American people. The FBI/NSA/CIA strayed from that goal long ago. Their job is to protect the government from anyone who opposes it including the American people. The kind of access they're asking for could serve no other purpose than to find and neutralize anyone who might oppose the powers that control the government. If the desired goal was to thwart "terrorism" their resources should be much more focused. Unless you consider things like OWS or protests against the police "terrorism".
But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny.
With the level of information gathering and access they're asking for absolutely no amount of well-engineered procedural oversight and security will prevent tyranny. It supplies WAY to much power.
What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property?
The rational for the value of real property is scarcity. There is only so much and only one person can use it at a time. It cost time and money to produce more in the case of goods and services.
Then again, copyright and patents are like real property.
No they're are not. Scarcity is what gives property value. Copyright and patents are a way to artificially create scarcity. In a market economy the the price of a good or service should approach it's marginal cost over time. Copyright and patents prevent that. Copyrights are an artifact from a bygone age where publishing creative works was expensive and difficult. The current copyright laws address a 20th century problem. The rapid evolution of most technological areas means patents primary function is to retard advancement and provide rents for unproductive entities. I neither case are these the intended functions of there respective laws. There intended (and in the US only Constitutional purpose) should be to encourage advancement.
Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.
Ummm...Yamato was deployed at the Battle of Midway. She was Yamamoto's flagship. Guadalcanal wasn't really a single naval battle per say. There were a series of naval engagements that occurred as a result of one side or the other trying to reinforce thier ground forces. The naval forces involved in any given engagement ranged wildly from full blown carrier battles to night destroyer skirmishes.
Some departments deploy SWAT for non-high risk situations because they see it as a convenient training exercise. The close quarter skills employed by SWAT are perishable, they need constant rehearsing. The low-risk deployments provide a certain amount of randomization to further enhance their skills, unknown buildings, unknown layouts, etc..
Except police don't provide information on where, how often and on who they deploy SWAT. Nor do they keep records on violence used by police. That kind of information would be inconvenient in the hands of the public.
I made a joking comment about police calling out SWAT for someone with parking tickets. A cop I know was there. He commented in a very exasperated tone that it was "command" that called in SWAT not the line cops. He seemed very frustrated by it and as confounded as I am.
Some departments deploy SWAT for non-high risk situations because they see it as a convenient training exercise. The close quarter skills employed by SWAT are perishable, they need constant rehearsing. The low-risk deployments provide a certain amount of randomization to further enhance their skills, unknown buildings, unknown layouts, death to minor non-violent criminals and innocent poeple, etc..
Ummm...you really should have added the above to your "etc...". The idea that this is a valid way to perform training is criminal. Anyone claiming so should be in jail for criminal negligence and the least. I'd say attempted murder would be more appropriate. Or in those tragic examples murder.
No, actually the mass protests are happening because various rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton
colluded with irresponsible media outlets to manipulate people into feeling outrage despite the
harsh truth that the facts relevant to the events in which the people were killed clearly indicate
that those who were killed acted in a manner which brought them serious trouble. Attack a cop
and you can and SHOULD expect a counter attack.
Yeah, a cop should be able violate his his own department rules and use a choke hold on someone that kills them ignoring pleas from that person that he can't breath and then stand around doing nothing when he stops breating. Note his level of resistence consisted of raising his arms up. There should be no problems with a cop summarily executing a kid running around with a pellet gun without any form of interaction with the kid before killing him even after they were told it was probably a toy gun. Any less than outright execution might have put an officer at risk. And there should be absolutely no issues with a cop shooting someone walking up stairway with his girlfriend and then taking no action to render aid to the person he just shot but rather call his union representive so they can start the spin machine going. There shoud be no problem with a mob of cops shooting hundreds of rounds at 2 unarmed people in a car including one cop jumping on the hood of the car and putting several rounds into them through the windsheild. There shouls be no issues with cops making no knock raids on wrong houses that results in innocent people being killed. Not cop people. If you shoot at the unknown black masked thugs invading your house you'd go to jail. Mind you I can go on all night listing crap police have done and gotten away with that would have resulted in serious incarceration for anyone not a cop.
And lets talk about the one your defending. At the grand jury hearing to decide if charges were justified apperently the prime witness supporting the cops account of what happened that the DA brought in to testify was outright lying and couldn't have possibly been near where the shooting happened. And no one should have an issue that the DA admitted he knew that she was lying before he brought her to testify at the hearing. The DA did everything he could to make certain no charges were brought. To paraphrase one expert normally a DA can get charges brought on a sandwich. Whatever the truth was there was more than enough question that there should have been a trial.
This is not rocket science and I am god damned tired of fuckwits like you parroting bullshit
which make people who asked for trouble appear to be innocent victims.
And I'm tired of dipshits who too stupid to realize that there are serious systematic issues with the policing in this country. I was in the Infantry stationed in Germany at the peak of the cold war. Our sector was dead center in the Fulda Gap which was the prime Soviet invasion route into central Germany. Those cops on the streets in Ferguson were better equiped then we were. And they weren't at all hesitant to point their assault rifles at anyone and everone violating the first rule of gun safety. You have to be turnip level of stupid not to see any of this as being an issue.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they
really happened and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point
out that your user ID is spot on.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they are
really happening and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point
out that your user ID is spot on.
First, your 'freebie' is ruinous to some people (we're talking living in a shelter losing the kids sort of ruinous).
Scale the fine based on income. The fine is more of a wake up slap than than anything else.
The second is ruinous to nearly anyone.
Yeah, because 40,000 dead and 2.5 million serious injuries isn't ruinous for anyone. And a good many of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Your argument is specious. I follow the traffic laws. Yet I engender road rage for such things as actually stopping at a stop sign. Yeah, people beep and flip me off for obeying the traffic laws. And this results in 40,000 dead and 2.5 million seriously injured every year. But you think actually making people responsible for thier actions that cause this carnage is ruinous. Causing the carnage though thats perfectly ok in your book.
So don't do it, you say. Fine as soon as cops start only writing fair and just tickets without quotas AND as soon as traffic court runs the kangaroos out and takes the right to a fair trial seriously.
Again a specious argument. Did you miss the part about the black boxes in the cars? There is no he said she said. There is no subjective judgment. There is an exact pretty much inflatable record of the actions.
Until; those very unlikely things happen, perhaps a court ordered technological solution with NO fine is more appropriate.
The problem has nothing to do with technology. People eating, guys shaving, women putting on makeup, the list is endless and no technology is going to help (short of fully autonomous cars which are a long ways off). People will drive like idiots until they are held accountable for the consequences.
There is a problem with that. Law enforcement in the USA is dependent on most people pleading guilty they system isn't designed for people going to trial. If you lose your license for a month or a year, you have middle class defendants with means going to trial. Moreover let's not forget about the effects of push back. People who have negative experiences with police tend to be more suspicious of them and tend not to convict. So as you increase the level you decrease the conviction rate, further increasing the benefits of going to trial.
That's why the black box. Outside of jury nullification the evidence is irrefutable. Also make the law with no exceptions for anyone. Going to trial would have no benefits and would thus be pointless.
Your cost of enforcement far exceeds the benefit.
The primary benefit of enforcement would be the 40,000 lives lost every year. Think about that number. The Vietnam war only averaged 5000 dead per year and that was a friggin war. Auto collisions are the number one cause of death for children. Do it for the children and all that crap. I would also argue, even looking at it from a pure fiscal aspect it would make financial sense even if the enforcement cost was high. The direct and indirect costs of traffic issues cause by collisions alone would probably justify it without even going into the 2.5 million emergency room visits and other health care cost.
I think the far better system is frequent small penalties. Something like every driver gets two send in up to 2 license plate "assholes" per day. You erase one per month. If you get to 3, $50 fine no. Limit that everyone can only report the same driver once per year.
This would never work. The idiot who didn't think I was passing fast enough because I wasn't going 20 over the speed limit would report me. A good percentage of the idiots on the road think the people driving by the rules are the assholes causing the problems.
Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity. People understand when it hits their wallet directly and when their phones are confiscated.
Not really. How much a fine affects someone is directly related to how much money they have. You can't have a fine that's fair across economic brackets. Better and more democratic than fines is taking away their driving privileges. That solves the problem in 2 ways. Add to that, if you drive without a license you go to jail for a year. No exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
I was recently in Rome and the primary thing I got was the locals lamenting the crumbling infrastructure including the decaying and inadequate public transportation. One running joke was be careful taking the bus since they tend to spontaneously combust. Although I'm sure there was a certain pride in living in the Eternal City and desire for preserving that history, trying to survive day to day tends to take priority over that.
Well, they do that. You can't be an Uber driver in a coupe, you have to have a sedan (4-doors).
They don't. They require a minimum standard of the equipment you use. They don't state you can only use these types of vehicles. Big difference.
Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee".
Certain types of control get into a gray area, yes. Regulating the type of cars allowed would likely cross that line. Regulating the the cars must meet certain minimum standers likely shouldn't. Regulating the services provided is fundamental to the business. The standard of the service is too. Guidelines on sexual contact isn't in that gray area. Actually not regulating this would likely raise safe workplace environment issues. The list of the regulations that would cross over to employee is list below. Please explain how rules on sexual contact between contractors and customers could be shoehorned in.
Putting all that aside, the idiots suing over this are pretty much going to kill the goose. The only one who benefits are the lawyers. If they're employees suddenly Uber/Lyft gets to control much much more of how and when they work. That kinda destroys the whole attraction of driving for Uber. Also looking over your own page I'm not seeing where Uber crosses any of the lines towards employee.
But if drivers really were contractors, it would be none of Uber's business if flirtation or consensual sex were on the menu of services offered.
Ummm, that's just stupid. They're contractors. There's a contract between the drivers and Uber. Both sides have to agree to and abide by the terms of the contract. Uber sets all kinds of conditions in the contract. Including this condition is no different than condition regulating the type of car or anything else.
In other words your argument is completely fallacious both logically and legally.
obvious strawmen & pro democrat posts
Point out the how I misrepresented GPs arguments. And I'm not pro democrat nor is the post. The post is anti-appeasement. Hillary should be in jail for the email fiasco.
Remember that the "great men" in Rand were born that way and the ones that got somewhere on their own ability like the slimy little chief scientist are figures to hold in contempt and be bullied by the "great men".
I'm thinking you read some different books than I did. That's pretty much the opposite of what I took from Rand's writing.
That weird anti-democratic screed with Galt in it was about Rand's wish for Tsarist nobility to come back and run things "properly" but in a American setting.
Wow. I've heard some bizarre interpretations of Rand's writings but never anything that resembled that one.
No, Trump is bringing to light that most NATO countries aren't paying their share of the deal.
That may be the case but the answer to that problem most definitely isn't to appease Russian aggression. The only result there would be an exponentially increasing cost to stop them as each act of aggression is appeased.
You'd do well to read up on what actually happened regarding Chamberlain, appeasement, and the ramping up pre-war manufacturing under his watch rather than believing the shit you've been spoon-fed in school, mostly due to his political opponents at the time.
I have. His guaranty of Poland and at least standing up at that point took some backbone. The problem is it was too late then. German had caught France and Britain in base strength and surpassed them in production at that point. He probably takes more blame than he deserves primarily because he was being provided bad information about pre-war manufacturing ramping. The facts at that time were Germany was ramping up much faster than England and France combined and was starting from a much lower base. Chamberlain was told England wasn't ready for war in 1938 and needed time wherein he brought home the Munich accord. The problem is Germany was even less ready than England and France at that point and that year (really 2) allowed Germany to surpass England and France. It also threw away a strong allied force in Czechoslovakia. If either had said 'Boo' during the re-occupation of the Rhineland or the Sudetenland crisis Germany would have been forced to back down or get run over. At that point even the incompetent French military leadership, especially with Czechoslovakian help, almost certainly could have rolled over the scrap of a German army that existed then. Now I realize this is all hindsight but it doesn't lessen the fact that the Munich accord was a disastrously bad case of appeasement diplomacy.
That is inevitable at this point anyway because Russia has not been countered for eight years.
If that had even an inkling of truth to it the Ukraine and Baltic States would have been gone years ago. The Crimea was a difficult one to oppose. Historically it was never a part of the Ukraine and even after it was assigned to the Ukraine in 1954 (by the Soviet government) it retained a certain level of autonomy. Add to that the native population of the Crimea was relocated and/or killed after WWII for Nazi collaboration so the population was close to 50% pro-Russian. On top of all that Putin performed a fairly masterful job of brinkmanship maneuvering to split it off. Yes the West was badly out maneuvered but it was also a bit of a wake up call. And key, the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
But regardless it wouldn't be AMERICA starting the war, as it would be under Hillary.
If you mean Hillary would actually oppose a Russian invasion of say Latvia rather than sit blindly on the side as Trump has hinted he might, I would back Hillary 100% in that. Trump's appeasement stance would result in a situation much like that which occurred in WWII. At some point you would have to oppose him. Do you do so when he invades Latvia? Or do you wait until he goes into Poland? Or even wait until he crosses the German border? The longer you wait the stronger his the position will be and the weaker the West's will be.
Good, this sort of thing is supposed to be their job. Given that they've been so focused on domestic surveillance since 9-11-01, let's see how well they do at it.
Come on. They're way too focused on SERIOUS domestic threats like OWS and Black Lives Matter to squander resources on stopping foreign spying and misinformation campaigns inside the US. Besides, spying on innocent US citizens and coercing half wits into FBI originated terror plots is far easier than catching foreign spies. It gets them bigger headlines too.
The media try to paint Trump as some kind of warmonger, but he's not even sure about backing all NATO countries!
Wow. You Trump supporters are terrifyingly ignorant. It should be obvious (at least to anyone who's read even a bit of history) that Trump's wishy washy support of NATO is far more likely result in war in Europe than strong support for NATO would. If or when the US participates is another question but I would strongly suggest you read about a little period of recent history in the 1930's. Putin wants his Empire back and one requirement to accomplishing that is the weakening of NATO to the point they don't oppose Putin when he starts taking it back. You sound like you would be a Neville Chamberlain fan. You might ask him how well an appeasement policy against an aggressive state works out. You'll see how well a weak Western Europe and an isolationist US turned out last time. The most efficient and effective time to oppose an aggressive state is before their tanks start rolling through neighboring countries.
show everyone how undermining the security measures of the global tech. economy and culture is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.
Are you kidding? The powers that be will spin this as proving their point:
If it weren't for all this evil encryption they would have no problem catching the villainous hackers that perpetrated these crimes against humanity by these supporters of terrorism and child pornography for the children. It's only because of un-backdoored evil encryption that the angelic powers of all good failed to stop these terroristic endeavours which exposed this good company that has help the FBI foil 1 million terrorist plots by providing means of accessing evilly encrypted systems.
I honestly don't think a real "organized" war of that kind is likely to ever happen again. We have long since passed the point where the major actors are just too big and powerful to risk war with eachother, so they engage in little more than proxy wars against eachother's minor interests.
Even that doesn't really seem to describe the present day since the major powers major interests are so aligned they don't even proxy war with eachother so much as with the fallout from the decades worth of mess they made with their proxy wars.
Man are you out of touch with what's happening in the world. It's exactly that type of thinking which predominated prior to WW I and is considered a major contributing factor to it starting. Putin's rhetoric and brinkmanship likely has the risk of a major war closer now than it was during the cold war.
I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.
Bullshit. They've got you brainwashed by the "terrorism" threat also. You're misunderstanding the whole function of his job. He is not trying to protect the American people. The FBI/NSA/CIA strayed from that goal long ago. Their job is to protect the government from anyone who opposes it including the American people. The kind of access they're asking for could serve no other purpose than to find and neutralize anyone who might oppose the powers that control the government. If the desired goal was to thwart "terrorism" their resources should be much more focused. Unless you consider things like OWS or protests against the police "terrorism".
But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny.
With the level of information gathering and access they're asking for absolutely no amount of well-engineered procedural oversight and security will prevent tyranny. It supplies WAY to much power.
What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property?
The rational for the value of real property is scarcity. There is only so much and only one person can use it at a time. It cost time and money to produce more in the case of goods and services.
Then again, copyright and patents are like real property.
No they're are not. Scarcity is what gives property value. Copyright and patents are a way to artificially create scarcity. In a market economy the the price of a good or service should approach it's marginal cost over time. Copyright and patents prevent that. Copyrights are an artifact from a bygone age where publishing creative works was expensive and difficult. The current copyright laws address a 20th century problem. The rapid evolution of most technological areas means patents primary function is to retard advancement and provide rents for unproductive entities. I neither case are these the intended functions of there respective laws. There intended (and in the US only Constitutional purpose) should be to encourage advancement.
Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.
Ummm...Yamato was deployed at the Battle of Midway. She was Yamamoto's flagship. Guadalcanal wasn't really a single naval battle per say. There were a series of naval engagements that occurred as a result of one side or the other trying to reinforce thier ground forces. The naval forces involved in any given engagement ranged wildly from full blown carrier battles to night destroyer skirmishes.
Seriously, if you think this makes the statistics "flawed"... then you don't know anything about statistics.
It doesn't make the statistics flawed. It makes the conclusion flawed.
The more churches there are per square mile the more crime there is per square mile, ergo churches cause crime.
Statistics are numbers. They don't lie. It's the people twisting conclusions from them that are the liers.
Some departments deploy SWAT for non-high risk situations because they see it as a convenient training exercise. The close quarter skills employed by SWAT are perishable, they need constant rehearsing. The low-risk deployments provide a certain amount of randomization to further enhance their skills, unknown buildings, unknown layouts, etc..
Except police don't provide information on where, how often and on who they deploy SWAT. Nor do they keep records on violence used by police. That kind of information would be inconvenient in the hands of the public.
I made a joking comment about police calling out SWAT for someone with parking tickets. A cop I know was there. He commented in a very exasperated tone that it was "command" that called in SWAT not the line cops. He seemed very frustrated by it and as confounded as I am.
Some departments deploy SWAT for non-high risk situations because they see it as a convenient training exercise. The close quarter skills employed by SWAT are perishable, they need constant rehearsing. The low-risk deployments provide a certain amount of randomization to further enhance their skills, unknown buildings, unknown layouts, death to minor non-violent criminals and innocent poeple, etc..
Ummm...you really should have added the above to your "etc...". The idea that this is a valid way to perform training is criminal. Anyone claiming so should be in jail for criminal negligence and the least. I'd say attempted murder would be more appropriate. Or in those tragic examples murder.
No, actually the mass protests are happening because various rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton colluded with irresponsible media outlets to manipulate people into feeling outrage despite the harsh truth that the facts relevant to the events in which the people were killed clearly indicate that those who were killed acted in a manner which brought them serious trouble. Attack a cop and you can and SHOULD expect a counter attack.
Yeah, a cop should be able violate his his own department rules and use a choke hold on someone that kills them ignoring pleas from that person that he can't breath and then stand around doing nothing when he stops breating. Note his level of resistence consisted of raising his arms up. There should be no problems with a cop summarily executing a kid running around with a pellet gun without any form of interaction with the kid before killing him even after they were told it was probably a toy gun. Any less than outright execution might have put an officer at risk. And there should be absolutely no issues with a cop shooting someone walking up stairway with his girlfriend and then taking no action to render aid to the person he just shot but rather call his union representive so they can start the spin machine going. There shoud be no problem with a mob of cops shooting hundreds of rounds at 2 unarmed people in a car including one cop jumping on the hood of the car and putting several rounds into them through the windsheild. There shouls be no issues with cops making no knock raids on wrong houses that results in innocent people being killed. Not cop people. If you shoot at the unknown black masked thugs invading your house you'd go to jail. Mind you I can go on all night listing crap police have done and gotten away with that would have resulted in serious incarceration for anyone not a cop.
And lets talk about the one your defending. At the grand jury hearing to decide if charges were justified apperently the prime witness supporting the cops account of what happened that the DA brought in to testify was outright lying and couldn't have possibly been near where the shooting happened. And no one should have an issue that the DA admitted he knew that she was lying before he brought her to testify at the hearing. The DA did everything he could to make certain no charges were brought. To paraphrase one expert normally a DA can get charges brought on a sandwich. Whatever the truth was there was more than enough question that there should have been a trial.
This is not rocket science and I am god damned tired of fuckwits like you parroting bullshit which make people who asked for trouble appear to be innocent victims.
And I'm tired of dipshits who too stupid to realize that there are serious systematic issues with the policing in this country. I was in the Infantry stationed in Germany at the peak of the cold war. Our sector was dead center in the Fulda Gap which was the prime Soviet invasion route into central Germany. Those cops on the streets in Ferguson were better equiped then we were. And they weren't at all hesitant to point their assault rifles at anyone and everone violating the first rule of gun safety. You have to be turnip level of stupid not to see any of this as being an issue.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they really happened and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they are really happening and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.
You're going to need a much more expensive black box to log enough to make the results unambiguous.
No you don't. Location, control inputs and velocity are all you need. Most cars already have that in them. Almost all cell phones do too.
They'll have to log enough information to make them prime targets for warrant-less searches for non-safety purposes.
As I stated just record the last half hour or so. That would limit there viability for intrusive monitoring.
First, your 'freebie' is ruinous to some people (we're talking living in a shelter losing the kids sort of ruinous).
Scale the fine based on income. The fine is more of a wake up slap than than anything else.
The second is ruinous to nearly anyone.
Yeah, because 40,000 dead and 2.5 million serious injuries isn't ruinous for anyone. And a good many of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Your argument is specious. I follow the traffic laws. Yet I engender road rage for such things as actually stopping at a stop sign. Yeah, people beep and flip me off for obeying the traffic laws. And this results in 40,000 dead and 2.5 million seriously injured every year. But you think actually making people responsible for thier actions that cause this carnage is ruinous. Causing the carnage though thats perfectly ok in your book.
So don't do it, you say. Fine as soon as cops start only writing fair and just tickets without quotas AND as soon as traffic court runs the kangaroos out and takes the right to a fair trial seriously.
Again a specious argument. Did you miss the part about the black boxes in the cars? There is no he said she said. There is no subjective judgment. There is an exact pretty much inflatable record of the actions.
Until; those very unlikely things happen, perhaps a court ordered technological solution with NO fine is more appropriate.
The problem has nothing to do with technology. People eating, guys shaving, women putting on makeup, the list is endless and no technology is going to help (short of fully autonomous cars which are a long ways off). People will drive like idiots until they are held accountable for the consequences.
There is a problem with that. Law enforcement in the USA is dependent on most people pleading guilty they system isn't designed for people going to trial. If you lose your license for a month or a year, you have middle class defendants with means going to trial. Moreover let's not forget about the effects of push back. People who have negative experiences with police tend to be more suspicious of them and tend not to convict. So as you increase the level you decrease the conviction rate, further increasing the benefits of going to trial.
That's why the black box. Outside of jury nullification the evidence is irrefutable. Also make the law with no exceptions for anyone. Going to trial would have no benefits and would thus be pointless.
Your cost of enforcement far exceeds the benefit.
The primary benefit of enforcement would be the 40,000 lives lost every year. Think about that number. The Vietnam war only averaged 5000 dead per year and that was a friggin war. Auto collisions are the number one cause of death for children. Do it for the children and all that crap. I would also argue, even looking at it from a pure fiscal aspect it would make financial sense even if the enforcement cost was high. The direct and indirect costs of traffic issues cause by collisions alone would probably justify it without even going into the 2.5 million emergency room visits and other health care cost.
I think the far better system is frequent small penalties. Something like every driver gets two send in up to 2 license plate "assholes" per day. You erase one per month. If you get to 3, $50 fine no. Limit that everyone can only report the same driver once per year.
This would never work. The idiot who didn't think I was passing fast enough because I wasn't going 20 over the speed limit would report me. A good percentage of the idiots on the road think the people driving by the rules are the assholes causing the problems.
Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity. People understand when it hits their wallet directly and when their phones are confiscated.
Not really. How much a fine affects someone is directly related to how much money they have. You can't have a fine that's fair across economic brackets. Better and more democratic than fines is taking away their driving privileges. That solves the problem in 2 ways. Add to that, if you drive without a license you go to jail for a year. No exceptions.