It should be pointed out the US has some fantastic roads for drivers. Around Big Sur on Highway 1 in California, hairpins and corners galore. I hired a Mustang and regretted it, not only is it terrible at cornering, the back end is terrible at not sliding out. I drive a Nissan Silvia S15, a car designed for drifting in the 90's and you can keep the back end in line a lot easier. To go back down Highway 1 I'd pick a car that had some decent cornering abilities because there are some fantastic corners to throw it round... If you dont get stuck behind a mum-tank (SUV).
What about off-solid-ground applications, where they are already used? I have an actual use case in mind for a hover vehicle similar to a DUKW, where it could go into hovercraft mode over water that is too shallow to use conventional craft mode, but with a bottom too shallow to use the tires.
The problem is, hovercraft aren't very practical and are very difficult to control. It's much easier to make a vehicle into a part time boat than it is to make it into a part time hovercraft and much more practical.
Top Gear proved this, their Hovervan had trouble making it up the Themes, their Toyboata on the other hand made it from Dover to Calais in an afternoon.
I'm not sure why a person would want a hovercraft for general use. It's way more efficient to just have car that rolls on wheels. Lifting the entire car off the ground with a cushion of air is terribly inefficient. Not that there aren't any uses at all, but as a general purpose vehicle on public roadways, it seems like a terrible idea.
As Top Gear proved many years ago with their hovervan, they aren't terribly practical, are very difficult to drive and somewhat prone to sinking when driven by Jeremy.
You still pay those when you use cash because the agreement between the credit card company and the merchant forbids the merchant from offering a lower price when goods are purchased with cash.
Fortunately, not legally enforceable.
Dual pricing is permitted by law in Australia precisely because it is illegal for a third party to force a hidden cost onto a business. For a moment, consider the people you are defending here, they are forcing extra costs on merchats, which results in higher prices and you're defending them.
Lots of businesses do a cash discount. The only way you dont know about this is because you dont do cash transactions... your loss.
As others have already said, it's not the cardholder that takes the loss when fraud occurs. It's the merchant.
And what does the merchant do when they take a loss?
Put prices up to compensate.
You still end up paying. It's just obfuscated.
Putting everything on the card is plain stupid, from both a financial and security standpoint.
If a thug steals your wallet full of cash, it's gone for ever. Not so if they steal your wallet full of credit cards.
You're assuming the bank wont contest it, or charge you for the services. Also, the bank is not obliged to return interchange fees.
With NFC on your card, a thief can take your card details without you even getting it out of your pocket because by design, the protocol will give out your name, expiry date and card no. to anything that asks for it. This can be done with off the shelf hardware. A thug doesn't even have to rob you, to rob you.
In the end, cards cost more than risk with cash (which is negligible, lower if you consider the huge security flaw in NFC).
There is nothing wrong with GTA IV. People didnt understand how to tweak it and failed to realize the hardware needed to run it. Like Crysis, in the long run im glad they went the route they did, as we enjoyed the game much longer than we would have otherwise.
My gaming rig has no problems with running GTA IV... the controls are the problem, they didn't bother writing them for PC input (KB and Mouse) so the game plays like shit, it doesn't run like shit.
BTW, does anyone know of a mod that fixes this.
Minimize the number of places you expose your CC numbers. Pay cash where feasible. Use debit cards ONLY at bank terminals. Be especially careful at restaurants and gas stations.
Or, if your in good standing with your bank, don't worry about it. The banks are good about fraudulent charges in the civilized world.
This really has to be one of the most naive things I've heard in a long time.
Sadly I hear it quite often.
"The bank will look after me, the bank's got my back".
Why do you think the bank wont drop you like a hot brick if you become too much of a liability? Why do you think the bank actually works for you and not the shareholders?
I'm not a paranoid nutcase, I'm happy to use the services of a bank but I also know that they will try to screw me over as much as possible. That's their business, to make money.., from me... I cant hate them for being a profit oriented business, but I can ensure it costs me as little as possible. So no, the bank is not my friend, it has not got my back and it not to be trusted.
Is it a real issue or a theoretical issue? I've seen a few fraudulent charges over the years, and the bank has never given me any greif over any of them.
Not really, the average loss from credit card fraud is $500, it costs Australia $2 billion annually. Eventually this costs comes back to you.
Your solution of carrying cash exposes you to higher risk of direct loss or theft. And you lose the card rewards program.
LoL @ rewards program.
Seriously, carrying cash does not increase your theft profile, with the addition of contactless payments that do not require a form of authentication, plastic is now as at risk as cash. Yep, sure you can tell me "but the bank will cover me" but all you're really saying is "I'm naive like a child". The bank only covers its self.
Seriously, rewards programs are traps. Compared to the costs of using credit cards (most of them hidden like interchange fees and merchant service fees) cash is cheaper. The average rewards program returns $45 per year. I save that more than that per fortnight by using cash. This year alone I've saved $1200 from direct savings from not using credit.
Banks do not do anything for free, follow the money to find out who's paying for it (if you're smart, you'll just find a mirror and have done with).
Seems you've traded one set of small risks for another. Not sure that amounts to a real overall improvement though.
Actually, I've traded a set of costs for a set of savings.
In fact, given the number of high profile breaches in recent days it seems carrying cash is safer. You can expect more breaches as criminals figure out ways to colelct your card information from NFC without you even taking your card out of your wallet.
That being said, I have to admire the banks in for their Machiavellian brilliance. They addict people like you to using credit cards then charge the merchants for accepting them, forcing the merchant to be the bad guy and raise his prices to pay for them, meanwhile the bank is laughing all the way to the bank. Not to mention the way they've gamified the rewards programs. They've made collecting points more important to people than getting a good deal. In order to get a $50 toaster, people will forego $1000 in savings.
A 1950's TV would cost ~$495 in 1950 dollars, which is ~$5,000 in 2014 dollars. It would be 21", low resolution, not capable of HD, use a ton of electricity, and eventually the phosphors would give out causing it to have wierd colors. In 2014 you can get a 52" TV for $600.
Hows that for "hidden inflation"?
This.
People forget that in the 50's everyone had fewer toys. It's quite possible to have a house on a single income like in the 50's... but you have to go the whole hog and completely 50-ise your life.
Thats one car, used sparingly.
No toys like Ipads.
1 modest TV and 1 modest computer for the whole family.
No central air conditioning or heating.
No mobile phone, only a landline which is used sparingly.
No dishwasher, you do it by hand.
An automatic washing machine is a luxury and forget the dryer.
No personal loans or credit cards, you save for what you want and pay cash.
You're lucky I'm not using 50's Australia, which is no TV, no computer and likely, no phone either.
When comparing now to nineteen-dickety-two they always forget that we have more toys now days.
However one of the biggest costs that we have now days that we didn't have in the 50's is our reliance on credit. When someone loans their money out, they expect to get it all back plus some. Most people dont get this when they put everything on credit. Interest, Interchange fees and Merchant Service Fees are giant black holes which swallow money whenever something is bought on credit.
I don't think I've seen too many other animals that would do that.
Cats, dogs, birds.
Pretty much most of the "pet" section of animals will do that.
Wild seagulls will avoid other less palatable forms of food if they know humans have more palatable food... This is why you never feed the seagulls (same with feeding the bears, it invites them back).
And just an guess based on experience with living in SoCal; the Corolla deprived wasn't trying near as hard as the Mercedes driver. That also helps.
Based on actual experience and not a guess... The corolla driver would had a much tighter turning circle and it would have been more effortless than the SUV that costs 5 times as much.
If you sat in a showroom for 10 hours strait (sic) you're doing it wrong. Decide ahead of time what you want and how much you'll pay. Make an offer, if they don't like it - get up and walk away.
This.
Show me the car or I'll walk.
This is one of the many reasons I think buying 2nd hand is better. Every moment the dealer wastes fucking me about is a dollar they lose by keeping the car.
My current car radio has awesome buttons that you don't have to look at once you know which set is scan vs step..
This, I recently bought a 2002 Nissan 200sx (Silvia S15) and replaced the stock CD player with something that knew what a MP3 file was. My number 1 priority was making sure I could change the volume, track and folder without looking at the head unit.
>and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.
Maybe not for you, but idiots that will not be able to do so safely won't understand that fact, because they're idiots. Adding distractions in cars puts us all at risk.
This.
Idiots are too busy fiddling with something or another in a car, then look up and realise they've shoved themselves right up the trumpet of the person in front of them. Then they slam on the brakes causing a huge traffic wave behind them.
Controls should be intuitive and in a car, easy to use when not looking at them. I expect to be able to adjust the volume or change songs on my car's stereo without looking at them because I expect to be doing this at 110 KPH and at 110 KPH, I need to be focusing on the road and my mirrors, not looking for a button or playing with a touchscreen.
No, the Australians bought into (and bought) the F-35 under previous governments. The announcement from Abbot was that they were going to buy MORE F-35s.
The original process goes all the way back to the Howard govt prior to 2006.
But this is not really a political decision. It's been pushed by the military and both Liberal and Labor politicians have just rubber stamped it.
Only recently in Australia did the government suggest that it was going to purchase the F-35 as well. This all became clear in the same budget that suggested raising the pension age to 70 and an increase in taxes, and prompted much outrage.
Despite the flaws in the F-35, this purchase seems to be more of a five-eyes strategic thing, than it is any burning need to buy these planes.
Yes, but the increase in taxes and the pension age was to pay for Abbott's parental leave system and tax cut to his corporate friends.
The F35 purchase isn't a bad thing considering the way we use our military. Small policing actions in the Pacific. We dont expect to have to face anything stronger than the air force of Tonga and the possibility of operating the F35 off the new Canberra class assault ships.
If it comes to a real shooting war with someone who can fight back (I.E. China or India) then it will be up to the planes we build, not the planes we have... and those planes will likely be drones.
We already use robots (or drones if you will) to kill people. It doesn't take much AI to have a program target a group of people as enemies and eradicate them. Just look at the AI of current video games.
So as long as we dont walk directly in front of them we should be fine.
Nonsense, Thailand has those laws only because the King is so popular the "populist" politicians refuse to remove them, and so do the elitists, even though the King has stated in clear and simple language that he believes people should be allowed to criticize him, or anyone, openly.
This,
The King of Thailand has as much real political power as the Queen of England. He's openly requested the removal of the Leste Majesty laws in Thailand but the politicians have refused because they're such a useful cudgel to use against their political enemies. Political corruption is rife in Thailand, but the monarch can do nothing about it.
Also, the king grants royal pardons to people convicted of Leste Majesty. Kind of ironic, he cant get rid of the law but can pardon anyone convicted of it.
"Mercedes says it's not design for increasing cornering speeds, but increasing pleasure for the driver and passengers."
Of course if it not literally going to make the car faster, but if you reduce the drag on the driver, the end result will be faster turns.
It will likely have the opposite effect. Increasing body roll in corners will make drivers think they're cornering faster than they really are, so most will go slower as not to increase the effect.
Mercedes is really going backwards on this. Cars designed for cornering are designed to corner as flat as possible, sports cars and super cars are designed to reduce body roll as much as possible so they can actually get around a corner fast.
SUVs have been leaning over while turning for decades!
FTFY
FTFTFY.
I was behind a Mercedes ML doing a wide turn this morning and you could see the body roll on it. The Toyota Corolla on the inside lane had no such difficulties despite having a tighter turn.
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is my favorite airport, and this news just made it even better.
You need to travel to Singapore.
Singapore Changi is consistently rated as the best airport in the world for very good reasons and something that is pretty odd, it's fairly cheap for an airport. Changi has had free wifi for some time now.
The biggest problem with Changi is the taxi times, due to the way the airport was built, the gates are often not near the runway.
It's authoritarian fucks like you that are destroying this world. Outdoor smoking bans,
And it's people like you who are actually forcing these laws.
You're trying to turn it into a "us vs them" issue and when you think this is a good idea you will find there are always more of "them" than "us", you alienate people who sit on the fence and this forces them to the join the "them" crowd.
This is how outdoor smoking bans came about in Australia, non-smokers (who are in the majority) wanted smokers to move away from doors and windows when smoking, it was a simple request and smokers could have complied out of courtesy... but did they?
Fuck no. They started banging on about "their rights" and calling everyone who opposed them "authoritarian fucks". They tried to force the issue and lost. Ultimately, its the inconsiderate "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" attitude of smokers that gets bad smoking laws passed. If they were capable of being the least bit considerate, we would have no reason to put it into law because in the end, all anti-smoking laws are is being considerate to others. Non-smokers have the right not to have the smell and taste of smoke shoved in their faces, however smokers aren't willing to not do this of their own accord, so when push comes to shove, they are the ones who lose.
I'm one of the people who were sitting on the fence until I read this, its posts like yours that make me think that these so called "authoritarian fucks" are right, you dont seem to have any point beyond name calling and that strikes me as arrogance and ignorance in the extreme.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be pointed out the US has some fantastic roads for drivers. Around Big Sur on Highway 1 in California, hairpins and corners galore. I hired a Mustang and regretted it, not only is it terrible at cornering, the back end is terrible at not sliding out. I drive a Nissan Silvia S15, a car designed for drifting in the 90's and you can keep the back end in line a lot easier. To go back down Highway 1 I'd pick a car that had some decent cornering abilities because there are some fantastic corners to throw it round... If you dont get stuck behind a mum-tank (SUV).
What about off-solid-ground applications, where they are already used? I have an actual use case in mind for a hover vehicle similar to a DUKW, where it could go into hovercraft mode over water that is too shallow to use conventional craft mode, but with a bottom too shallow to use the tires.
The problem is, hovercraft aren't very practical and are very difficult to control. It's much easier to make a vehicle into a part time boat than it is to make it into a part time hovercraft and much more practical.
Top Gear proved this, their Hovervan had trouble making it up the Themes, their Toyboata on the other hand made it from Dover to Calais in an afternoon.
I'm not sure why a person would want a hovercraft for general use. It's way more efficient to just have car that rolls on wheels. Lifting the entire car off the ground with a cushion of air is terribly inefficient. Not that there aren't any uses at all, but as a general purpose vehicle on public roadways, it seems like a terrible idea.
As Top Gear proved many years ago with their hovervan, they aren't terribly practical, are very difficult to drive and somewhat prone to sinking when driven by Jeremy.
I just use a 360 controller for it.
Why don't I just play with razor blades instead.
If I wanted to be a console pleb, I wouldn't have a gaming PC.
A bad control scheme for a KB and mouse is still better than a console controller.
Fortunately, not legally enforceable.
Dual pricing is permitted by law in Australia precisely because it is illegal for a third party to force a hidden cost onto a business. For a moment, consider the people you are defending here, they are forcing extra costs on merchats, which results in higher prices and you're defending them.
Lots of businesses do a cash discount. The only way you dont know about this is because you dont do cash transactions... your loss.
And what does the merchant do when they take a loss?
Put prices up to compensate.
You still end up paying. It's just obfuscated.
Putting everything on the card is plain stupid, from both a financial and security standpoint.
You're assuming the bank wont contest it, or charge you for the services. Also, the bank is not obliged to return interchange fees.
With NFC on your card, a thief can take your card details without you even getting it out of your pocket because by design, the protocol will give out your name, expiry date and card no. to anything that asks for it. This can be done with off the shelf hardware. A thug doesn't even have to rob you, to rob you. In the end, cards cost more than risk with cash (which is negligible, lower if you consider the huge security flaw in NFC).
There is nothing wrong with GTA IV. People didnt understand how to tweak it and failed to realize the hardware needed to run it. Like Crysis, in the long run im glad they went the route they did, as we enjoyed the game much longer than we would have otherwise.
My gaming rig has no problems with running GTA IV... the controls are the problem, they didn't bother writing them for PC input (KB and Mouse) so the game plays like shit, it doesn't run like shit. BTW, does anyone know of a mod that fixes this.
Minimize the number of places you expose your CC numbers. Pay cash where feasible. Use debit cards ONLY at bank terminals. Be especially careful at restaurants and gas stations.
Or, if your in good standing with your bank, don't worry about it. The banks are good about fraudulent charges in the civilized world.
This really has to be one of the most naive things I've heard in a long time.
Sadly I hear it quite often.
"The bank will look after me, the bank's got my back".
Why do you think the bank wont drop you like a hot brick if you become too much of a liability? Why do you think the bank actually works for you and not the shareholders?
I'm not a paranoid nutcase, I'm happy to use the services of a bank but I also know that they will try to screw me over as much as possible. That's their business, to make money.., from me... I cant hate them for being a profit oriented business, but I can ensure it costs me as little as possible. So no, the bank is not my friend, it has not got my back and it not to be trusted.
Is it a real issue or a theoretical issue? I've seen a few fraudulent charges over the years, and the bank has never given me any greif over any of them.
Not really, the average loss from credit card fraud is $500, it costs Australia $2 billion annually. Eventually this costs comes back to you.
Your solution of carrying cash exposes you to higher risk of direct loss or theft. And you lose the card rewards program.
LoL @ rewards program.
Seriously, carrying cash does not increase your theft profile, with the addition of contactless payments that do not require a form of authentication, plastic is now as at risk as cash. Yep, sure you can tell me "but the bank will cover me" but all you're really saying is "I'm naive like a child". The bank only covers its self.
Seriously, rewards programs are traps. Compared to the costs of using credit cards (most of them hidden like interchange fees and merchant service fees) cash is cheaper. The average rewards program returns $45 per year. I save that more than that per fortnight by using cash. This year alone I've saved $1200 from direct savings from not using credit.
Banks do not do anything for free, follow the money to find out who's paying for it (if you're smart, you'll just find a mirror and have done with).
Seems you've traded one set of small risks for another. Not sure that amounts to a real overall improvement though.
Actually, I've traded a set of costs for a set of savings.
In fact, given the number of high profile breaches in recent days it seems carrying cash is safer. You can expect more breaches as criminals figure out ways to colelct your card information from NFC without you even taking your card out of your wallet.
That being said, I have to admire the banks in for their Machiavellian brilliance. They addict people like you to using credit cards then charge the merchants for accepting them, forcing the merchant to be the bad guy and raise his prices to pay for them, meanwhile the bank is laughing all the way to the bank. Not to mention the way they've gamified the rewards programs. They've made collecting points more important to people than getting a good deal. In order to get a $50 toaster, people will forego $1000 in savings.
A 1950's TV would cost ~$495 in 1950 dollars, which is ~$5,000 in 2014 dollars. It would be 21", low resolution, not capable of HD, use a ton of electricity, and eventually the phosphors would give out causing it to have wierd colors. In 2014 you can get a 52" TV for $600.
Hows that for "hidden inflation"?
This.
People forget that in the 50's everyone had fewer toys. It's quite possible to have a house on a single income like in the 50's... but you have to go the whole hog and completely 50-ise your life.
Thats one car, used sparingly.
No toys like Ipads.
1 modest TV and 1 modest computer for the whole family.
No central air conditioning or heating.
No mobile phone, only a landline which is used sparingly.
No dishwasher, you do it by hand.
An automatic washing machine is a luxury and forget the dryer.
No personal loans or credit cards, you save for what you want and pay cash.
You're lucky I'm not using 50's Australia, which is no TV, no computer and likely, no phone either.
When comparing now to nineteen-dickety-two they always forget that we have more toys now days.
However one of the biggest costs that we have now days that we didn't have in the 50's is our reliance on credit. When someone loans their money out, they expect to get it all back plus some. Most people dont get this when they put everything on credit. Interest, Interchange fees and Merchant Service Fees are giant black holes which swallow money whenever something is bought on credit.
OR
The Police are the civil servant equivalent of the 40ish divorced guy driving a Corvette.
Happy?
I don't think I've seen too many other animals that would do that.
Cats, dogs, birds.
Pretty much most of the "pet" section of animals will do that.
Wild seagulls will avoid other less palatable forms of food if they know humans have more palatable food... This is why you never feed the seagulls (same with feeding the bears, it invites them back).
Based on actual experience and not a guess... The corolla driver would had a much tighter turning circle and it would have been more effortless than the SUV that costs 5 times as much.
If you sat in a showroom for 10 hours strait (sic) you're doing it wrong. Decide ahead of time what you want and how much you'll pay. Make an offer, if they don't like it - get up and walk away.
This.
Show me the car or I'll walk.
This is one of the many reasons I think buying 2nd hand is better. Every moment the dealer wastes fucking me about is a dollar they lose by keeping the car.
My current car radio has awesome buttons that you don't have to look at once you know which set is scan vs step..
This, I recently bought a 2002 Nissan 200sx (Silvia S15) and replaced the stock CD player with something that knew what a MP3 file was. My number 1 priority was making sure I could change the volume, track and folder without looking at the head unit.
>and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.
Maybe not for you, but idiots that will not be able to do so safely won't understand that fact, because they're idiots. Adding distractions in cars puts us all at risk.
This.
Idiots are too busy fiddling with something or another in a car, then look up and realise they've shoved themselves right up the trumpet of the person in front of them. Then they slam on the brakes causing a huge traffic wave behind them.
Controls should be intuitive and in a car, easy to use when not looking at them. I expect to be able to adjust the volume or change songs on my car's stereo without looking at them because I expect to be doing this at 110 KPH and at 110 KPH, I need to be focusing on the road and my mirrors, not looking for a button or playing with a touchscreen.
No, the Australians bought into (and bought) the F-35 under previous governments. The announcement from Abbot was that they were going to buy MORE F-35s.
The original process goes all the way back to the Howard govt prior to 2006.
But this is not really a political decision. It's been pushed by the military and both Liberal and Labor politicians have just rubber stamped it.
Only recently in Australia did the government suggest that it was going to purchase the F-35 as well. This all became clear in the same budget that suggested raising the pension age to 70 and an increase in taxes, and prompted much outrage.
Despite the flaws in the F-35, this purchase seems to be more of a five-eyes strategic thing, than it is any burning need to buy these planes.
Yes, but the increase in taxes and the pension age was to pay for Abbott's parental leave system and tax cut to his corporate friends.
The F35 purchase isn't a bad thing considering the way we use our military. Small policing actions in the Pacific. We dont expect to have to face anything stronger than the air force of Tonga and the possibility of operating the F35 off the new Canberra class assault ships.
If it comes to a real shooting war with someone who can fight back (I.E. China or India) then it will be up to the planes we build, not the planes we have... and those planes will likely be drones.
We already use robots (or drones if you will) to kill people. It doesn't take much AI to have a program target a group of people as enemies and eradicate them. Just look at the AI of current video games.
So as long as we dont walk directly in front of them we should be fine.
will solve this problem. There is a reason brutal monarchies never exists in a society where its citizens are armed.
Thailand will be a great business opportunity to Smith & Wesson.
LoL.
Go look up where Thailand is for fatal shootings per capita.
Then go look at how corrupt the political system in Thailand is.
Then realise how wrong you are.
The reason why the coup hasn't had much effect in about anything except 10-20% drop in tourism is quite simple:
Because they have a coup every few years so they have practice in making it run smoothly?
Spoken like a person who has never been to Thailand.
Thai's dont run anything smoothly. You cant even get prompt service in restaurants, things happen in their own time there.
Nonsense, Thailand has those laws only because the King is so popular the "populist" politicians refuse to remove them, and so do the elitists, even though the King has stated in clear and simple language that he believes people should be allowed to criticize him, or anyone, openly.
This, The King of Thailand has as much real political power as the Queen of England. He's openly requested the removal of the Leste Majesty laws in Thailand but the politicians have refused because they're such a useful cudgel to use against their political enemies. Political corruption is rife in Thailand, but the monarch can do nothing about it. Also, the king grants royal pardons to people convicted of Leste Majesty. Kind of ironic, he cant get rid of the law but can pardon anyone convicted of it.
"Mercedes says it's not design for increasing cornering speeds, but increasing pleasure for the driver and passengers."
Of course if it not literally going to make the car faster, but if you reduce the drag on the driver, the end result will be faster turns.
It will likely have the opposite effect. Increasing body roll in corners will make drivers think they're cornering faster than they really are, so most will go slower as not to increase the effect.
Mercedes is really going backwards on this. Cars designed for cornering are designed to corner as flat as possible, sports cars and super cars are designed to reduce body roll as much as possible so they can actually get around a corner fast.
SUVs have been leaning over while turning for decades!
FTFY
FTFTFY.
I was behind a Mercedes ML doing a wide turn this morning and you could see the body roll on it. The Toyota Corolla on the inside lane had no such difficulties despite having a tighter turn.
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is my favorite airport, and this news just made it even better.
You need to travel to Singapore.
Singapore Changi is consistently rated as the best airport in the world for very good reasons and something that is pretty odd, it's fairly cheap for an airport. Changi has had free wifi for some time now. The biggest problem with Changi is the taxi times, due to the way the airport was built, the gates are often not near the runway.
And it's people like you who are actually forcing these laws.
You're trying to turn it into a "us vs them" issue and when you think this is a good idea you will find there are always more of "them" than "us", you alienate people who sit on the fence and this forces them to the join the "them" crowd.
This is how outdoor smoking bans came about in Australia, non-smokers (who are in the majority) wanted smokers to move away from doors and windows when smoking, it was a simple request and smokers could have complied out of courtesy... but did they?
Fuck no. They started banging on about "their rights" and calling everyone who opposed them "authoritarian fucks". They tried to force the issue and lost. Ultimately, its the inconsiderate "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" attitude of smokers that gets bad smoking laws passed. If they were capable of being the least bit considerate, we would have no reason to put it into law because in the end, all anti-smoking laws are is being considerate to others. Non-smokers have the right not to have the smell and taste of smoke shoved in their faces, however smokers aren't willing to not do this of their own accord, so when push comes to shove, they are the ones who lose.
I'm one of the people who were sitting on the fence until I read this, its posts like yours that make me think that these so called "authoritarian fucks" are right, you dont seem to have any point beyond name calling and that strikes me as arrogance and ignorance in the extreme.