I understand they were going to faze the dollar bill out but had to keep making them because we're weird. People kept, for some reason, collecting them as if they were rare treasures even though they were making a shit-ton of them. They were worried, as I understand, about there being a shortage of dollar units in circulation. Dollar bills don't actually last that long in the wild before they're returned to be destroyed. So it would have led to problems - at least that's what a documentary that I watched claimed. I've no idea if it is factual or not.
Don't mention Nethack. Or Zork. I'm not even sure if half the people who play Fallout actually played the first two. I stopped gaming around the time of my enjoyment of the Fallout 2 game. It was awesome. I've not really gamed since but I remember (and played) Rogue. Or, ahem... Rouge... *sighs* Yes, yes I played the French word for Red. I dunno what people do with their spare time but it doesn't appear to be learning new things or improving themselves. I'm glad I'm not a people.
Of course it does. That's because I'm better than you.
Actually, that wasn't my intent. It was mostly typed due to frustration and I probably should have skipped it. Thanks for pointing out how you perceived it. I'll make a mental note and try to avoid it in the future. I'm actually the kind of person who realizes he doesn't know everything and is willing to shut the hell up, listen, and accept that I'm wrong and learn something new. In fact, it kind of surprises some folks here when I do.
Again, thanks for pointing it out. That was certainly not my intention nor was I being arrogant (I don't think) or at least not intentionally. It's just that tomorrow some idiot claiming to represent the Libertarian party will, again, do something stupid and everyone will assume that this is true for all of them just like the left will assume the most outlandish person on the right is the norm and the right will assume the same thing but in a different direction. That and, well, loads of frustration... Loads of it...
No, I thought she was older. I thought she was in her early 70s. I'm 57. The lady friend is 18. It's a long story. I can't say that it is an uninteresting story but it is too long to type here. Anyhow, no, I thought Hillary was oder than that. I'd figured she was in her mid-70s by now.
Do you have a citation for that claim? A quick search doesn't seem to indicate that as being true. In fact, only a trivial amount appear to have been stopped at roadblocks. I don't see data confirming your other allegation either. Let's stick to the facts.
Actually, I don't think there's cause for you to be arrested by failing the portable test. I think there's cause for you to be DETAINED for a more accurate test (or a refusal or a blood draw depending on jurisdiction) which, if you fail said test, results in your being arrested. Prior to the test results showing a positive you're not arrested but are detained. There's a difference and it's important.
Well, to be fair then you should probably ask the person who did it and not the method that they used. If your father was killed with a steak knife would you be screaming about unsafe eating utensils? I understand your pain and this is NOT an advocacy of drunk driving. By no means should anyone drive while impaired beyond capacity to make reasoned and rapid responses. It should be illegal and, as near as I can tell, actually illegal.
Your issue should be with the person and not the method. I'm assuming the drove a car. Do you want to outlaw those? Your father was killed by an idiot, a drunken idiot, with an automobile and your loss is unfortunate and inexcusable. The person responsible for your father's death is where you should direct your ire.
You have never ridden with me while I was drunk. Roads are optional. In fact, they're not even preferred. I can almost, sort of, make a claim that it should be okay to drive drunk under those circumstances - where you're on your own property or have permission to use the property, for example, and where you're in no danger of harming anyone other than yourself.
Before you chime in with an ignorant reply (not your fault, mine for not typing it all over again) I'd suggest seeing my other posts in this thread. I am not, by any means, one to advocate driving drunk. However, I could see some exceptions being made and could almost reason a few viable answers but this isn't a place where we must be purely rational and we probably should err on the side of caution.
But, for the sake of argument - or more navel gazing really, I'm not sure we should outlaw driving drunk in the above circumstances. Maybe with a "I'm really drunk" button that limited the engine's HP output so they were limited to 5 MPH or something. Maybe letting them drive golf carts on their own property while drunk or something. Ya know... Entirely pointless and simply for the sake of presenting an idea where maybe it does actually encroach on some freedoms we want to preserve? I can't even drive my lawn tractor - to mow my own lawn - drunk or even with just a beer in the cup holder. I neither drink nor mow my own lawn but, you know, assuming I wanted to...
I think the law on public roads is fine but do we really need it to go so far as to restrict the rights of a person on their own property 'for their own safety?'
Thats's rhetorical. I'm not actually interested in your reply even if it agrees with me. It's just something for you to think about if you want to and only if you want to. 'Snot up to me to decide. Society has been pretty damned clear about this and, perhaps regrettably, I'm a bit partial to letting the commons be protected for certain things. Where I fall, in the above, is immaterial.
I used to drive drunk - a lot and for a very long time. I had not one single incident that harmed another nor was I ever arrested for it. I've already offered my sincere apologies even though I don't have to. I've since changed my ways and am forever grateful that I harmed nobody. It's a reasonable certainty that, even if allowed, I'd not be the one to drive drunk even on my property.
As I mentioned above, I drove drunk for forty years. Sorry. I am, indeed, sorry. I drove in blackout state - multiple times. I'm positive that I've driven more miles drunk than I've driven sober - I've only been sober for three years. Well, no... I've only been not drinking for three years. I've literally driven at least a million miles in my life - work was very stressful and it'd been my MOS while I was enlisted. I've even driven across various other countries besides my own. Again, I'm sorry.
This is not a defense - this is just a statement of fact. I have zero at fault accidents on my record - ever. I had one speeding ticket when I was still a teen. I have no moving violations, besides said ticket, ever - in my entire life. I'm 57. I started drinking at the age of 11 or so. I was drinking daily by the age of 13. I drank until I was 54. (Quitting sucked, don't quit.) I never got an OUI. I've been stopped more times than I can count - while drunk and driving. I've had zero issues that resulted in property harm or personal harm.
I was a functional drunk for many years - it was after I retired, about eight years ago, that I suddenly found myself unable to cope. I quit - it almost killed me, it turns out that DTs/withdrawals from alcohol are one of the few withdrawals that can kill you. I did not know that.
This is not an endorsement of drinking and driving. Luck? Quite probably. There's also a modicum of skill, practice, familiarity, and training. I've taken countless advanced driving courses including courses designed for security personnel. I've taken a number of racing courses and have driven on a track multiple times with and without traffic.
To be honest, I attribute it to luck more than anything. I've woken up, not knowing where I was or how I got there, asleep on someone's couch, battery dead from the lights being on, and the gasoline tank empty from having let the engine run all night. I once drove after consuming 2.5 liters (probably a little more) of vodka in a very short time - I spent three days in a coma while a friend hid me in his attic by the way - and don't even remember driving the 30 miles to get there.
I'm not sure what my point is - it sure as shit isn't an endorsement of drinking and driving. I guess it's more to refute the idea that people seem to have where they assume it's going to result in harm. It doesn't, not always. There's a good chance that it will and that is not an acceptable risk in a shared environment and I'm truly sorry for my actions even though they harmed nobody. I took needless risks with the lives of other people due to my own issues and selfishness. I accept any scorn heaped on me and offer no defense.
I just figure that there needs to be more information for a more complete picture. I'm sure my training and my alcoholism made me less likely to cause an accident or be unable to prevent an accident. I'm also sure that it was also a lot of just plain dumb luck. They say that God protects drunks and fools. I don't believe in god but it seems that sometimes the odds are on their side. I've had lots of times where I've simply been on the small end of statistics and am forever grateful for it.
You missed the glaring logic hole in the person's 'rebuttal' (frothing rant, really) above - I fixed it for you as did another poster though I don't think I'd seen their name before now. Anyhow, that's not the point of my reply.
I am in a fairly unique situation in life. I do know, on a personal level (and a professional level *grins*) a few police officers though I'd probably not call any of them 'friends.' They're certainly acquaintances and are welcome in my home. I harbor no ill will towards they nor they to I and I hope they'll do their duty in a professional manner if I need to be investigated, stopped, or arrested. I've no problem with that - I accept responsibility for my actions and am usually the type to avoid confronting them at all so it's not really an issue.
Anyhow, in my real world life, I know some police officers and am friendly enough with them to the point where we've discussed the idea of an unofficial quota. Each one has told me similar stories and I'm inclined to believe them. They do not, as it were, have official or unofficial quotas, such would be illegal or unethical. What they do have is 'performance metrics' and 'reviews.' I'm sure you're familiar with the concept and can see where this goes.
If most officers working in one area have an average amount of stops and arrests at certain dates and times then others are expected to have similar performance metrics. They actually frown on someone being above the average as much as they frown on someone being below the average and this is reflected in their reviews which go towards determining raises or promotions.
You can make of that what you will and draw all sorts of assumptions. They've all indicated that it's not really a big deal but that seems unlikely but I'm simply speculating at this point. None of them seemed overly concerned and I've had a number of them stop by - while on duty, and just shoot the shit for quite a while. I'd also point out that I'm typically at my house in Maine and the police there are much different than what you might be used to - they're actually pretty good. I've not always lived here and I've been all over the globe.
So, it's up to you to really make any presumptions from the above information, if you want. I can only share what I'm told but I've been told this by a number of police officers from various jurisdictions so I am assuming it is a common practice in modern police forces in the United States - I can't speak of elsewhere, not even Canada.
Heh... I should have scrolled down. You, my good person, are intelligent and wise. I'm glad I am not the only one who spotted the glaring hole in their "rebuttal." What's really odd is that the OP didn't spot the hole. I assume they were just too annoyed to actually bother refuting their attempted rebuttal but they may have skimmed over it and not noticed or may have just simply not been aware of some simple reasoning techniques.
Do they even have debate classes or critical thinking classes any more? Who the hell is teaching them?
Anyhow, I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I'm assuming others noticed but it was just us two who managed to take the time to point out their flawed reasoning in their ill-fated rebuttal attempt. The irony was thick - deliciously thick. Sadly, I'd made a positive comment concerning them up thread - though I did point out that they had some serious reasoning flaws in that comment as well.
Actually, you dumb fuck, they already established or made irrelevant the impaired judgment. You're beating a strawman and only that. Their question was where does the line belong. They didn't say that the drunk person got to establish this line. They asked where it was - they've already established there's a line and that on one side of it you're drunk - you dumb fuck.
So while you're busy feeling like you're able to make a rational argument you might want to step aside and let the adults talk. You completely, and totally, failed (or never took) critical thinking. I doubt you're a programmer or an engineer. I'm reasonably certain you're not a white collar worker at all. I'm also pretty sure you lack any meaningful skills beyond menial manual labor. Why? Those things require reasoning. They require comprehension. They require the application of logic, if you will.
If, by some horrific chance, you are involved in anything more complex than holding a sign to direct traffic (which may be beyond you) then, I hope, you're surrounded by capable people and nothing you do is able to impact others. I'd actually tried to make some sort of effort to defend you up-thread. But, now, you've just gone off the deep end.
Pathetic... Also, dumb fuck. The irony, oh the irony... *sighs* Why do you come here? That's rhetorical. It makes you feel special to associate with the intelligent people and feel like you fit in. We'll babysit you but you should make some effort to learn, okay? (That's not rhetorical - go ahead and reply.) Keep in mind that I've seen your other replies in this thread.
He did say that and he probably means it. He runs away when confronted with demonstrations where his logic is faulty. However... He's usually pretty rational and he's not an idiot, by any means. I've noted a number of good posts from him. On certain subjects, however, he gets a little zealous and then, even more oddly, accuses others of being statists and boot lickers and what not in other threads - I think he's probably in his 30s and just starting to reach that point where you realize (or maybe not realize but still go through it) that your outlook was different and changes as you age.
Hmm... They're not dumb but they're zealous - the two needn't be related though the latter implies a lack of honest and adequate reasoning skills. That's okay - it takes all types and sometimes being unreasoned is actually the best choice. We're not Vulcans. We're not reasoning machines - we're rationalizing machines. Sometimes empathy and doing the "right thing" isn't a matter of reason. After all, the rational thing to do would be letting things like the sick, elderly, hungry, and poor die. That's not a reasonable thing to do but it can be reasoned that it is the right thing to do. We need both types and neither should have a monopoly on power.
I suspect they're reaching that age where they're awfully confused. It's okay. Life is like that. Another one would be AmiMojo. They're not bad people. They just have empathy and that's not a bad thing. It leads to irrational thoughts and behaviors and that's just being a human. They'll grow, or not. Either way, they're not bad - just some subjects are concluded, for them, without reason. He's no different than the Tea Party/GOP person who thinks we should violate the civil liberties of Islamic peoples by default - because the ends justify the means to them. They often reason their way out of it or are sane in other ways - just some subjects are too close to them and they can't be unbiased.
That's okay. Welcome to Earth. I've been across the globe and we're the same no matter where I go - and most of us think we're better than others and have all the answers. To me, I guess, wisdom is when you realize that you don't know the answers and seek those who do. Most of us find that, in time. That too is true across the globe.
Not only does Florida have DRIVE-THRU LIQUEUR STORES but they have mother-fucking DRIVE-THRU MARGARITA/DAIQUIRI STANDS!
It is as awesome as you might expect. I've got a piece of property in Bay County - over in Panama City Beach. I own a chunk of beach and my house is actually across the road. I don't live there. I like Florida because it's amusing - not because I'd live there. It's awesome to visit.
The margarita stands or daiquiri stands are drive-thru or drive-up. There's one, it's grandfathered, where you drive up and they serve you right there in your car - you can walk up and drink outside at a stand-up counter (something about not being able to put in more seats - it's grandfathered in). Now, they can't serve you an 'open container' so you get a giant alcoholic drink, for dirt cheap, in a giant slurpy-type cup. The straw has had the paper removed except for the very top - it's stuck through the hole but the paper is still on it. All you need to do is pull it off.
Now, I gave up drinking a while back - I was too good at it. But I think they've changed the law. Now, I'm pretty sure, they still have the same damned holes (and the same peeled straw) and the actual entry hole in the cup's cover is covered by a barely attached piece of scotch tape. They don't push the tape down all the way because it's too hard to pull up.
The theory is, I guess, that you're supposed to drive up and then not drink your purchase until you get home. I don't think that happens, ever. If you go to the drive through liqueur stores and look, they've got concrete barriers - the round things, poured in a tube thing made of cardboard I think, and they're thick - for a reason. They're usually painted a very bright color and are obviously painted fairly often. However, each and every single one has markings on it from the many, many people who've run into it.
I've personally witnessed, I was inside, a person hit one of the concrete barriers with the center of his bumper - pretty close at least. He then backed up and managed to get it between the two. The clerk still sold him alcohol. I don't know what he hit but there was a loud crunch outside after the guy left - like seconds later. A few moments later he merrily went on his way into the traffic of Route 98 on the seedy side of the bridge.
Yes, yes it is real. I couldn't make this stuff up. I fucking love Florida. I'd never, in a million years, live there by choice. I absolutely love to spend a month or so there every year. They're mostly harmless... They've got a national forest... The trees are all planted in a row (I assume to harvest). It's flat. The speed limit is 75. The drunken rednecks go driving down the road (did I mention that they don't have to get their cars inspected?) in swamp buggies at absurd speeds. It is awesome! It's like a whole collection of distilled insanity. What's not to love? Oddly, they have one of the more tame Mardi Gras festivals.
I once pissed, drunkenly I might add, on the wheel of a cruiser while the cop was still in it - I didn't realize he was in it. In fact, I didn't notice him until he said something. He took me into an alley and we had a discussion but he didn't beat me up or anything. He just told me that if I didn't go home he was going to. He said he wasn't even going to arrest me if he caught me again - he was just going to, "Kick the ever living dog-shit out of you, boy!" (Probably with more drawl and less punctuation. This was the same officer's car that I'd decorated with beads earlier it seems. It was awesome! He was the one who told me it was a family friendly event. I must have missed that part. Ah... Great times... "What the hell are you doing to my car, boy?"
Anyhow, I don't actually have a point. I just figured I'd share a very limited sample of my experiences of Florida. It is like concentrated insanity. It's every bit as funny to visit as you might imagine. The one state has given me hours of silly memories. I can buy alcohol, from my car, and just peel back some tape and drink it but I go to
You are going to get shot or tazed. Warrant means due process is already completed - you don't argue with them, you comply or they enforce the warrant by force. There's no calling a lawyer. You then challenge validity of the warrant after the fact, if you want, but if they've got a warrant then - well here... Let's let Jerry explain it:
Sitting and staring out of the hotel window. Got a tip, they're gonna kick the door in again. I'd like to get some sleep before I travel. But if you've got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in.
Busted, down on Bourbon Street. Set up, just like a bowling pin. Knocked down, it gets to wearing thin. They just won't let you be.
This PSA has been brought to you by Jerry Garcia. Hmm... Actually, I think what's his face might have written that one. Hunter maybe? I am too lazy to look. Anyhow, no... You do not contest a valid warrant - you make sure they limit their scope to exactly what is on the warrant (read the damned thing). You don't get to make them wait outside politely (usually).
These are criminal warrants by the way. I think - and I'm not 100% sure - that you can get a lawyer and contest stuff if it's a civil warrant though I think that may have a different name. I am not a lawyer but I know a bunch and I actually spent some time sitting in a mock court room (I was paid to do so) as a student many years ago. I was often on the jury in said court room where they had no people who were not students or wanted to make sure the jury was unbiased. They'd also pay people from off the street to do so. It was a full mock-up and kind of neat.
Also, I could go on. There's a lot of differences between civil and criminal offenses (just as the preponderance of evidence - meaning the burden of the state, pretty much) and whatnot. If it's a criminal warrant then, absolutely not... You do not wait for a lawyer and you refusing to allow them to execute the lawful (or even unlawful, I guess) warrant is going to get you shot. Hell, they've got "no knock" warrants which, as I recall, require a specific permission from the judge and I believe some states allow warrants only to be served during specific times (unless exempted specifically). This does not count for probable cause searches. Those are exempt and don't need a warrant at all. They are also limited in scope - again, you fight them after the fact and not during their execution.
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I do know a bit about the law and do spend a lot of time observing the courts even today as I consider it my civic duty. You can, and should, go observe the courts - they're the most important way to do our job as The People and the next step is The Press but I will save that novella for another day. What I don't know is clearly listed, above, as my not knowing. What I've stated is factual as far as I do know. You're encouraged to verify this or to check with legal council. I am not a lawyer and I am not your lawyer.
I drank for a lot of years - I've not been drunk in over three years (I've had two drinks a couple of times since but that's it). I drove. I drove everywhere. I've even driven black out drunk. Yet, I've never once had an OUI and I've no at-fault accidents on my record - ever - in 40+ years. I've driven more miles drunk than I've driven sober - tens and probably even hundreds of thousands.
I'm not sure what my point is. I'm not advocating driving drunk. No, not by any means. I do think there should be subjectivity in there somewhere instead of an arbitrary limit. I also think that maybe we shouldn't punish somebody until they've caused harm but, really, the risks are pretty high so I understand the law and accept it. I do think it should be less arbitrary. I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm not sure where the line should be. In my case, well, alcohol affects alcoholics a bit different. I was a functioning alcoholic up until I retired - at that point I kind of stopped having to function so I drank a whole lot more.
Again, I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I figured I'd toss my experience into the mix. I was often the designated driver - I could drive while drunk. Of course, my MOS was, specifically, motor pool and I learned to drive lots of varied things and to drive them well. So, yeah... Again, no pearls of wisdom or anything, just my experiences.
If you had all those problems with that brand, an expensive and extensive problem spanning multiple vehicles, then why did you keep buying that brand? I'm not sure we should accept your reasoning as you're clearly telling us that you're unreasonable. I do own a sort-of-rare VW. I have what is known as a Quantum 5 wagon and it's fun but I don't take it out as much as I should. I don't think it has been on the road in the past year. I kind of feel sorry for it - it needs to be driven.
The only issue I had was brakes, rear, and the parts were in short supply so it took some time for my mechanic to get it resolved.
I own a brand new, bespoke even, BMW 640Li (yes, that one and yes it's nice) and no, no it does not do that. In fact, I have an absurd number of vehicles because I enjoy them and I've been growing my collection for years now. Not one does that. Of course most of them are all very specific model years and makes and not new but, still... I did have a buddy with some borderline moronic Ford Escape Hybrid (i laughed at him - it went to the junk yard, nobody would even buy it) and it does shut off when stopped and used electricity when going slow - sometimes. It was junk. For the up-thread posters - AC worked during the times it was on electric power and even when stopped at a stop light.
While this is true, have you ever been to Florida and seen how comical the results are? I've seen the great big swamp buggies, the platform type, going down 98 in PCB with a stack of students on the back drinking margaritas. They call it "FAG week" during Spring Break. FAG is Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. The results of these uninspected vehicles is quite comical - I've even seen a car with no driver's side door. Though, I think they can stop and take that off the road. They didn't. It was Florida, after all.
Thanks. I'll have to mull it over and do some more research. I'm not really sure what to think - it makes sense with some things and there's lots of data that really needn't be proprietary. I'm really not sure what to think. There's so many things that seem to be returning to the way things were but, at the same time, we've enough compute resources that we probably can work on data remotely and do so in new and interesting ways.
It'd be interesting to have the massive data sets (my company does/did - I sold it and retired - traffic modeling) and actually off-load the processing while keeping the visualization internal but we already did that to some extent - we just housed our own servers and kept extra hardware on hand to roll out new metal as needed. Virtualization was a thing back then but still not that advanced. We did do a lot of clustering which helped with scalability.
I'm not really sure where the benefit lies unless there's a real price decrease because of economies of scale? We employed talented people and listened to them. We gave them the tools they needed and asked for. I dunno... I'd probably still be keeping it in-house. Some of it, specifically the pedestrian traffic, would have been data belonging to another company and not something we probably would have risked hosting in the cloud. It probably would never have seen a public facing network, for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
We should have pointed that out during the whole freedom fries thing - we'd have converted the country to metric in an instant.
Anyhow, drugs have been teaching kids the metric system for years. 3.5g etc...
I understand they were going to faze the dollar bill out but had to keep making them because we're weird. People kept, for some reason, collecting them as if they were rare treasures even though they were making a shit-ton of them. They were worried, as I understand, about there being a shortage of dollar units in circulation. Dollar bills don't actually last that long in the wild before they're returned to be destroyed. So it would have led to problems - at least that's what a documentary that I watched claimed. I've no idea if it is factual or not.
You know, 2/3rds of 'pun' is "p-u." (Best said aloud.)
Don't mention Nethack. Or Zork. I'm not even sure if half the people who play Fallout actually played the first two. I stopped gaming around the time of my enjoyment of the Fallout 2 game. It was awesome. I've not really gamed since but I remember (and played) Rogue. Or, ahem... Rouge... *sighs* Yes, yes I played the French word for Red. I dunno what people do with their spare time but it doesn't appear to be learning new things or improving themselves. I'm glad I'm not a people.
Of course it does. That's because I'm better than you.
Actually, that wasn't my intent. It was mostly typed due to frustration and I probably should have skipped it. Thanks for pointing out how you perceived it. I'll make a mental note and try to avoid it in the future. I'm actually the kind of person who realizes he doesn't know everything and is willing to shut the hell up, listen, and accept that I'm wrong and learn something new. In fact, it kind of surprises some folks here when I do.
Again, thanks for pointing it out. That was certainly not my intention nor was I being arrogant (I don't think) or at least not intentionally. It's just that tomorrow some idiot claiming to represent the Libertarian party will, again, do something stupid and everyone will assume that this is true for all of them just like the left will assume the most outlandish person on the right is the norm and the right will assume the same thing but in a different direction. That and, well, loads of frustration... Loads of it...
No, I thought she was older. I thought she was in her early 70s. I'm 57. The lady friend is 18. It's a long story. I can't say that it is an uninteresting story but it is too long to type here. Anyhow, no, I thought Hillary was oder than that. I'd figured she was in her mid-70s by now.
I'm not white.
Do you have a citation for that claim? A quick search doesn't seem to indicate that as being true. In fact, only a trivial amount appear to have been stopped at roadblocks. I don't see data confirming your other allegation either. Let's stick to the facts.
Actually, I don't think there's cause for you to be arrested by failing the portable test. I think there's cause for you to be DETAINED for a more accurate test (or a refusal or a blood draw depending on jurisdiction) which, if you fail said test, results in your being arrested. Prior to the test results showing a positive you're not arrested but are detained. There's a difference and it's important.
Well, to be fair then you should probably ask the person who did it and not the method that they used. If your father was killed with a steak knife would you be screaming about unsafe eating utensils? I understand your pain and this is NOT an advocacy of drunk driving. By no means should anyone drive while impaired beyond capacity to make reasoned and rapid responses. It should be illegal and, as near as I can tell, actually illegal.
Your issue should be with the person and not the method. I'm assuming the drove a car. Do you want to outlaw those? Your father was killed by an idiot, a drunken idiot, with an automobile and your loss is unfortunate and inexcusable. The person responsible for your father's death is where you should direct your ire.
You have never ridden with me while I was drunk. Roads are optional. In fact, they're not even preferred. I can almost, sort of, make a claim that it should be okay to drive drunk under those circumstances - where you're on your own property or have permission to use the property, for example, and where you're in no danger of harming anyone other than yourself.
Before you chime in with an ignorant reply (not your fault, mine for not typing it all over again) I'd suggest seeing my other posts in this thread. I am not, by any means, one to advocate driving drunk. However, I could see some exceptions being made and could almost reason a few viable answers but this isn't a place where we must be purely rational and we probably should err on the side of caution.
But, for the sake of argument - or more navel gazing really, I'm not sure we should outlaw driving drunk in the above circumstances. Maybe with a "I'm really drunk" button that limited the engine's HP output so they were limited to 5 MPH or something. Maybe letting them drive golf carts on their own property while drunk or something. Ya know... Entirely pointless and simply for the sake of presenting an idea where maybe it does actually encroach on some freedoms we want to preserve? I can't even drive my lawn tractor - to mow my own lawn - drunk or even with just a beer in the cup holder. I neither drink nor mow my own lawn but, you know, assuming I wanted to...
I think the law on public roads is fine but do we really need it to go so far as to restrict the rights of a person on their own property 'for their own safety?'
Thats's rhetorical. I'm not actually interested in your reply even if it agrees with me. It's just something for you to think about if you want to and only if you want to. 'Snot up to me to decide. Society has been pretty damned clear about this and, perhaps regrettably, I'm a bit partial to letting the commons be protected for certain things. Where I fall, in the above, is immaterial.
I used to drive drunk - a lot and for a very long time. I had not one single incident that harmed another nor was I ever arrested for it. I've already offered my sincere apologies even though I don't have to. I've since changed my ways and am forever grateful that I harmed nobody. It's a reasonable certainty that, even if allowed, I'd not be the one to drive drunk even on my property.
As I mentioned above, I drove drunk for forty years. Sorry. I am, indeed, sorry. I drove in blackout state - multiple times. I'm positive that I've driven more miles drunk than I've driven sober - I've only been sober for three years. Well, no... I've only been not drinking for three years. I've literally driven at least a million miles in my life - work was very stressful and it'd been my MOS while I was enlisted. I've even driven across various other countries besides my own. Again, I'm sorry.
This is not a defense - this is just a statement of fact. I have zero at fault accidents on my record - ever. I had one speeding ticket when I was still a teen. I have no moving violations, besides said ticket, ever - in my entire life. I'm 57. I started drinking at the age of 11 or so. I was drinking daily by the age of 13. I drank until I was 54. (Quitting sucked, don't quit.) I never got an OUI. I've been stopped more times than I can count - while drunk and driving. I've had zero issues that resulted in property harm or personal harm.
I was a functional drunk for many years - it was after I retired, about eight years ago, that I suddenly found myself unable to cope. I quit - it almost killed me, it turns out that DTs/withdrawals from alcohol are one of the few withdrawals that can kill you. I did not know that.
This is not an endorsement of drinking and driving. Luck? Quite probably. There's also a modicum of skill, practice, familiarity, and training. I've taken countless advanced driving courses including courses designed for security personnel. I've taken a number of racing courses and have driven on a track multiple times with and without traffic.
To be honest, I attribute it to luck more than anything. I've woken up, not knowing where I was or how I got there, asleep on someone's couch, battery dead from the lights being on, and the gasoline tank empty from having let the engine run all night. I once drove after consuming 2.5 liters (probably a little more) of vodka in a very short time - I spent three days in a coma while a friend hid me in his attic by the way - and don't even remember driving the 30 miles to get there.
I'm not sure what my point is - it sure as shit isn't an endorsement of drinking and driving. I guess it's more to refute the idea that people seem to have where they assume it's going to result in harm. It doesn't, not always. There's a good chance that it will and that is not an acceptable risk in a shared environment and I'm truly sorry for my actions even though they harmed nobody. I took needless risks with the lives of other people due to my own issues and selfishness. I accept any scorn heaped on me and offer no defense.
I just figure that there needs to be more information for a more complete picture. I'm sure my training and my alcoholism made me less likely to cause an accident or be unable to prevent an accident. I'm also sure that it was also a lot of just plain dumb luck. They say that God protects drunks and fools. I don't believe in god but it seems that sometimes the odds are on their side. I've had lots of times where I've simply been on the small end of statistics and am forever grateful for it.
You missed the glaring logic hole in the person's 'rebuttal' (frothing rant, really) above - I fixed it for you as did another poster though I don't think I'd seen their name before now. Anyhow, that's not the point of my reply.
I am in a fairly unique situation in life. I do know, on a personal level (and a professional level *grins*) a few police officers though I'd probably not call any of them 'friends.' They're certainly acquaintances and are welcome in my home. I harbor no ill will towards they nor they to I and I hope they'll do their duty in a professional manner if I need to be investigated, stopped, or arrested. I've no problem with that - I accept responsibility for my actions and am usually the type to avoid confronting them at all so it's not really an issue.
Anyhow, in my real world life, I know some police officers and am friendly enough with them to the point where we've discussed the idea of an unofficial quota. Each one has told me similar stories and I'm inclined to believe them. They do not, as it were, have official or unofficial quotas, such would be illegal or unethical. What they do have is 'performance metrics' and 'reviews.' I'm sure you're familiar with the concept and can see where this goes.
If most officers working in one area have an average amount of stops and arrests at certain dates and times then others are expected to have similar performance metrics. They actually frown on someone being above the average as much as they frown on someone being below the average and this is reflected in their reviews which go towards determining raises or promotions.
You can make of that what you will and draw all sorts of assumptions. They've all indicated that it's not really a big deal but that seems unlikely but I'm simply speculating at this point. None of them seemed overly concerned and I've had a number of them stop by - while on duty, and just shoot the shit for quite a while. I'd also point out that I'm typically at my house in Maine and the police there are much different than what you might be used to - they're actually pretty good. I've not always lived here and I've been all over the globe.
So, it's up to you to really make any presumptions from the above information, if you want. I can only share what I'm told but I've been told this by a number of police officers from various jurisdictions so I am assuming it is a common practice in modern police forces in the United States - I can't speak of elsewhere, not even Canada.
Heh... I should have scrolled down. You, my good person, are intelligent and wise. I'm glad I am not the only one who spotted the glaring hole in their "rebuttal." What's really odd is that the OP didn't spot the hole. I assume they were just too annoyed to actually bother refuting their attempted rebuttal but they may have skimmed over it and not noticed or may have just simply not been aware of some simple reasoning techniques.
Do they even have debate classes or critical thinking classes any more? Who the hell is teaching them?
Anyhow, I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I'm assuming others noticed but it was just us two who managed to take the time to point out their flawed reasoning in their ill-fated rebuttal attempt. The irony was thick - deliciously thick. Sadly, I'd made a positive comment concerning them up thread - though I did point out that they had some serious reasoning flaws in that comment as well.
It takes all types, I guess.
Actually, you dumb fuck, they already established or made irrelevant the impaired judgment. You're beating a strawman and only that. Their question was where does the line belong. They didn't say that the drunk person got to establish this line. They asked where it was - they've already established there's a line and that on one side of it you're drunk - you dumb fuck.
So while you're busy feeling like you're able to make a rational argument you might want to step aside and let the adults talk. You completely, and totally, failed (or never took) critical thinking. I doubt you're a programmer or an engineer. I'm reasonably certain you're not a white collar worker at all. I'm also pretty sure you lack any meaningful skills beyond menial manual labor. Why? Those things require reasoning. They require comprehension. They require the application of logic, if you will.
If, by some horrific chance, you are involved in anything more complex than holding a sign to direct traffic (which may be beyond you) then, I hope, you're surrounded by capable people and nothing you do is able to impact others. I'd actually tried to make some sort of effort to defend you up-thread. But, now, you've just gone off the deep end.
Pathetic... Also, dumb fuck. The irony, oh the irony... *sighs* Why do you come here? That's rhetorical. It makes you feel special to associate with the intelligent people and feel like you fit in. We'll babysit you but you should make some effort to learn, okay? (That's not rhetorical - go ahead and reply.) Keep in mind that I've seen your other replies in this thread.
He did say that and he probably means it. He runs away when confronted with demonstrations where his logic is faulty. However... He's usually pretty rational and he's not an idiot, by any means. I've noted a number of good posts from him. On certain subjects, however, he gets a little zealous and then, even more oddly, accuses others of being statists and boot lickers and what not in other threads - I think he's probably in his 30s and just starting to reach that point where you realize (or maybe not realize but still go through it) that your outlook was different and changes as you age.
Hmm... They're not dumb but they're zealous - the two needn't be related though the latter implies a lack of honest and adequate reasoning skills. That's okay - it takes all types and sometimes being unreasoned is actually the best choice. We're not Vulcans. We're not reasoning machines - we're rationalizing machines. Sometimes empathy and doing the "right thing" isn't a matter of reason. After all, the rational thing to do would be letting things like the sick, elderly, hungry, and poor die. That's not a reasonable thing to do but it can be reasoned that it is the right thing to do. We need both types and neither should have a monopoly on power.
I suspect they're reaching that age where they're awfully confused. It's okay. Life is like that. Another one would be AmiMojo. They're not bad people. They just have empathy and that's not a bad thing. It leads to irrational thoughts and behaviors and that's just being a human. They'll grow, or not. Either way, they're not bad - just some subjects are concluded, for them, without reason. He's no different than the Tea Party/GOP person who thinks we should violate the civil liberties of Islamic peoples by default - because the ends justify the means to them. They often reason their way out of it or are sane in other ways - just some subjects are too close to them and they can't be unbiased.
That's okay. Welcome to Earth. I've been across the globe and we're the same no matter where I go - and most of us think we're better than others and have all the answers. To me, I guess, wisdom is when you realize that you don't know the answers and seek those who do. Most of us find that, in time. That too is true across the globe.
Not only does Florida have DRIVE-THRU LIQUEUR STORES but they have mother-fucking DRIVE-THRU MARGARITA/DAIQUIRI STANDS!
It is as awesome as you might expect. I've got a piece of property in Bay County - over in Panama City Beach. I own a chunk of beach and my house is actually across the road. I don't live there. I like Florida because it's amusing - not because I'd live there. It's awesome to visit.
The margarita stands or daiquiri stands are drive-thru or drive-up. There's one, it's grandfathered, where you drive up and they serve you right there in your car - you can walk up and drink outside at a stand-up counter (something about not being able to put in more seats - it's grandfathered in). Now, they can't serve you an 'open container' so you get a giant alcoholic drink, for dirt cheap, in a giant slurpy-type cup. The straw has had the paper removed except for the very top - it's stuck through the hole but the paper is still on it. All you need to do is pull it off.
Now, I gave up drinking a while back - I was too good at it. But I think they've changed the law. Now, I'm pretty sure, they still have the same damned holes (and the same peeled straw) and the actual entry hole in the cup's cover is covered by a barely attached piece of scotch tape. They don't push the tape down all the way because it's too hard to pull up.
The theory is, I guess, that you're supposed to drive up and then not drink your purchase until you get home. I don't think that happens, ever. If you go to the drive through liqueur stores and look, they've got concrete barriers - the round things, poured in a tube thing made of cardboard I think, and they're thick - for a reason. They're usually painted a very bright color and are obviously painted fairly often. However, each and every single one has markings on it from the many, many people who've run into it.
I've personally witnessed, I was inside, a person hit one of the concrete barriers with the center of his bumper - pretty close at least. He then backed up and managed to get it between the two. The clerk still sold him alcohol. I don't know what he hit but there was a loud crunch outside after the guy left - like seconds later. A few moments later he merrily went on his way into the traffic of Route 98 on the seedy side of the bridge.
Yes, yes it is real. I couldn't make this stuff up. I fucking love Florida. I'd never, in a million years, live there by choice. I absolutely love to spend a month or so there every year. They're mostly harmless... They've got a national forest... The trees are all planted in a row (I assume to harvest). It's flat. The speed limit is 75. The drunken rednecks go driving down the road (did I mention that they don't have to get their cars inspected?) in swamp buggies at absurd speeds. It is awesome! It's like a whole collection of distilled insanity. What's not to love? Oddly, they have one of the more tame Mardi Gras festivals.
I once pissed, drunkenly I might add, on the wheel of a cruiser while the cop was still in it - I didn't realize he was in it. In fact, I didn't notice him until he said something. He took me into an alley and we had a discussion but he didn't beat me up or anything. He just told me that if I didn't go home he was going to. He said he wasn't even going to arrest me if he caught me again - he was just going to, "Kick the ever living dog-shit out of you, boy!" (Probably with more drawl and less punctuation. This was the same officer's car that I'd decorated with beads earlier it seems. It was awesome! He was the one who told me it was a family friendly event. I must have missed that part. Ah... Great times... "What the hell are you doing to my car, boy?"
Anyhow, I don't actually have a point. I just figured I'd share a very limited sample of my experiences of Florida. It is like concentrated insanity. It's every bit as funny to visit as you might imagine. The one state has given me hours of silly memories. I can buy alcohol, from my car, and just peel back some tape and drink it but I go to
You are going to get shot or tazed. Warrant means due process is already completed - you don't argue with them, you comply or they enforce the warrant by force. There's no calling a lawyer. You then challenge validity of the warrant after the fact, if you want, but if they've got a warrant then - well here... Let's let Jerry explain it:
Sitting and staring out of the hotel window.
Got a tip, they're gonna kick the door in again.
I'd like to get some sleep before I travel.
But if you've got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in.
Busted, down on Bourbon Street.
Set up, just like a bowling pin.
Knocked down, it gets to wearing thin.
They just won't let you be.
This PSA has been brought to you by Jerry Garcia. Hmm... Actually, I think what's his face might have written that one. Hunter maybe? I am too lazy to look. Anyhow, no... You do not contest a valid warrant - you make sure they limit their scope to exactly what is on the warrant (read the damned thing). You don't get to make them wait outside politely (usually).
These are criminal warrants by the way. I think - and I'm not 100% sure - that you can get a lawyer and contest stuff if it's a civil warrant though I think that may have a different name. I am not a lawyer but I know a bunch and I actually spent some time sitting in a mock court room (I was paid to do so) as a student many years ago. I was often on the jury in said court room where they had no people who were not students or wanted to make sure the jury was unbiased. They'd also pay people from off the street to do so. It was a full mock-up and kind of neat.
Also, I could go on. There's a lot of differences between civil and criminal offenses (just as the preponderance of evidence - meaning the burden of the state, pretty much) and whatnot. If it's a criminal warrant then, absolutely not... You do not wait for a lawyer and you refusing to allow them to execute the lawful (or even unlawful, I guess) warrant is going to get you shot. Hell, they've got "no knock" warrants which, as I recall, require a specific permission from the judge and I believe some states allow warrants only to be served during specific times (unless exempted specifically). This does not count for probable cause searches. Those are exempt and don't need a warrant at all. They are also limited in scope - again, you fight them after the fact and not during their execution.
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I do know a bit about the law and do spend a lot of time observing the courts even today as I consider it my civic duty. You can, and should, go observe the courts - they're the most important way to do our job as The People and the next step is The Press but I will save that novella for another day. What I don't know is clearly listed, above, as my not knowing. What I've stated is factual as far as I do know. You're encouraged to verify this or to check with legal council. I am not a lawyer and I am not your lawyer.
I drank for a lot of years - I've not been drunk in over three years (I've had two drinks a couple of times since but that's it). I drove. I drove everywhere. I've even driven black out drunk. Yet, I've never once had an OUI and I've no at-fault accidents on my record - ever - in 40+ years. I've driven more miles drunk than I've driven sober - tens and probably even hundreds of thousands.
I'm not sure what my point is. I'm not advocating driving drunk. No, not by any means. I do think there should be subjectivity in there somewhere instead of an arbitrary limit. I also think that maybe we shouldn't punish somebody until they've caused harm but, really, the risks are pretty high so I understand the law and accept it. I do think it should be less arbitrary. I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm not sure where the line should be. In my case, well, alcohol affects alcoholics a bit different. I was a functioning alcoholic up until I retired - at that point I kind of stopped having to function so I drank a whole lot more.
Again, I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I figured I'd toss my experience into the mix. I was often the designated driver - I could drive while drunk. Of course, my MOS was, specifically, motor pool and I learned to drive lots of varied things and to drive them well. So, yeah... Again, no pearls of wisdom or anything, just my experiences.
If you had all those problems with that brand, an expensive and extensive problem spanning multiple vehicles, then why did you keep buying that brand? I'm not sure we should accept your reasoning as you're clearly telling us that you're unreasonable. I do own a sort-of-rare VW. I have what is known as a Quantum 5 wagon and it's fun but I don't take it out as much as I should. I don't think it has been on the road in the past year. I kind of feel sorry for it - it needs to be driven.
The only issue I had was brakes, rear, and the parts were in short supply so it took some time for my mechanic to get it resolved.
I own a brand new, bespoke even, BMW 640Li (yes, that one and yes it's nice) and no, no it does not do that. In fact, I have an absurd number of vehicles because I enjoy them and I've been growing my collection for years now. Not one does that. Of course most of them are all very specific model years and makes and not new but, still... I did have a buddy with some borderline moronic Ford Escape Hybrid (i laughed at him - it went to the junk yard, nobody would even buy it) and it does shut off when stopped and used electricity when going slow - sometimes. It was junk. For the up-thread posters - AC worked during the times it was on electric power and even when stopped at a stop light.
While this is true, have you ever been to Florida and seen how comical the results are? I've seen the great big swamp buggies, the platform type, going down 98 in PCB with a stack of students on the back drinking margaritas. They call it "FAG week" during Spring Break. FAG is Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. The results of these uninspected vehicles is quite comical - I've even seen a car with no driver's side door. Though, I think they can stop and take that off the road. They didn't. It was Florida, after all.
1,000,000 would have been cool. :(
I had a 5 digit UID at one point but I no longer have the email address and can't, for the life of me, recall the name. I'll have to settle for six.
Thanks. I'll have to mull it over and do some more research. I'm not really sure what to think - it makes sense with some things and there's lots of data that really needn't be proprietary. I'm really not sure what to think. There's so many things that seem to be returning to the way things were but, at the same time, we've enough compute resources that we probably can work on data remotely and do so in new and interesting ways.
It'd be interesting to have the massive data sets (my company does/did - I sold it and retired - traffic modeling) and actually off-load the processing while keeping the visualization internal but we already did that to some extent - we just housed our own servers and kept extra hardware on hand to roll out new metal as needed. Virtualization was a thing back then but still not that advanced. We did do a lot of clustering which helped with scalability.
I'm not really sure where the benefit lies unless there's a real price decrease because of economies of scale? We employed talented people and listened to them. We gave them the tools they needed and asked for. I dunno... I'd probably still be keeping it in-house. Some of it, specifically the pedestrian traffic, would have been data belonging to another company and not something we probably would have risked hosting in the cloud. It probably would never have seen a public facing network, for that matter.