Modern car crash: $1000 for bumper and $0.10 for bandaid, total: $1000.10
Old car crash: $50 to mend scratch on bumper, $7500 for head injury, untold lost earning power because now you're an idiot, total: $7550+
Only $7500 for a head injury? Which country do you live in? In the good-ol' US of A, it costs $4k just to x-ray and CT scan your neck to make sure that your neck isn't broken.
Nope, sorry but I would MUCH rather spend $1k than have my neck suffer 23G's of acceleration (what can occur in a 15mph crash without cushioning). That $1k represents a fraction of the monthly earnings for the average first world family, it's much cheaper to fix the car than fix the person.
Speaking as a motorcycle rider... this is why most of the time, I'm wearing a good $500 of gear when I ride my bike (half of that is around my head). Just the ambulance to the hospital from one crash was $400, then with the x-ray, and the CT scan ("Ma'am, this is super really big important, are you SURE you're not pregnant?") it easily got up to about $4k. And this was with NOTHING wrong with me except some road rash.
My jacket was in pretty reasonable condition, and my protective pants were torn to shreds. My jacket however had ridden up my arm, and why I had road rash, and my legs has the tiniest of road-rash scratches on it.
I'd much rather buy new gear, than new body parts...
I really like formula-derivative cars for demonstrating the point of "destroy the car, not the driver" idea. You see an F1/Champcar/Indie car collide with anything and its just parts flying everywhere. I point out to people "each chunk of metal flying away from the crash is a bit of mass, and velocity not flying towards the driver".
I think that's the coolest thing about car-design safety in racing. It's made drivers much more likely to survive, and vids to watch just HELLA way more cool...
I mean, when a girl gets excited watching cars blow up into a million pieces (because I obviously didn't know the person in the car) you know it has to be impressive!
"Think of it this way, the lower the burden of proof is on the violation, the less they can actually charge, and the state sets up what's ok, and what isn't. So, if you're going to setup a program to automatically ticket red-light runners, then you can't charge them as much as you would if they were to have rights to a full trial."
True....
But, I still think the bottom line is...it is STILL money out of your pocket that they should not be allowed to do, at least not this way with machines rather than real officers that you can confront in a court of law.
So... you'd rather confront an officer of the court in a criminal proceeding than photographic evidence in an administrative hearing?
Sure... hey, to each their own... I'd certainly rather spend $1,000 on a lawyer, $500 in court fees, (and that's if I win!) than $100 in an automated fine.
Now, the question about "should" they be able to do this. "Should" implies an obligation of some kind to either do, or not do. Let's see what the government should be doing in this case: saving lives, and increasing safety at intersections.
Giving out nominal fines to people automatically for breaking laws that directly impact safety is not a bad thing!!! Littering, and walking on some grass? No way, but something that impacts the safety of others as much as zooming through a red light?
How many people here have been sitting at a light waiting, then it turns green, and a second later, ZOOM! Some car just whizzes through the now-red light? Even if the person doesn't cause an accident, the danger presented to society is clear and present.
Could someone send a copy of the applicable amendments and supporting court decisions to Washington State? Moving violations have been considered "administrative violations" here for years. WA state does things a little differently; they don't require you to admit guilt. Guilt has nothing to to with paying/not paying a fine. They also employ someone who is nominally a judge to handle contested violations. But at the outset of the "trial" they state that it is not a trail, rules of evidence do not apply including the municipalities need to prove a case. Other than the semantics, it sounds just like Corona's system.
It all comes down to semantics when you define what kind of rule/law is being broken. One cannot be sent to jail for a non-criminal violation, so in exchange for forfeiting your right to a trial, and a lower burden-of-proof for the municipality, they give up quite a bit in punishment available. The lower burden-of-proof for the municipality is "a preponderance of evidence", which is the same as any other civil trial (all hearings heard before a judge are called "trials" not just criminal ones). In WA state traffic laws have been reinterpreted from a criminal violation (which requires a trial, a trial by jury, and a bunch of other rights) to a civil infraction. Namely, you've committed a tort against the state, and they're suing to recover damages.
As noted, this isn't a bad thing!!! Just because their burden of proof is lower, doesn't mean that they can shove whatever they want as punishment on you. There are limits imposed by the state's laws about what they can do in these cases. Namely, there is a cap on how much they may fine you, and they cannot send you to jail. In fact, specifically in WA state, a red-light camera infraction cannot have as a fine any value greater than that of a parking ticket. This is by-design, and it's a Good Thing(tm), in that the city/county may increase safety at a specific intersection as necessary, by deterring red-light violations, while at the same time, the citizens are (supposed to be) protected against undue punishment by the government.
Of course, at least one lawyer is representing a class-action suit against some of the western WA cities, which have disregarded this protection of their citizenry and are alleged to have charged more than a parking-ticket fine.
As for your further remarks, guilt is required to force you to pay a fine. However, with parking tickets and automated red-light violations, there is material evidence that your vehicle committed the violation. You have to prove that it most likely wasn't you who was in the vehicle when the action was made.
The "nominally a judge" depends. You may get a judge, or you may get a "commissioner", or a "judge pro temps". Either way, all of them are qualified to sit for your trial.
The municipality most certainly DOES have to prove a case. I had a friend who got out of a speeding ticket super easy, because the officer didn't provide any written account of the incident. The judge took a moment to read the officer's notes, noted that there weren't any, and then asked my friend if she wanted to dismiss the case. My friend naturally agreed, and it was thrown out, because the government failed to provide any case at all.
If you're thinking that any of this sounds weird or odd, then you've been misunderstanding the law. It's not a big deal, 99% of people do it all the time. But trust me, the government is still required to prove a case, and even though your contested hearing is a "trial" (civil trial) it's not a "trial" (criminal trial), but since the average person fails to associate the word 'trial" with anything but criminal trials, they point out that this is not a "trial" as one would normally presume... it's a civil trial/hearing, or an administrative trial/hearing... different burdens of proof, different punishments that may be meted out.
In Washington state, since they're an "administrative infraction" they're not supposed to be attached with a fine any greater than a parking ticket. There's currently a suit in WA state, because there are a few cities that totally forgot that an administrative violation can't have regular traffic-level fines, because the burden of proof is so much lower.
Think of it this way, the lower the burden of proof is on the violation, the less they can actually charge, and the state sets up what's ok, and what isn't. So, if you're going to setup a program to automatically ticket red-light runners, then you can't charge them as much as you would if they were to have rights to a full trial.
Actually, you missed something, well, actually, you just butchered the English verb phrases into a single operator. Better is to have:
I they shortsighted so be would believe can't.
The "that" serves much the same purpose of parentheses in math, in that it takes a sentence as a whole and makes it into a direct object... since there is no ambiguity such as that with RPN, one would be safe to remove it.
You can divide the genes that determine human sexuality into two groups. One group determines the form that genitals take. The other group determines all the other physical and psychological aspects of sexuality. Conceptually, it's easy to see how someone could develop with female genitals and everything else male. That doesn't mean that anyone has identified it as a syndrome, much less the genes and protein-level mechanisms.
My favorite intersex condition is AMH insensitivity. It makes men grow a uterus!
"Well, while we were in getting your appendix out, we actually found a uterus... we took it out, because it's likely to just give you cancer."
That's when most people would look at the doctor and say "scuse me wha?"
Oh, that's right. I forgot there's only two options and no possibility of deviation from those options AT ALL.
Fucking moron.
Since in the vast majority of cases, it really is one of those two options - it seems like the logical first step, given that invasive testing is apparently already the norm for track and field anymore. If Caster's test shows XX or XY, either way the case is closed. Arguing that a remote possibility of a different genetic state exists means you can't first test for the heavily dominant typical state is, quite frankly, silly. That's like arguing that a doctor shouldn't do an influenza test on a patient with flu-like symptoms because there's a remote possibility it's Brucellosis.
They believe that she has congenital adrenal hyperplasia... if she does have that, then she's most likely XX. The problem is that there is no belief that she has an abnormal genotype or abnormal genitalia. They believe she has something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
This is a hormone imbalance, specifically in that it causes the adrenal glands to produce too much androgens/steroids. She's naturally doped up the same as a man would be. That does not necessarily however make her a "man", any more than an XX genotype make her a "woman".
Considering that a hormone panel takes less time and is less invasive than a genetic screening, I think that should be the FIRST and FOREMOST test upon women competing... you know, while you're testing for those artificial steroids, why not look at the natural levels of them as well?!
One of the most surefire way is to see if her gametes can play their respective roll. If they can manage to form a viable embryo from her egg, case closed. If not, some more testing would be needed. Also, a genetic advantage is the reason most athletes get the gold. If she has a rare/new trait, what are you going to do when a larger percentage of the population has it in the future? It's just as discriminatory to ban them now as it would be later. Especially if it's a naturally acquired trait.
Not entirely... there are different conditions on why one needs to make the distinction of male and female. In sports, men naturally have more steroids (androgens) available than females. Thus, men are at a significant advantage for developing muscle mass and strength. This is why it's unfair to make men and women compete in the same group. If this woman has a hormone profile that shows that it is outside of the standard range for women, then whether she is a woman or not is irrelevant, she should not be allowed to compete against other female athletes.
All of this is ENTIRELY different with regards to whom she can marry (if she's outside of Massachusetts or whatever), which bathroom she is permitted to use, if she can contribute to a viable embryo, and what genitals she has. All of these are decided by entirely different criteria.
Male and female are not the hard and fast rule that most people think they are. Quite apart, who cares if she eschewed playing with dolls and other girls? Should we allow a person with testicles and male-levels of testosterone to compete against women if he enjoyed playing with dolls, etc?
The IOCC has already settled this, because they had to deal with intersexed and transsexual people before this particular group. Their decision was that as long as the hormone panel is consistent with the appropriate sex. Otherwise, this woman that they're investigating is doping... albeit naturally, but it's still unfair.
So the private medical insurance is similar to an "umbrella policy" that covers what isn't covered by the public plan?
*nod nod* That's how it works in most places with socialized healthcare. In poorer countries like South Africa, the private companies can find a niche providing on-demand service to people who would otherwise have to wait. But since there is a public health option, they don't have to struggle with providing care (charity or not) to most of the people who are unable to pay.
If you need to go to the ER, then they stabilize you and transport you to a public health hospital, and they're guaranteed at least some compensation for doing so, unlike our current system of "great, we're not getting paid for ANY of this work right now."
Doctors charge so much because of malpractice insurance and the providers of medical hardware and equipment are trying to make the largest profit margin that they can. You literally have 8 middle-men between you and your bill.
Now, once the government comes in and mandates and enforces pricing structures, EVERYONE'S prices go down. Suddenly, Doctors don't need to charge as much for their work, because their work costs significantly less.
As noted above, the private companies would be umbrella policies, covering things that the public plan would not cover. Why provide basic healthcare options like doctor's visits when the public plan can handle that? Well, if the private plan can afford to provide doctor's visits in a way that is affordable to them, and they make a profit from it, then they would do it.
You don't seem to understand that the government isn't about making policy choices and individual assessments of what is, and is not covered. It isn't now, and it won't be in the future. All socialized healthcare systems can have their treatment decisions challenged directly in court (no mandated arbitration, or they'll drop your policy sort of bullshit). And guess what the courts always decide? If a competent doctor states that the procedure is medically necessary then the treatment will be covered.
Currently for-profit systems love to come up with these "it's experimental" or "it's cosmetic" bullshit stories to deny coverage for a specific procedure. Guess what? Sometimes, a breast augmentation surgery is not simply cosmetic. Washington State has a law on the books, that if a mastectomy is performed then the insurance must cover breast reconstruction. Well, court case comes along, and a woman had cosmetic breast augmentation with silicone, it began leaking, and they had to excise the implant and some tissue. The courts ruled that any amount of a mastectomy requires coverage for reconstructive surgery.
Washington State courts have constantly also upheld that coverage of sex reassignment therapy must be covered by state programs, even though federal law currently allows denial of care to anyone based on sexual orientation. Yeah, your employment-based ERISA healthcare PLAN, not insurance, but PLAN is allowed to deny you treatment because you're gay. "You have the AIDS, sorry, because you've had sex with men, we're not going to cover you." "Oh, you're a man with a uterus? Oh, too bad about the cancer, but we're not going to pay for taking it out."
People who complain about the government getting their nose in all the business and bullshit of everyone's healthcare is a fucking paranoid schizo with their head so far up their ass that they can't see that the healthcare system in their desire to make a profit are significantly more interested in making your personal healthcare their business than the government is.
By and in large, DOCTORS in socialized healthcare systems say that for the vast majority of cases, when a patient comes, they are able to simply treat the patient and give the patient all the care necessary without worrying about "OMG! WHAT IF I DON'T GET PAID FOR THIS?!"
Because guess what? With a socialized healthcare system, the doctor will get paid for everything he does.
Personally, I think women ought to sue. I think taking a picture of someone and labeling it "skank" or "whore" is despicable and deserves to be punished, and if a few financially valuable websites went down in flames as a result, and a few people lost their houses, the others might clean up their acts. Free speech does not extend to defamation, nor should it.
DEFAMATION is wrong, and I agree... however insulting someone is not defamation. Just because someone posts something offensive about you doesn't mean that you have grounds to sue. The speech has to be intended to be taken as a statement of fact, and not opinion.
This is why you can give a review of someone's performance and say, "it was an abysmal waste of my time." You are 100% protected to speak any and all of your opinions.
You are however not allowed to make false statements of fact about someone else. So, even in Iran, if you're calling the guy a "cocksucking faggot" just because you want to insult the guy, and have no intentions that it be taken as literal fact, then it doesn't matter that Iran puts homosexuals to death. Unless you're specifically making the direct and real claim that he is a homosexual, then there is no defamation, because otherwise, it's just opinion.
This is why Penn and Teller's Bullshit! calls people fuckers, assholes, and says what they're doing is bullshit. If they used non-patently-offensive terms, they could potentially be subject to a lawsuit for defamation. Claiming that someone is lying to their clients is defamation, but saying that someone is bullshitting their clients is a statement of offensive opinion.
Actually, this is precisely the system in use in many countries. I'll pick one at random... South Africa.
In South Africa, you pay mandatory taxes, and you get what you need if you need it. Or, your employer or whoever can offer you a different plan with their own doctors, and provide for different things than the primary plan.
Namely, it doesn't matter if the private options attempt to woo the younger people with lower rates, because the younger people will STILL be paying for the public plan. Thus, any additional coverage provided by a private plan would automatically be more expensive than the government health plan.
You keep thinking that I want these private companies to compete directly and fairly with the government plan... this is incorrect. The public plan is there to provide sufficient and reasonable care to everyone. If you want to pad your insurance just in case, then you can get a private health insurance, and then if the state health agency says "Sorry, it's been 5 days, you're ready to leave the hospital" you can be all "I have additional insurance that will cover me for an additional 5 days... I'm staying."
Then of course, when the government "Death Panel" convenes and says "you don't get a kidney", then you can go to the insurance and say, "hey! Help me out! The gov won't cover me!"
Oh wait, the "death panel" already exists in the form of a transplant committee. Need a new heart? Oh sorry, you're bulimic, and caused your own heart failure by taking ipecac too often. Since we have a limited number of hearts, and you'll probably just fuck this new on up, guess what? you're not kidding it!
If I remember correctly Hawaii tried that. Turned out that people learned really quick that they didn't have to pay a company for insurance and got it 'free' from the government. The state ended up canceling the program because it was basically bankrupting them.
The public plan starts with the presumption that it will pay for everyone. This is likely where the Hawai'i plan failed.
The point is not to have a public option that is forced to compete on an equal playing field with private options, it's that the public option is funded with mandatory taxes, and provides reasonable care.
If you want the glitzy care, then you pay for private health insurance.
I'd say that waaaaaayyyy more people are overweight/obese than smoke. How many old smokers have you seen? Tons. How many old fat people have you seen. Not many. Seems to me that obesity is far worse than smoking.
As the AC noted... you don't really see fat old people because they typically can't get around.
However, I agree with your assertion that more people are obese than smoke in Amiland.
The only health care program that really works is the single payer option.
More accurately, a single payer system that will cover you if you need it to. Companies should always be welcome to compete against the single payer system... if they can make money, then good for them!
Riiiight - McDonalds are banned in Europe, as are all fast foods, drugs, booze and tobacco, and all American culture. Except they're not. The higher death rates are from two things - guns and a lack of a comprehensive health-care system. Until the housing crisis, the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical bills, and 74% of all those had medical insurance. The high cost of co-pays, and the insurance carriers weaseling out of paying for coverage to make a profit, meant that they had to go broke. So much for for-profit health care.
Guns are actually pretty low. More people die of diabetes than all homicides. Now, granted the reason for the abysmal life-expectancy particularly in 16-25 year old black males is because they tend to be aggregated into areas of high drug, gang, and criminal activity, which results in really bad life expectancy...
Take a sociology course. The single greatest statistical correlation with how much a person will earn, is how much their parents earned.
Let me put it in a more clear way... the people in the bronze age were at a reasonable similar biological state to what we are now. Enough to consider them well within the same species.
Yet, we have tons of advantages that they didn't have. Why? Because we were biologically superior? Because we work harder for it? Wow, no. It's because we're standing on the shoulders of giants.
The same works on the small scale. Children stand on the shoulders of their parents, and if their parents aren't giants, then the children won't be giants.
I agree that sexual accusations are usually the first place that men go when insulting women, but not in absolutely every case, and not all insults aimed at women are sexually based. "Bitch" isn't sexual -- it implies viciousness. "Hag," "slattern," and "sloven" are three more. "Slut" actually used to mean "slovenly person" -- "dust mice" in England used to be known as "slut's wool" -- but has since taken on a sexual connotation.
People might have called Margaret Thatcher a bitch, but to call her a slut or a whore would just be ridiculous.
What about women's insults for other women? My guess is that they are usually based on looks or taste.
Very well "hag" is a nice general term for a woman, however it typically only applies to older women. Attempting to apply it to a younger woman would likely lead one to say "huh?"
"Slattern" and "sloven" are off the list, because... I mean, come on, how many people hurling insults on a regular basis (and thus establishing the culture's swear words) actually know of these words in the first place?
It doesn't take long for any term referring to women to obtain overtones of sexual promiscuity... a "courtesan" is just the female version of "courtier", "madam" now means a female pimp, and "mistress" is just the female version of "master".
Women's insults for other women are all implicit attacks upon the non-chastity of the other woman. Seriously, that's all we ever bitch at each other about, really.
It's like how guys always attack the sexual orientation of other men. "Dude, you're gay", or "You're a cocksucker", or "you're a fag".
Human cultures and subcultures pick a meme to assault upon another person with, and stick with it with admirable determination.
A question, would any of you think it appropriate to consider as defamation a picture of a guy grabbing his crotch with a caption reading, "gay butt-fucking faggot"? I think the very first thing that one would consider here, were that the author of the caption was not intending to make a statement of fact regarding the person's sexual orientation... yet apparently this judge feels that the same form of patently offensive speech against a woman is somehow a statement of fact.
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
In the court order, the judge specifically states that impugnment of her chastity is the reason for granting the order.
However, if she's a public-figure then it need be proven that it was done with actual malice, and not simply negligently.
I find it more interesting that if you say that impugning the chastity of a woman is always wrong, what kind of insults can you hurl at her? All general insults for women are rooted in impugning the woman's chastity. Namely, "bitch" "ho" "skank" "slut"... the general insults of "jerk" "asshole" and "fucker" rarely are applied to women.
To me, it takes more than simply using a word that is rooted in impugning the woman's chastity in order to actually impugn her chastity. One has to specifically specify that one believes that she is unchaste. Simply calling someone a "slut" often is not intended to be a statement of fact that she is unchaste... it's simply the insults that our language affords for women.
The Hon. Judge Joan Madden used www.dictionary.reference.com in order to get the definitions, which she provides in her court order as: skank "one who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl." and "ho" as a "slang" word equivalent to "prostitute", and that "whoring" is "to associate or to have sexual relations with prostitutes" or "to accept payment in exchange for sexual relations."
I'm incredibly surprised that this judge did not consider these words to be equivalent to general insults such as "jerk".
People here keep harping that the internet is no different than other media in Point of view of first admendment and right to privacy. The question IS NOT "is it fair that the anonymity was revealed" but the question IS would this with other normal older media be a ground for a libel/slander lawsuit or not ? Would a photo poster with the person with " is a psychotic skank" a ground for slander ? Forget the part where it is a blog. Think about what the LAW would be for the older media. And in such a case, I think there is a good ground to say posting poster with " is a psychotic skank" can be seen as slandering. Once you have that step, then be it a paper poster, blog, or graved on a stone.
Insults are statements of opinion, and thus not subject to claims of defamation. The point here is that the judge (yes, I read the court order) states that the word "skank" is a statement of fact and not opinion, and that the blogger were impugning the sexual chastity of the model. As well, that "ho" is a statement of fact equivalent to calling the person a "prostitute".
The question here is if "psychotic skanky ho" should be viewed the same as "psychopathic promiscuous prostitute" or rather should be viewed the same as "psychotic fucked-up jerk". I think any reasonable person would side with the point that the phrase is intended as insult and offense, but not as a statement of fact.
Lookit, you want to call Bush a Nazi Warmonger or Obama an Incompetent Puppet, or speak any kind of Truth to Power, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you on the ramparts in defense of your Freedom to Speak, you're a Patriot. You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.
The Internet has changed many things, but it has not changed everything.
No. She called her a "skanky ho" in 5 posts all made on the same day, then walked away from it. The blogger obviously had no intent on injuring her reputation beyond simple insults. She also didn't hide like a coward, she hired an attorney in order to protect her rights, in that in order for an anonymous individual to be released in a pre-discovery action, there need to be a clear and substantive indication that a cause of action exists.
Calling someone a "skanky ho" is not defamation. It's an insult, but it's not defamatory, and courts have upheld by and in far that the word "jerk" is a generalized insult, carries no meaning beyond simply insult, and thus is automatically a statement of opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern car crash: $1000 for bumper and $0.10 for bandaid, total: $1000.10
Old car crash: $50 to mend scratch on bumper, $7500 for head injury, untold lost earning power because now you're an idiot, total: $7550+
Only $7500 for a head injury? Which country do you live in? In the good-ol' US of A, it costs $4k just to x-ray and CT scan your neck to make sure that your neck isn't broken.
Nope, sorry but I would MUCH rather spend $1k than have my neck suffer 23G's of acceleration (what can occur in a 15mph crash without cushioning). That $1k represents a fraction of the monthly earnings for the average first world family, it's much cheaper to fix the car than fix the person.
Speaking as a motorcycle rider... this is why most of the time, I'm wearing a good $500 of gear when I ride my bike (half of that is around my head). Just the ambulance to the hospital from one crash was $400, then with the x-ray, and the CT scan ("Ma'am, this is super really big important, are you SURE you're not pregnant?") it easily got up to about $4k. And this was with NOTHING wrong with me except some road rash.
My jacket was in pretty reasonable condition, and my protective pants were torn to shreds. My jacket however had ridden up my arm, and why I had road rash, and my legs has the tiniest of road-rash scratches on it.
I'd much rather buy new gear, than new body parts...
I really like formula-derivative cars for demonstrating the point of "destroy the car, not the driver" idea. You see an F1/Champcar/Indie car collide with anything and its just parts flying everywhere. I point out to people "each chunk of metal flying away from the crash is a bit of mass, and velocity not flying towards the driver".
I think that's the coolest thing about car-design safety in racing. It's made drivers much more likely to survive, and vids to watch just HELLA way more cool...
I mean, when a girl gets excited watching cars blow up into a million pieces (because I obviously didn't know the person in the car) you know it has to be impressive!
"Think of it this way, the lower the burden of proof is on the violation, the less they can actually charge, and the state sets up what's ok, and what isn't. So, if you're going to setup a program to automatically ticket red-light runners, then you can't charge them as much as you would if they were to have rights to a full trial."
True....
But, I still think the bottom line is...it is STILL money out of your pocket that they should not be allowed to do, at least not this way with machines rather than real officers that you can confront in a court of law.
So... you'd rather confront an officer of the court in a criminal proceeding than photographic evidence in an administrative hearing?
Sure... hey, to each their own... I'd certainly rather spend $1,000 on a lawyer, $500 in court fees, (and that's if I win!) than $100 in an automated fine.
Now, the question about "should" they be able to do this. "Should" implies an obligation of some kind to either do, or not do. Let's see what the government should be doing in this case: saving lives, and increasing safety at intersections.
Giving out nominal fines to people automatically for breaking laws that directly impact safety is not a bad thing!!! Littering, and walking on some grass? No way, but something that impacts the safety of others as much as zooming through a red light?
How many people here have been sitting at a light waiting, then it turns green, and a second later, ZOOM! Some car just whizzes through the now-red light? Even if the person doesn't cause an accident, the danger presented to society is clear and present.
Could someone send a copy of the applicable amendments and supporting court decisions to Washington State? Moving violations have been considered "administrative violations" here for years. WA state does things a little differently; they don't require you to admit guilt. Guilt has nothing to to with paying/not paying a fine. They also employ someone who is nominally a judge to handle contested violations. But at the outset of the "trial" they state that it is not a trail, rules of evidence do not apply including the municipalities need to prove a case. Other than the semantics, it sounds just like Corona's system.
It all comes down to semantics when you define what kind of rule/law is being broken. One cannot be sent to jail for a non-criminal violation, so in exchange for forfeiting your right to a trial, and a lower burden-of-proof for the municipality, they give up quite a bit in punishment available. The lower burden-of-proof for the municipality is "a preponderance of evidence", which is the same as any other civil trial (all hearings heard before a judge are called "trials" not just criminal ones). In WA state traffic laws have been reinterpreted from a criminal violation (which requires a trial, a trial by jury, and a bunch of other rights) to a civil infraction. Namely, you've committed a tort against the state, and they're suing to recover damages.
As noted, this isn't a bad thing!!! Just because their burden of proof is lower, doesn't mean that they can shove whatever they want as punishment on you. There are limits imposed by the state's laws about what they can do in these cases. Namely, there is a cap on how much they may fine you, and they cannot send you to jail. In fact, specifically in WA state, a red-light camera infraction cannot have as a fine any value greater than that of a parking ticket. This is by-design, and it's a Good Thing(tm), in that the city/county may increase safety at a specific intersection as necessary, by deterring red-light violations, while at the same time, the citizens are (supposed to be) protected against undue punishment by the government.
Of course, at least one lawyer is representing a class-action suit against some of the western WA cities, which have disregarded this protection of their citizenry and are alleged to have charged more than a parking-ticket fine.
As for your further remarks, guilt is required to force you to pay a fine. However, with parking tickets and automated red-light violations, there is material evidence that your vehicle committed the violation. You have to prove that it most likely wasn't you who was in the vehicle when the action was made.
The "nominally a judge" depends. You may get a judge, or you may get a "commissioner", or a "judge pro temps". Either way, all of them are qualified to sit for your trial.
The municipality most certainly DOES have to prove a case. I had a friend who got out of a speeding ticket super easy, because the officer didn't provide any written account of the incident. The judge took a moment to read the officer's notes, noted that there weren't any, and then asked my friend if she wanted to dismiss the case. My friend naturally agreed, and it was thrown out, because the government failed to provide any case at all.
If you're thinking that any of this sounds weird or odd, then you've been misunderstanding the law. It's not a big deal, 99% of people do it all the time. But trust me, the government is still required to prove a case, and even though your contested hearing is a "trial" (civil trial) it's not a "trial" (criminal trial), but since the average person fails to associate the word 'trial" with anything but criminal trials, they point out that this is not a "trial" as one would normally presume... it's a civil trial/hearing, or an administrative trial/hearing... different burdens of proof, different punishments that may be meted out.
In Washington state, since they're an "administrative infraction" they're not supposed to be attached with a fine any greater than a parking ticket. There's currently a suit in WA state, because there are a few cities that totally forgot that an administrative violation can't have regular traffic-level fines, because the burden of proof is so much lower.
Think of it this way, the lower the burden of proof is on the violation, the less they can actually charge, and the state sets up what's ok, and what isn't. So, if you're going to setup a program to automatically ticket red-light runners, then you can't charge them as much as you would if they were to have rights to a full trial.
Actually, you missed something, well, actually, you just butchered the English verb phrases into a single operator. Better is to have:
I they shortsighted so be would believe can't.
The "that" serves much the same purpose of parentheses in math, in that it takes a sentence as a whole and makes it into a direct object... since there is no ambiguity such as that with RPN, one would be safe to remove it.
Note the use of unaries!
You can divide the genes that determine human sexuality into two groups. One group determines the form that genitals take. The other group determines all the other physical and psychological aspects of sexuality. Conceptually, it's easy to see how someone could develop with female genitals and everything else male. That doesn't mean that anyone has identified it as a syndrome, much less the genes and protein-level mechanisms.
My favorite intersex condition is AMH insensitivity. It makes men grow a uterus!
"Well, while we were in getting your appendix out, we actually found a uterus... we took it out, because it's likely to just give you cancer."
That's when most people would look at the doctor and say "scuse me wha?"
Oh, that's right. I forgot there's only two options and no possibility of deviation from those options AT ALL.
Fucking moron.
Since in the vast majority of cases, it really is one of those two options - it seems like the logical first step, given that invasive testing is apparently already the norm for track and field anymore. If Caster's test shows XX or XY, either way the case is closed. Arguing that a remote possibility of a different genetic state exists means you can't first test for the heavily dominant typical state is, quite frankly, silly. That's like arguing that a doctor shouldn't do an influenza test on a patient with flu-like symptoms because there's a remote possibility it's Brucellosis.
They believe that she has congenital adrenal hyperplasia... if she does have that, then she's most likely XX. The problem is that there is no belief that she has an abnormal genotype or abnormal genitalia. They believe she has something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
This is a hormone imbalance, specifically in that it causes the adrenal glands to produce too much androgens/steroids. She's naturally doped up the same as a man would be. That does not necessarily however make her a "man", any more than an XX genotype make her a "woman".
Considering that a hormone panel takes less time and is less invasive than a genetic screening, I think that should be the FIRST and FOREMOST test upon women competing... you know, while you're testing for those artificial steroids, why not look at the natural levels of them as well?!
One of the most surefire way is to see if her gametes can play their respective roll. If they can manage to form a viable embryo from her egg, case closed. If not, some more testing would be needed. Also, a genetic advantage is the reason most athletes get the gold. If she has a rare/new trait, what are you going to do when a larger percentage of the population has it in the future? It's just as discriminatory to ban them now as it would be later. Especially if it's a naturally acquired trait.
Not entirely... there are different conditions on why one needs to make the distinction of male and female. In sports, men naturally have more steroids (androgens) available than females. Thus, men are at a significant advantage for developing muscle mass and strength. This is why it's unfair to make men and women compete in the same group. If this woman has a hormone profile that shows that it is outside of the standard range for women, then whether she is a woman or not is irrelevant, she should not be allowed to compete against other female athletes.
All of this is ENTIRELY different with regards to whom she can marry (if she's outside of Massachusetts or whatever), which bathroom she is permitted to use, if she can contribute to a viable embryo, and what genitals she has. All of these are decided by entirely different criteria.
Male and female are not the hard and fast rule that most people think they are. Quite apart, who cares if she eschewed playing with dolls and other girls? Should we allow a person with testicles and male-levels of testosterone to compete against women if he enjoyed playing with dolls, etc?
The IOCC has already settled this, because they had to deal with intersexed and transsexual people before this particular group. Their decision was that as long as the hormone panel is consistent with the appropriate sex. Otherwise, this woman that they're investigating is doping... albeit naturally, but it's still unfair.
So the private medical insurance is similar to an "umbrella policy" that covers what isn't covered by the public plan?
*nod nod* That's how it works in most places with socialized healthcare. In poorer countries like South Africa, the private companies can find a niche providing on-demand service to people who would otherwise have to wait. But since there is a public health option, they don't have to struggle with providing care (charity or not) to most of the people who are unable to pay.
If you need to go to the ER, then they stabilize you and transport you to a public health hospital, and they're guaranteed at least some compensation for doing so, unlike our current system of "great, we're not getting paid for ANY of this work right now."
Doctors charge so much because of malpractice insurance and the providers of medical hardware and equipment are trying to make the largest profit margin that they can. You literally have 8 middle-men between you and your bill.
Now, once the government comes in and mandates and enforces pricing structures, EVERYONE'S prices go down. Suddenly, Doctors don't need to charge as much for their work, because their work costs significantly less.
As noted above, the private companies would be umbrella policies, covering things that the public plan would not cover. Why provide basic healthcare options like doctor's visits when the public plan can handle that? Well, if the private plan can afford to provide doctor's visits in a way that is affordable to them, and they make a profit from it, then they would do it.
You don't seem to understand that the government isn't about making policy choices and individual assessments of what is, and is not covered. It isn't now, and it won't be in the future. All socialized healthcare systems can have their treatment decisions challenged directly in court (no mandated arbitration, or they'll drop your policy sort of bullshit). And guess what the courts always decide? If a competent doctor states that the procedure is medically necessary then the treatment will be covered.
Currently for-profit systems love to come up with these "it's experimental" or "it's cosmetic" bullshit stories to deny coverage for a specific procedure. Guess what? Sometimes, a breast augmentation surgery is not simply cosmetic. Washington State has a law on the books, that if a mastectomy is performed then the insurance must cover breast reconstruction. Well, court case comes along, and a woman had cosmetic breast augmentation with silicone, it began leaking, and they had to excise the implant and some tissue. The courts ruled that any amount of a mastectomy requires coverage for reconstructive surgery.
Washington State courts have constantly also upheld that coverage of sex reassignment therapy must be covered by state programs, even though federal law currently allows denial of care to anyone based on sexual orientation. Yeah, your employment-based ERISA healthcare PLAN, not insurance, but PLAN is allowed to deny you treatment because you're gay. "You have the AIDS, sorry, because you've had sex with men, we're not going to cover you." "Oh, you're a man with a uterus? Oh, too bad about the cancer, but we're not going to pay for taking it out."
People who complain about the government getting their nose in all the business and bullshit of everyone's healthcare is a fucking paranoid schizo with their head so far up their ass that they can't see that the healthcare system in their desire to make a profit are significantly more interested in making your personal healthcare their business than the government is.
By and in large, DOCTORS in socialized healthcare systems say that for the vast majority of cases, when a patient comes, they are able to simply treat the patient and give the patient all the care necessary without worrying about "OMG! WHAT IF I DON'T GET PAID FOR THIS?!"
Because guess what? With a socialized healthcare system, the doctor will get paid for everything he does.
Personally, I think women ought to sue. I think taking a picture of someone and labeling it "skank" or "whore" is despicable and deserves to be punished, and if a few financially valuable websites went down in flames as a result, and a few people lost their houses, the others might clean up their acts. Free speech does not extend to defamation, nor should it.
DEFAMATION is wrong, and I agree... however insulting someone is not defamation. Just because someone posts something offensive about you doesn't mean that you have grounds to sue. The speech has to be intended to be taken as a statement of fact, and not opinion.
This is why you can give a review of someone's performance and say, "it was an abysmal waste of my time." You are 100% protected to speak any and all of your opinions.
You are however not allowed to make false statements of fact about someone else. So, even in Iran, if you're calling the guy a "cocksucking faggot" just because you want to insult the guy, and have no intentions that it be taken as literal fact, then it doesn't matter that Iran puts homosexuals to death. Unless you're specifically making the direct and real claim that he is a homosexual, then there is no defamation, because otherwise, it's just opinion.
This is why Penn and Teller's Bullshit! calls people fuckers, assholes, and says what they're doing is bullshit. If they used non-patently-offensive terms, they could potentially be subject to a lawsuit for defamation. Claiming that someone is lying to their clients is defamation, but saying that someone is bullshitting their clients is a statement of offensive opinion.
Actually, this is precisely the system in use in many countries. I'll pick one at random... South Africa.
In South Africa, you pay mandatory taxes, and you get what you need if you need it. Or, your employer or whoever can offer you a different plan with their own doctors, and provide for different things than the primary plan.
Namely, it doesn't matter if the private options attempt to woo the younger people with lower rates, because the younger people will STILL be paying for the public plan. Thus, any additional coverage provided by a private plan would automatically be more expensive than the government health plan.
You keep thinking that I want these private companies to compete directly and fairly with the government plan... this is incorrect. The public plan is there to provide sufficient and reasonable care to everyone. If you want to pad your insurance just in case, then you can get a private health insurance, and then if the state health agency says "Sorry, it's been 5 days, you're ready to leave the hospital" you can be all "I have additional insurance that will cover me for an additional 5 days... I'm staying."
Then of course, when the government "Death Panel" convenes and says "you don't get a kidney", then you can go to the insurance and say, "hey! Help me out! The gov won't cover me!"
Oh wait, the "death panel" already exists in the form of a transplant committee. Need a new heart? Oh sorry, you're bulimic, and caused your own heart failure by taking ipecac too often. Since we have a limited number of hearts, and you'll probably just fuck this new on up, guess what? you're not kidding it!
If I remember correctly Hawaii tried that. Turned out that people learned really quick that they didn't have to pay a company for insurance and got it 'free' from the government. The state ended up canceling the program because it was basically bankrupting them.
The public plan starts with the presumption that it will pay for everyone. This is likely where the Hawai'i plan failed.
The point is not to have a public option that is forced to compete on an equal playing field with private options, it's that the public option is funded with mandatory taxes, and provides reasonable care.
If you want the glitzy care, then you pay for private health insurance.
I'd say that waaaaaayyyy more people are overweight/obese than smoke. How many old smokers have you seen? Tons. How many old fat people have you seen. Not many. Seems to me that obesity is far worse than smoking.
As the AC noted... you don't really see fat old people because they typically can't get around.
However, I agree with your assertion that more people are obese than smoke in Amiland.
The only health care program that really works is the single payer option.
More accurately, a single payer system that will cover you if you need it to. Companies should always be welcome to compete against the single payer system... if they can make money, then good for them!
One could claim that obesity is a preventable disease, and thus a health care problem.
More people smoke in Europe than in the USA, however they still have a longer life expectancy... I wonder how that works...
Riiiight - McDonalds are banned in Europe, as are all fast foods, drugs, booze and tobacco, and all American culture. Except they're not. The higher death rates are from two things - guns and a lack of a comprehensive health-care system. Until the housing crisis, the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical bills, and 74% of all those had medical insurance. The high cost of co-pays, and the insurance carriers weaseling out of paying for coverage to make a profit, meant that they had to go broke. So much for for-profit health care.
Guns are actually pretty low. More people die of diabetes than all homicides. Now, granted the reason for the abysmal life-expectancy particularly in 16-25 year old black males is because they tend to be aggregated into areas of high drug, gang, and criminal activity, which results in really bad life expectancy...
Take a sociology course. The single greatest statistical correlation with how much a person will earn, is how much their parents earned.
Let me put it in a more clear way... the people in the bronze age were at a reasonable similar biological state to what we are now. Enough to consider them well within the same species.
Yet, we have tons of advantages that they didn't have. Why? Because we were biologically superior? Because we work harder for it? Wow, no. It's because we're standing on the shoulders of giants.
The same works on the small scale. Children stand on the shoulders of their parents, and if their parents aren't giants, then the children won't be giants.
I agree that sexual accusations are usually the first place that men go when insulting women, but not in absolutely every case, and not all insults aimed at women are sexually based. "Bitch" isn't sexual -- it implies viciousness. "Hag," "slattern," and "sloven" are three more. "Slut" actually used to mean "slovenly person" -- "dust mice" in England used to be known as "slut's wool" -- but has since taken on a sexual connotation.
People might have called Margaret Thatcher a bitch, but to call her a slut or a whore would just be ridiculous.
What about women's insults for other women? My guess is that they are usually based on looks or taste.
Very well "hag" is a nice general term for a woman, however it typically only applies to older women. Attempting to apply it to a younger woman would likely lead one to say "huh?"
"Slattern" and "sloven" are off the list, because... I mean, come on, how many people hurling insults on a regular basis (and thus establishing the culture's swear words) actually know of these words in the first place?
It doesn't take long for any term referring to women to obtain overtones of sexual promiscuity... a "courtesan" is just the female version of "courtier", "madam" now means a female pimp, and "mistress" is just the female version of "master".
Women's insults for other women are all implicit attacks upon the non-chastity of the other woman. Seriously, that's all we ever bitch at each other about, really.
It's like how guys always attack the sexual orientation of other men. "Dude, you're gay", or "You're a cocksucker", or "you're a fag".
Human cultures and subcultures pick a meme to assault upon another person with, and stick with it with admirable determination.
A question, would any of you think it appropriate to consider as defamation a picture of a guy grabbing his crotch with a caption reading, "gay butt-fucking faggot"? I think the very first thing that one would consider here, were that the author of the caption was not intending to make a statement of fact regarding the person's sexual orientation... yet apparently this judge feels that the same form of patently offensive speech against a woman is somehow a statement of fact.
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
In the court order, the judge specifically states that impugnment of her chastity is the reason for granting the order.
However, if she's a public-figure then it need be proven that it was done with actual malice, and not simply negligently.
I find it more interesting that if you say that impugning the chastity of a woman is always wrong, what kind of insults can you hurl at her? All general insults for women are rooted in impugning the woman's chastity. Namely, "bitch" "ho" "skank" "slut"... the general insults of "jerk" "asshole" and "fucker" rarely are applied to women.
To me, it takes more than simply using a word that is rooted in impugning the woman's chastity in order to actually impugn her chastity. One has to specifically specify that one believes that she is unchaste. Simply calling someone a "slut" often is not intended to be a statement of fact that she is unchaste... it's simply the insults that our language affords for women.
The Hon. Judge Joan Madden used www.dictionary.reference.com in order to get the definitions, which she provides in her court order as: skank "one who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl." and "ho" as a "slang" word equivalent to "prostitute", and that "whoring" is "to associate or to have sexual relations with prostitutes" or "to accept payment in exchange for sexual relations."
I'm incredibly surprised that this judge did not consider these words to be equivalent to general insults such as "jerk".
People here keep harping that the internet is no different than other media in Point of view of first admendment and right to privacy. The question IS NOT "is it fair that the anonymity was revealed" but the question IS would this with other normal older media be a ground for a libel/slander lawsuit or not ? Would a photo poster with the person with " is a psychotic skank" a ground for slander ? Forget the part where it is a blog. Think about what the LAW would be for the older media. And in such a case, I think there is a good ground to say posting poster with " is a psychotic skank" can be seen as slandering. Once you have that step, then be it a paper poster, blog, or graved on a stone.
Insults are statements of opinion, and thus not subject to claims of defamation. The point here is that the judge (yes, I read the court order) states that the word "skank" is a statement of fact and not opinion, and that the blogger were impugning the sexual chastity of the model. As well, that "ho" is a statement of fact equivalent to calling the person a "prostitute".
The question here is if "psychotic skanky ho" should be viewed the same as "psychopathic promiscuous prostitute" or rather should be viewed the same as "psychotic fucked-up jerk". I think any reasonable person would side with the point that the phrase is intended as insult and offense, but not as a statement of fact.
And Civilization lurches slightly forward.
Lookit, you want to call Bush a Nazi Warmonger or Obama an Incompetent Puppet, or speak any kind of Truth to Power, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you on the ramparts in defense of your Freedom to Speak, you're a Patriot. You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.
The Internet has changed many things, but it has not changed everything.
No. She called her a "skanky ho" in 5 posts all made on the same day, then walked away from it. The blogger obviously had no intent on injuring her reputation beyond simple insults. She also didn't hide like a coward, she hired an attorney in order to protect her rights, in that in order for an anonymous individual to be released in a pre-discovery action, there need to be a clear and substantive indication that a cause of action exists.
Calling someone a "skanky ho" is not defamation. It's an insult, but it's not defamatory, and courts have upheld by and in far that the word "jerk" is a generalized insult, carries no meaning beyond simply insult, and thus is automatically a statement of opinion.
With all this said... You, Sir, are a Jerk.