If enough people contest their tickets, they might just create a DDoS on the system that causes it to be more expensive for the system than it's worth.
We've known how to deal with DDoS's for some time.
The system simply adds a fine (or worse) on for wrongfully contesting. Remember that all costs get covered by the taxpayer or the fine payer. They aren't a business and can just issue their own fines to cover costs.
Personally I feel that people who are willing to contest traffic convictions should put their own car on the line. If you're guilty and lose, your car gets auctioned off. If you're innocent you are let off, oh and you might as well hang around a bit to see if you can get a cheap car.
Also remember that this is pretty much the same tactic the MPAA/RIAA uses. Spam the system, hope that it caves and get a blank cheque to do what you want.
Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.
Don't worry, we've already established he has no idea what he's doing behind the wheel.
Unfortunately that makes him amongst the majority of drivers in our respective nations.
(I recently worked for years in the highway safety sector, and one of my colleagues, a former cop, did a research paper on this subject. He started the research with a high opinion of red light cameras, but found that red light cameras had no significant effect on fatalities while significantly increasing non-fatal collisions.)
I'll ask you since I'd like to know: I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?
Not really.
It's been well proven that most drivers dont take any notice of signs that have changed, added or removed. So adding a timer bar wont do a damned thing because people aren't disciplined or observant enough. This is why they haven't been implemented.
Also I've driven in nations that have countdown timers (in seconds) and you get people running red's at 10 seconds to green when there is traffic. These countries have terrible driver fatality rates due to poor driver discipline.
the people with the power do absolutely none of the work
But on a more serious note, I work above a warehouse for an import company. The owner is a multi-millionaire Chinese ex-pat. It's pretty damn sobering to see him weeding, sweeping and driving a forklift when he has time. He doesn't have to, and he's not doing it to motivate his staff. For him, it's just the right thing to do.
What you're seeing here is the difference between a "boss" and a "leader".
A leader will get things done, even if it means he has to do some dirty work. A boss makes excuses why others didn't get things done.
In a more rational world, we'd try to find ways to get low crime rates without spending too much. Imprisoning people is expensive. Other countries seem to get low crime rates while imprisoning many fewer people.
Yes, other nations recognise that rehabilitation is better than just punishment.
Also locking up potheads help no-one. Potheads are the least disruptive of all drug users and most tend to hold jobs (maybe not glamorous jobs, but jobs never the less).
Here's the real problem though: The Internet is sovereign
The internet is a concept. Not anything physical. The copper and glass is physical. The corporations, organisations and individuals connected to it are physical but the internet itself is an idea.
But the rest of your post is a bit out of context considering the title of the summary is erroneous, the judge did not order the removal of the video from "the internets", he's ordered internet companies (I.E. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) to remove the video. Which they'll have to comply to or stop using Ireland as a tax haven. The judge most certainly has jurisdiction over companies operating in Ireland.
Google and them do a lot of business through Ireland, it might not be so easy for them to just ignore an order from an Irish judge.
With the way the Irish economy is going, the judge could probably be bought off with a bottle of whiskey.
But something tells me Google would comply with this request regardless and remove this video from youtube. The Video erroneously identified the miscreant as the defendant.
At the time it came out, Mass Effect 1 was groundbreaking for a console title.
Highlighting the operative part of that sentence.
For PC players the graphics were like being back in 2000 and we've had story games like that since the 90's. The graphics on ME1 committed a cardinal sin, tried to kill the player with bloom.
But credit where credit is due, it had a good story in an industry where there is a serious dearth of good writing. But this is to be expected from the company that made the KOTOR games (RIP Bioware).
I'm just glad they did something about the unskipable cut scenes in Mass Effect 2 on the PC. I understand why they wouldn't bother on consoles as by the time the cut scene has finished the console hasn't even finished loading. ME3's ending was not as bad as all the ME fanboys whinged about. It did something so few gaming series did, bought closure.
> My qualm with cloning is that it involves wiping the genetic from the egg (thus destroying that potential individual) and populating it with the desired genetic code.
Your qualm is that the genetic material from an egg is destroyed?
But doesn't this happen every month in a woman who isn't pregnant?
When Hynix et al. got done for RAM price fixing you didn't defend them. When Samsung got done for LCD price fixing, I'll bet you didn't defend them.
Price fixing is anti competitive and illegal. It's illegal because it harms consumers and producers.
Tim Cook should go to jail? For making sure no-one else was allowed to sell books for less than he did?
Fixed that for you.
It sounds quite a bit more serious when you say what is actually going on.
Whilst jail is a bit of an over-reaction (not nearly as bad as you "B-B-B-But Apple is god and can do no wrong" knee jerk response) this does need to be punished. Severely and harshly and this needs to be more than just a slap on the wrist fine.
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
Actually, such conspiracies involve a surprisingly small number of people. 1 from each company and maybe their aide.
A large number of people may be involved in the activity, but not the conspiracy so they wont know what is going on, sometimes even the companies CEO doesn't know whats going on.
But this is for traditional price fixing, Apple's been quite open about setting a minimum price for e-books for some time. You may remember a few years back they threatened publishers with banishment if they sold their e-books on other providers for less than what Apple allowed them to sell them for through Apple's distribution channel.
Australian's tend to drive longer distances (due to the wider dispersion of our population). Americans often dont believe me when we say there's more than 100 KM to the next petrol station on a major highway (The next town is about 300 KM away).
1. Offering a blood test doesn't alter the odds they will attempt to contest it in court.
Yes it does as a secondary effect.
This eliminates the "breathalysers can be inaccurate" excuse. Ensuring that people who were actually DUI lose and those who are false positives dont actually go to court. (I.E. if you blow 0.06 here in Oz, you can opt for the blood test and hope that your BAC reduces below 0.05 before the test is taken, but if you blow 0.06 an Aussie cop would just tell you to sit down for half an hour and test you again if your BAC reduces he lets you go as long as you pass the personality test). People who dont have to contest a DUI offence due to a false positive dont need to go to court and the costs of going to court when there is no doubt of your guilt is a huge disincentive.
2. Increasing 'fines and suspensions' doesn't cut it. Already you have the problem where we end up tossing convicts in jail because they can't pay their fines,
Once again, Australia has already solved this problem. If you cant pay your fines in Australia, a sheriff starts repossessing your property (starting with your car). As for people who drive on a suspended license, they risk years in jail here in Australia.
Staying out of jail is a huge motivator for people, much more than you think. You'd be surprised how many offenders are white collar.
You think the lawyer to contest your DUI is free?
Hence this is a disincentive to contesting a DUI when you know you're guilty.
This is why blood tests will reduce the number of people going to court.
3. Same problem as #2.
As above.
Stop locking up pot heads and concentrate on removing actual dangers from society.
For reference, Victoria introduced a 0.05 limit in 1966, NSW in 1980 and Qld in 1985. I'm not sure about the other states, but the only one I can imagine holding out until the '90s would have to be the NT.
Western Australia was 1991.
NT (Northern Territory for the uninitiated) still has a massive problem with drink driving which is dragging up the national road toll.
It's interesting to hear older folks talk about drink driving in their youth, however. My father (now in his late 60s) worked in insurance and used to do a lot of driving in western Queensland. His habit after finishing his rural appointments was to buy a carton of beer and start the 2-3 hour drive home - he reckons most times he'd be 1/2 to 2/3 through it by the time he rolled into the driveway.
Of course, the roads were a lot emptier back then as well, which probably saved a lot of lives.
Yep, roads definitely would have been a lot emptier, still 2-3 hours would have been a bit of a drive. I think a lot of people exercised more common sense back then and driven slower than the limit when conditions required it. Back then idiots got killed in car accidents.
They aren't banned, they are restricted. I used to have guns. I sold them when I moved into the city because I simply didn't need them (and needed the money). I used to have a pistol and rifle permit.
Like most information about guns disseminated in the US, this is a complete fabrication.
What happens if you run into a rabid sheep in the outback?
Never, under any circumstances admit you're a Kiwi.
Ever.
Seriously, most things that kill you in Oz are small and poisonous (snakes, spiders and stonefish) or live in water (sharks and crocodiles). So guns are pretty damn useless.
I'll bite. Why would they have declined at all in the absence of a ban?
Again, this is a fabrication. The source is the Daily show, not a peer reviewed publication.
I'm reminded of the recent stories on The Daily Show about the more restrictive gun laws in Australia. Yeah, deaths are down, but freedom!
Hate to break it to you, we have just as many freedoms, if not more than the US.
The only "freedom" the restrictive gun laws took away was the freedom of people to go on mass shootings. To be frank, I'm glad to give that one up.
All those firearms and drunk drivers are just thinning the herd.
Except they're making the herd slower, not faster.
A lot of people killed in DUI accidents are not drink drivers. Passengers and other road users represent a significant portion of the deaths attributed to DUI. Often a drunk driver survives.
Look this is not ideal for folks who want to go out and have a large drink with dinner. But on Mythbusters, they've done a number of driving myths at.07999% BAC, and the results are pretty dramatic. You are definitely impaired at.08%.
The thing about drinking is that you dont feel impaired. Even if you have trouble standing up, you still feel invincible. Despite this, you are impaired. Judgement, reaction speed and balance are very much affected by drinking.
With drinking and driving, you have to learn to manage your drinks. In Australia 0.05 is the limit, 0.05-0.08 attracts a fine and demerit points, above 0.08 and it's time to go to court and possibly lose your license (depends on what the BAC was, any previous convictions and how the judge feels. You might walk away with a fine.
But back to what I said about feeling bulletproof whilst your drunk. Drunk people are terrible judges, not just of their own ability to drive but of attractiveness, martial prowess, humour and a bunch of other traits... Lets just say drunk people are poor judges of just about everything but most of all their ability to drive. Because of this, taking a hard line against drink driving is a good thing.
I'm sure there's a crapload of scientific evidence to back up these empirical observations. But if you haven't noticed the same thing you've either not been to enough parties or get way too drunk too early.
Diminishing returns for increased cost. Arresting people who are drunk and swerving around the road is good: that increases safety at a fair tradeoff of tax money and personal freedom. Arresting people who have had a beer at dinner and whose driving skills have only marginally decreased is bad: that would likely increase safety very little (though studies would be needed to be sure one way or the other) at a huge increase in cost of enforcement and a huge loss of personal freedom.
A single beer will not put you over 0.05 unless you have a terrible tolerance for alcohol.
The rule is, 2 standard drinks in 1 hour will put you at 0.05. After that 1 standard drink per hour will keep you there.
This is for Australian's who drink full strength beer (ABV 5%), that goat urine the US markets as beer is less than 1 standard drink. 1 standard drink is 1 x 30 ml shot of 40% ABV spirit.
Of course this is a guide (for males... we all know there aren't any girls on/.) but it varies from person to person depending on weight, metabolism and from time to time depending on levels of fatiuge, health etc...
that would likely increase safety very little (though studies would be needed to be sure one way or the other) at a huge increase in cost of enforcement and a huge loss of personal freedom.
Actually, studies have show it will increase safety a lot. With a lot of evidence from Europe and Australia that reducing the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 was effective at reducing deaths from DUI. The US has 12.7 fatalities per 100,000 pop (15 per 100,000 vehicles) which is double that of most western nations. At 0.08 you are 5 times more likely to have an accident than at 0.05.
Also, you have a very strange idea of freedom. The ability to endanger other people's lives is sacrosanct and must be protected? This I do not understand. What about the rights of other road users not to be put in undue danger?
Slashdot Mirror
We've known how to deal with DDoS's for some time.
The system simply adds a fine (or worse) on for wrongfully contesting. Remember that all costs get covered by the taxpayer or the fine payer. They aren't a business and can just issue their own fines to cover costs.
Personally I feel that people who are willing to contest traffic convictions should put their own car on the line. If you're guilty and lose, your car gets auctioned off. If you're innocent you are let off, oh and you might as well hang around a bit to see if you can get a cheap car.
Also remember that this is pretty much the same tactic the MPAA/RIAA uses. Spam the system, hope that it caves and get a blank cheque to do what you want.
"All speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions."
Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.
Don't worry, we've already established he has no idea what he's doing behind the wheel. Unfortunately that makes him amongst the majority of drivers in our respective nations.
(I recently worked for years in the highway safety sector, and one of my colleagues, a former cop, did a research paper on this subject. He started the research with a high opinion of red light cameras, but found that red light cameras had no significant effect on fatalities while significantly increasing non-fatal collisions.)
I'll ask you since I'd like to know: I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?
Not really.
It's been well proven that most drivers dont take any notice of signs that have changed, added or removed. So adding a timer bar wont do a damned thing because people aren't disciplined or observant enough. This is why they haven't been implemented.
Also I've driven in nations that have countdown timers (in seconds) and you get people running red's at 10 seconds to green when there is traffic. These countries have terrible driver fatality rates due to poor driver discipline.
The problem with that is in a lot of cases if you follow at a safe distance, somone will merge into your lane in between you.
This isn't a problem with the procedure, it's a problem with driver training and lack of enforcement.
The problem with improving enforcement is that people write it off as "revenue raising" and refuse to admit they did something wrong.
The economy functions fine with workers and companies right? Why wouldn't it function with robotic workers and companies?
Uh... because robots don't buy stuff?
Erm. The printer at work already orders it's own toner.
The day when humans dont need to work to subsist is the day that socialism and capitalism crumble into a heap.
Both systems have no application in a world where you are free to pursue your own goals, without having to think about how food is put on the table.
Hmm, fembots. I suppose the Apple model will be prettier, but much more expensive?
The problem is, the Apple fembot will be male.
the people with the power do absolutely none of the work
But on a more serious note, I work above a warehouse for an import company. The owner is a multi-millionaire Chinese ex-pat. It's pretty damn sobering to see him weeding, sweeping and driving a forklift when he has time. He doesn't have to, and he's not doing it to motivate his staff. For him, it's just the right thing to do.
What you're seeing here is the difference between a "boss" and a "leader".
A leader will get things done, even if it means he has to do some dirty work. A boss makes excuses why others didn't get things done.
In a more rational world, we'd try to find ways to get low crime rates without spending too much. Imprisoning people is expensive. Other countries seem to get low crime rates while imprisoning many fewer people.
Yes, other nations recognise that rehabilitation is better than just punishment.
Also locking up potheads help no-one. Potheads are the least disruptive of all drug users and most tend to hold jobs (maybe not glamorous jobs, but jobs never the less).
Here the Streisand effect may actually be helpful. This case has highlighted that Eoin McKeogh was wrongly identified as a fare-jumper.
Here's the real problem though: The Internet is sovereign
The internet is a concept. Not anything physical. The copper and glass is physical. The corporations, organisations and individuals connected to it are physical but the internet itself is an idea.
/. rule and RTFA'd
But the rest of your post is a bit out of context considering the title of the summary is erroneous, the judge did not order the removal of the video from "the internets", he's ordered internet companies (I.E. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) to remove the video. Which they'll have to comply to or stop using Ireland as a tax haven. The judge most certainly has jurisdiction over companies operating in Ireland.
Yes, I broke the cardinal
Google and them do a lot of business through Ireland, it might not be so easy for them to just ignore an order from an Irish judge.
With the way the Irish economy is going, the judge could probably be bought off with a bottle of whiskey.
But something tells me Google would comply with this request regardless and remove this video from youtube. The Video erroneously identified the miscreant as the defendant.
At the time it came out, Mass Effect 1 was groundbreaking for a console title.
Highlighting the operative part of that sentence.
For PC players the graphics were like being back in 2000 and we've had story games like that since the 90's. The graphics on ME1 committed a cardinal sin, tried to kill the player with bloom.
But credit where credit is due, it had a good story in an industry where there is a serious dearth of good writing. But this is to be expected from the company that made the KOTOR games (RIP Bioware).
I'm just glad they did something about the unskipable cut scenes in Mass Effect 2 on the PC. I understand why they wouldn't bother on consoles as by the time the cut scene has finished the console hasn't even finished loading. ME3's ending was not as bad as all the ME fanboys whinged about. It did something so few gaming series did, bought closure.
> My qualm with cloning is that it involves wiping the genetic from the egg (thus destroying that potential individual) and populating it with the desired genetic code.
Your qualm is that the genetic material from an egg is destroyed?
But doesn't this happen every month in a woman who isn't pregnant?
He may also be a misogynist for all you know.
What behavior?
Price fixing.
When Hynix et al. got done for RAM price fixing you didn't defend them. When Samsung got done for LCD price fixing, I'll bet you didn't defend them.
Price fixing is anti competitive and illegal. It's illegal because it harms consumers and producers.
Tim Cook should go to jail? For making sure no-one else was allowed to sell books for less than he did?
Fixed that for you.
It sounds quite a bit more serious when you say what is actually going on.
Whilst jail is a bit of an over-reaction (not nearly as bad as you "B-B-B-But Apple is god and can do no wrong" knee jerk response) this does need to be punished. Severely and harshly and this needs to be more than just a slap on the wrist fine.
The bottom line is non-apple customers are being hurt by this, including children.
Seriously, how can you say something like this with a straight face? That's straight-up trolling.
Can you, with a straight face tell me that Apple's competitors have no customers under the age of 18?
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
Actually, such conspiracies involve a surprisingly small number of people. 1 from each company and maybe their aide.
A large number of people may be involved in the activity, but not the conspiracy so they wont know what is going on, sometimes even the companies CEO doesn't know whats going on.
But this is for traditional price fixing, Apple's been quite open about setting a minimum price for e-books for some time. You may remember a few years back they threatened publishers with banishment if they sold their e-books on other providers for less than what Apple allowed them to sell them for through Apple's distribution channel.
but we drive a HECK of a lot more per person.
No, you dont.
Australian's tend to drive longer distances (due to the wider dispersion of our population). Americans often dont believe me when we say there's more than 100 KM to the next petrol station on a major highway (The next town is about 300 KM away).
1. Offering a blood test doesn't alter the odds they will attempt to contest it in court.
Yes it does as a secondary effect.
This eliminates the "breathalysers can be inaccurate" excuse. Ensuring that people who were actually DUI lose and those who are false positives dont actually go to court. (I.E. if you blow 0.06 here in Oz, you can opt for the blood test and hope that your BAC reduces below 0.05 before the test is taken, but if you blow 0.06 an Aussie cop would just tell you to sit down for half an hour and test you again if your BAC reduces he lets you go as long as you pass the personality test). People who dont have to contest a DUI offence due to a false positive dont need to go to court and the costs of going to court when there is no doubt of your guilt is a huge disincentive.
2. Increasing 'fines and suspensions' doesn't cut it. Already you have the problem where we end up tossing convicts in jail because they can't pay their fines,
Once again, Australia has already solved this problem. If you cant pay your fines in Australia, a sheriff starts repossessing your property (starting with your car). As for people who drive on a suspended license, they risk years in jail here in Australia.
Staying out of jail is a huge motivator for people, much more than you think. You'd be surprised how many offenders are white collar.
You think the lawyer to contest your DUI is free?
Hence this is a disincentive to contesting a DUI when you know you're guilty.
This is why blood tests will reduce the number of people going to court.
3. Same problem as #2.
As above.
Stop locking up pot heads and concentrate on removing actual dangers from society.
For reference, Victoria introduced a 0.05 limit in 1966, NSW in 1980 and Qld in 1985. I'm not sure about the other states, but the only one I can imagine holding out until the '90s would have to be the NT.
Western Australia was 1991.
NT (Northern Territory for the uninitiated) still has a massive problem with drink driving which is dragging up the national road toll.
It's interesting to hear older folks talk about drink driving in their youth, however. My father (now in his late 60s) worked in insurance and used to do a lot of driving in western Queensland. His habit after finishing his rural appointments was to buy a carton of beer and start the 2-3 hour drive home - he reckons most times he'd be 1/2 to 2/3 through it by the time he rolled into the driveway.
Of course, the roads were a lot emptier back then as well, which probably saved a lot of lives.
Yep, roads definitely would have been a lot emptier, still 2-3 hours would have been a bit of a drive. I think a lot of people exercised more common sense back then and driven slower than the limit when conditions required it. Back then idiots got killed in car accidents.
If by tailgaters you mean left-lane-dicks, then I'm right there with you.
No, by tailgaters, I mean tailgaters.
Australian here.
They aren't banned, they are restricted. I used to have guns. I sold them when I moved into the city because I simply didn't need them (and needed the money). I used to have a pistol and rifle permit.
Like most information about guns disseminated in the US, this is a complete fabrication.
Never, under any circumstances admit you're a Kiwi.
Ever.
Seriously, most things that kill you in Oz are small and poisonous (snakes, spiders and stonefish) or live in water (sharks and crocodiles). So guns are pretty damn useless.
Again, this is a fabrication. The source is the Daily show, not a peer reviewed publication.
Hate to break it to you, we have just as many freedoms, if not more than the US.
The only "freedom" the restrictive gun laws took away was the freedom of people to go on mass shootings. To be frank, I'm glad to give that one up.
Except they're making the herd slower, not faster. A lot of people killed in DUI accidents are not drink drivers. Passengers and other road users represent a significant portion of the deaths attributed to DUI. Often a drunk driver survives.
Look this is not ideal for folks who want to go out and have a large drink with dinner. But on Mythbusters, they've done a number of driving myths at .07999% BAC, and the results are pretty dramatic. You are definitely impaired at .08%.
The thing about drinking is that you dont feel impaired. Even if you have trouble standing up, you still feel invincible. Despite this, you are impaired. Judgement, reaction speed and balance are very much affected by drinking.
With drinking and driving, you have to learn to manage your drinks. In Australia 0.05 is the limit, 0.05-0.08 attracts a fine and demerit points, above 0.08 and it's time to go to court and possibly lose your license (depends on what the BAC was, any previous convictions and how the judge feels. You might walk away with a fine.
But back to what I said about feeling bulletproof whilst your drunk. Drunk people are terrible judges, not just of their own ability to drive but of attractiveness, martial prowess, humour and a bunch of other traits... Lets just say drunk people are poor judges of just about everything but most of all their ability to drive. Because of this, taking a hard line against drink driving is a good thing.
I'm sure there's a crapload of scientific evidence to back up these empirical observations. But if you haven't noticed the same thing you've either not been to enough parties or get way too drunk too early.
I'm the AC that wrote that. Drive over 0.08 all the time. I've never had a problem.
You're not statistically significant.
He is a statistic waiting to happen though.
Diminishing returns for increased cost. Arresting people who are drunk and swerving around the road is good: that increases safety at a fair tradeoff of tax money and personal freedom. Arresting people who have had a beer at dinner and whose driving skills have only marginally decreased is bad: that would likely increase safety very little (though studies would be needed to be sure one way or the other) at a huge increase in cost of enforcement and a huge loss of personal freedom.
A single beer will not put you over 0.05 unless you have a terrible tolerance for alcohol.
/.) but it varies from person to person depending on weight, metabolism and from time to time depending on levels of fatiuge, health etc...
The rule is, 2 standard drinks in 1 hour will put you at 0.05. After that 1 standard drink per hour will keep you there.
This is for Australian's who drink full strength beer (ABV 5%), that goat urine the US markets as beer is less than 1 standard drink. 1 standard drink is 1 x 30 ml shot of 40% ABV spirit.
Of course this is a guide (for males... we all know there aren't any girls on
that would likely increase safety very little (though studies would be needed to be sure one way or the other) at a huge increase in cost of enforcement and a huge loss of personal freedom.
Actually, studies have show it will increase safety a lot. With a lot of evidence from Europe and Australia that reducing the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 was effective at reducing deaths from DUI. The US has 12.7 fatalities per 100,000 pop (15 per 100,000 vehicles) which is double that of most western nations. At 0.08 you are 5 times more likely to have an accident than at 0.05.
Also, you have a very strange idea of freedom. The ability to endanger other people's lives is sacrosanct and must be protected? This I do not understand. What about the rights of other road users not to be put in undue danger?