You and me, both. The only thing I let my car do is run on cruise control, and even then only for the (too) long stretches of Indiana.
I love the feeling of rowing my own gears. It provides a nice reminder that driving is not a video game. I absolutely hate that cars are trying to insulate their occupants more and more from the fact that driving can be dangerous if not done with great care.
The United States is not a contracting party of the Geneva (not Genova) Convention on Road Traffic. Therefore, yes, they can pass and enforce that law. That doesn't make it a good law, mind you, but since we aren't a part of that treaty, its terms mean diddly-squat to us.
This hardly looks like the picture of obeying the law. For fun, scroll up a few lines to the little blurb on how little fuel (by percentage) was actually saved -- due, of course, to non-compliance.
Yes, there was a one-time drop in fatalities, due to fewer drivers and fewer miles driven. After that, the rate stayed lower than before, even as 55 was widely ignored. And, of course, once the limits went back to sensible (especially for today's far safer cars) levels, the rate didn't return to pre-1973 levels, even though cars were still primitive by our safety standards.
Also, check out the danger of non-uniform speeds, especially on high-limit roads. I know it's been said here before, and not that far from this post, but doing 55 in a 75 zone in normal conditions is dangerous and borderline suicidal.
Interstate Highways in the U.S. have rather strict design standards, especially relating to the intended rate of travel. Any and all improvements in the fatality rate on American roads during the dark days of the double-nickel limit can be attributed to factors other than the lower limit. Why? No one obeyed that limit because it was stupid.
In fact, it was worse than stupid. It was dangerous. An artificially low speed limit actually forces the brain to work harder because of the mismatch between expected and actual sensory inputs. In other words, it can be as taxing, if not possibly more so, on the mind to drive too slow than too fast. Unconsciously, you know how long it should take to get from A to B, given nothing but the physical characteristics of the roadway. Deviate too much from that, and reconciling what is with what should be is far less safe than driving in accordance with what the roadway is set up to allow.
Additionally, artificially low limits on superhighways tends to overload other streets, which tend to NOT be designed for long-distance travel. This, too, was an unintended consequence of the NMSL. That, however, is for a different discussion.
Things like the double-nickel NMSL that was, thankfully, discarded in the mid nineties, the.08 BAC limit, or the legal drinking age of 21 years, all which were adopted nationwide as the result of coercion from the Feds, are the perfect car analogy for this situation.
A majority of the states have highway speed limits of 70+. No federal highway dollars are currently tied to speed limits, just as no federal education dollars should be tied to dysfunctional standardized testing. In fact, the current model of taking away money due to poor testing performance practically guarantees that bad schools will remain bad. I'm not saying that money is the solution to every problem in our schools, but the proper application of sufficient funds can make a difference.
The summary says that this Civic-turned-EV cost two years and fourteen thousand dollars. Then, it says that it's no comparison to a Tesla S, but to keep in mind the difference in costs. So, let us do just that.
Homebrew Civic EV: 45 miles per charge. Old, possibly structurally unsound body. No warranty. Seats 4 or 5. Acceleration is probably worse than the original car's lackluster performance. Possible voiding of homeowner's insurance (should something go wrong while charging). Cost -- $14,000 plus two years' time.
Tesla S (60kWh): 220 miles per charge. New car with warranty. Safer body to meet modern crash standards. Seats 5 to 7. Sub-6 seconds to 60. Cost -- $60,000.
The summary is right. There is no comparison between the two cars. The Tesla is not only a better car, but it's a better use of his money and time. It is more than five times the car for four times the money. Other than the street cred one gets for driving a sub-standard homebrew EV (if that gets you any in his circles), I can't see any justification for the time and money he pissed away.
Mostly correct. The system was originally titled "National System of Interstate Highways." When it was conceived and passed into law (in 1956), the primary focus was on civilian movement and trucking. The words "and Defense" were added to take advantage of Cold War mania.
The Department of Defense, however, has had a great deal of input into construction standards for the highways, specifically with regards to minimum overhead clearance. Original standards for things like overpasses was set to fourteen feet, but the military wanted a higher clearance to allow for heavy equipment transport. Today, the minimum clearance is sixteen feet, and the DoD is a part of any reconstruction project that involves raising old bridges to meet the current standard.
Also, if you've ever wondered why Interstates are mostly below-grade, the potential for military equipment transport is part of the reason why. The other is that it's far cheaper to build a two-lane bridge than a six-lane one.
Three-year-olds shouldn't be using Skype at all, and most certainly not unattended. If you're tired of holding the laptop for her, then don't use Skype. It is okay to say "no."
Help her get an actual social life. She'll benefit far more than by talking to the moving pictures on the laptop. In fact, I'd guess she may not even know the difference between the stimulus provided by the laptop and the television.
Stewart Baker, an attorney at Steptoe and Johnson who was previously a Homeland Security assistant secretary and general counsel at the National Security Agency, has suggested that the administration's proposals to expand CFAA are Draconian.
Before you dismiss this as a "no shit" statement, keep in mind that the Mr. Baker was previously employed by Homeland Security and the NSA -- two organizations not known for their even-handedness and promotion of actual freedom and justice. For someone who may have been employed by the very same Presidential Administration seeking to expand the reach of the CFAA to be this blunt is amazing. I sincerely hope that our "leaders" keep that in mind.
You've received a job offer for seven thousand pounds more than you are making right now for doing the same job. That is not just "come work for me" money. That is a sign that you have outgrown your current job. Recognizing that is important because your current employer probably already knows it. At this point, I see the only way of you keeping your current job is to not give any indication to your boss that you know you have outgrown your current job.
If you go into your boss's office and ask for that kind of a raise, he will know that you're aware of the situation. Once that happens, your days are numbered. Remember that this is a company that is already outsourcing its positions. They have shown where their loyalties lie, and it's not with their employees. It's with money.
It sounds like the new opportunity has a lot to offer that you can't get where you are now. Investigate and if it's really all it seems to be, go for it. If your relationship with your co-workers is what you believe it to be, then they'll support you.
I take it that you've seen the (nearly) 1:1 Enterprise-D that someone built. Impressive for the details, as well as the absolutely ridiculous amount of time needed to build such a thing.
The standard set in 1976 was not "sloppy." The standard is for minimum yellow light durations, with the final determination based on other factors in addition to approach speed, such as geography, traffic volume and current automotive technology. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices calls for a yellow duration of 3 - 6 seconds. Any sloppiness you see is due to the need for the standards to have leeway for situations that aren't best-case.
This is from the FHWA website
: Section 4D.26 of the 2009 MUTCD requires the duration of the yellow change interval to be determined using engineering practices, and indicates that such engineering practices can be found in two books published by ITE. (Visit ITE's website at www.ite.org, where you will find additional information under "Technical Information".) Because vehicle laws vary by State and conditions vary by intersection, the engineer must exercise judgment in deciding on the length of the yellow interval, as noted in the ITE guidelines.
In general, the minimum durations work out to be three seconds for traffic of 25 mph, with an additional second for each 10 mph above 25. And, these are supposed to be minimum durations. Cities and companies who set yellow times that don't even meet these standards should be held legally responsible. I'm thinking involuntary manslaughter or worse. Maybe criminal indifference.
Technically, this is correct. This is true regardless of what one uses as money--even gold has no absolute financial value. Things that are rarer and non-consumable, like gold, often have a higher relative value than to tree leaves and bread, but there's also quite a bit of "What do I do with it now?" involved in any sort of trade. In other words, if I don't like gold and don't have a use for it, it's worth less to me than it is to a jewelry maker.
However, currencies don't need to be backed by anything physical. Let's put aside the argument over what any currency's component worth is for the moment (because it is fairly close to nothing). The real value of any currency is the ability to pay taxes to one's own government without having to suffer through currency exchanges. As an American citizen, I can pay my taxes in U.S. Dollars, but I can't do the same in Yen, Euros, or Bitcoins. Those other forms of money may be stronger, but come April 15, no currency has more value for me than the Dollar.
Bottom line is this: Until taxes can be paid in Bitcoins, they will remain a fringe alternative money utilized by people who don't mind the hassle of finding a place to trade them for local currency. Things like this trojan won't help Bitcoins gain acceptance.
Cell phones are known for having other functionality as well as being able to tell the time. I've never seen the point of strapping a somewhat functional piece of jewelry to my arm when I have a small device in my pocket that tells the time, as well as doing a hundred or more other things that I find useful.
Allow me, tender age of 31 with a case of old-man-itis, to show the superiority of the wrist watch.
Steps required to tell time on a watch: --Flick wrist.
Steps required to tell time on a cell phone. --Dig through pockets, or worse yet, purse. --Flip, slide, or otherwise turn on screen. --Find clock application or tiny time display. --Put phone back in pocket or purse.
I feel naked without a wristwatch on. As a consequence, I have a garish tan line on my left wrist even in the dead of winter. And I love analog for the sole reason of I think they look cooler.
First: Agreed. Second: No one died, but that doesn't make Harold Camping less culpable for intentionally sowing fear and panic based on bullshit numbers pulled from thin air pointing to a made-up date for his prophecy. The seismologists were acting on good faith in accordance with their training and experience. That's a huge difference, and one that does carry a lot of weight. Third: Off-topic it may be, but it does make for an interesting comparison. Fourth: I'm sure there's a lot of people who agree that the intentional actions of a predatory fraudster should be punished more severely than the seismologists who made an honest, if not slightly careless, mistake. I certainly didn't read the question as a joke.
it doesn't matter what legal liabilities you have, nor what the legal system ultimately decides with regards to your guilt. There's a great deal that you can't just waive a "not guilty" verdict at to make go away. Because we place too much faith in law enforcement to do things right, there's an automatic assumption of "arrest= guilt." The police aren't infallible, though. Due to complacency or laziness or incompetence, they screw up, and their mistakes, which inflict a harm on society that is at least equal to the damage caused by the criminals that they do manage to take off the streets, are an all too common occurrence. Then, when the cops screw up, we act surprised and wonder how this could possibly happen.
When the dust settles after a major police screw-up, something that I find to be absurd happens: The police continue about their way, immune to any real consequences. They are free to screw up again--which they will. Meanwhile, the poor soul whose life they've ruined has little to no recourse to repair his reputation and make himself a productive member of society again.
As much as a applaud the EFF's efforts to bring sanity to law in this digital age, they're wrong on this. My first responsibility is to protect and provide for myself and my family. As long as I don't bring harm to others by taking care of myself, any protections I take in the fulfillment of this first responsibility are reasonable. Encryption on a wi-fi router is hardly damaging to anyone else, and, therefore, is reasonable.
It's not a new tax. It's not a tax increase. It's a new attempt at the enforcement of an existing rule.
I predict that we'll have just as much compliance under the new enforcement as we do under the current honor system. As long as "zero" is a valid input for taxes owed on any form, people will put it in.
What law does this kind of app aid a person in breaking?
I do not jest when I ask this, because it is NOT illegal to avoid contact with the police. Driving is not a right, but rather a privilege. However, you DO have the right to travel from one place to another free of undue and unwarranted harassment. Because of the way that DUI checkpoints are conducted, they absolutely qualify as undue and unwarranted harassment. You personally may not mind being the presumption of guilt that hovers over you at a DUI checkpoint, but most reasonable people resent the mindset of police who are looking for any excuse to slap you with a ticket--or worse. I consider the ability to avoid unnecessary interaction with an agency that does not have my best interests in mind to be a legitimate use. If you don't, then you really need to get a clue.
Furthermore, the locations of DUI checkpoints are published beforehand. Would you also take newspapers to task for publishing this information? You could certainly use it to get plastered and then avoid the cops. The checkpoint locations are intended to be public knowledge, and trying to restrict that knowledge is not too good an idea.
Yes, it is illegal to drive when drunk. Here's the thing, though--as soon as you get behind the wheel of a car you can't control (for nearly any reason) and start driving it, you've already broken the law. Once you're truly drunk, you don't have the mental capacity to take a route home based on where the police aren't. If you can think ahead and plan out your trip home based on a DUI checkpoint alert program and actually stick to it, then you probably aren't the danger to the driving public that MADD and the police say you are.
I haven't even gone into the inaccuracy of breathalyzer readings, nor the fact that field tests are designed to be failed. I could, but I trust that I've made my point.
This is only partially correct. I'm for getting rid of most of the leniency that comes with drunk-driving "punishments" handed down these days. There is no excuse for the unbelievable lack of forethought that comes with getting behind the wheel of a car that you can't adequately control.
However, so long as we rely on inaccurate breathalyzers (none of which are accurate, fwiw) for determining who is drunk and who is not, leniency is absolutely called for to counter the grossly wrong way in which DUI cases are handled. People talk a lot about punishing DUI offenders as is done in Europe, but Europe doesn't screw around with breathalyzers.
I know it's been thrown around here before, but this should be enough to make anyone who thinks that our current system of evidence gathering is good enough change his mind.
It takes a real man to admit that he might not be a good father. I get the "you'd make a good father" line all the time, but I've never really agreed with that. And so, because I don't want to do my kids a disservice by not being able to raise them properly, I sit here at the age of thirty with no kids in my past and none in my future. Personally, I believe that to have a kid when you shouldn't be doing so is selfish, far more than not having kids at all.
I don't feel bad about not wanting to have kids. Not in the least. If someone calls me selfish for it, I smile and agree and crack a joke or two. If someone asks why, I say straight up that I don't trust myself to do the job. That usually puts the issue to rest, but if it doesn't, the person I'm talking to isn't worth talking to about the subject.
The funny thing about parenthood, though, is that you don't know for sure until you try--and once you try, there's no easy way to go back.
Slashdot Mirror
You and me, both. The only thing I let my car do is run on cruise control, and even then only for the (too) long stretches of Indiana. I love the feeling of rowing my own gears. It provides a nice reminder that driving is not a video game. I absolutely hate that cars are trying to insulate their occupants more and more from the fact that driving can be dangerous if not done with great care.
The United States is not a contracting party of the Geneva (not Genova) Convention on Road Traffic. Therefore, yes, they can pass and enforce that law. That doesn't make it a good law, mind you, but since we aren't a part of that treaty, its terms mean diddly-squat to us.
This hardly looks like the picture of obeying the law. For fun, scroll up a few lines to the little blurb on how little fuel (by percentage) was actually saved -- due, of course, to non-compliance.
Yes, there was a one-time drop in fatalities, due to fewer drivers and fewer miles driven. After that, the rate stayed lower than before, even as 55 was widely ignored. And, of course, once the limits went back to sensible (especially for today's far safer cars) levels, the rate didn't return to pre-1973 levels, even though cars were still primitive by our safety standards.
Also, check out the danger of non-uniform speeds, especially on high-limit roads. I know it's been said here before, and not that far from this post, but doing 55 in a 75 zone in normal conditions is dangerous and borderline suicidal.
2. Is it to blindly uphold the law, irrespective of safety?
Please cite one proven example where going faster is in the interest of safety.
Since you asked: http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf
Interstate Highways in the U.S. have rather strict design standards, especially relating to the intended rate of travel. Any and all improvements in the fatality rate on American roads during the dark days of the double-nickel limit can be attributed to factors other than the lower limit. Why? No one obeyed that limit because it was stupid.
In fact, it was worse than stupid. It was dangerous. An artificially low speed limit actually forces the brain to work harder because of the mismatch between expected and actual sensory inputs. In other words, it can be as taxing, if not possibly more so, on the mind to drive too slow than too fast. Unconsciously, you know how long it should take to get from A to B, given nothing but the physical characteristics of the roadway. Deviate too much from that, and reconciling what is with what should be is far less safe than driving in accordance with what the roadway is set up to allow.
Additionally, artificially low limits on superhighways tends to overload other streets, which tend to NOT be designed for long-distance travel. This, too, was an unintended consequence of the NMSL. That, however, is for a different discussion.
Now all I need is an '82 Trans Am....
Things like the double-nickel NMSL that was, thankfully, discarded in the mid nineties, the .08 BAC limit, or the legal drinking age of 21 years, all which were adopted nationwide as the result of coercion from the Feds, are the perfect car analogy for this situation.
A majority of the states have highway speed limits of 70+. No federal highway dollars are currently tied to speed limits, just as no federal education dollars should be tied to dysfunctional standardized testing. In fact, the current model of taking away money due to poor testing performance practically guarantees that bad schools will remain bad. I'm not saying that money is the solution to every problem in our schools, but the proper application of sufficient funds can make a difference.
What if I have a bread-maker and hate circuses?
The summary says that this Civic-turned-EV cost two years and fourteen thousand dollars. Then, it says that it's no comparison to a Tesla S, but to keep in mind the difference in costs. So, let us do just that. Homebrew Civic EV: 45 miles per charge. Old, possibly structurally unsound body. No warranty. Seats 4 or 5. Acceleration is probably worse than the original car's lackluster performance. Possible voiding of homeowner's insurance (should something go wrong while charging). Cost -- $14,000 plus two years' time. Tesla S (60kWh): 220 miles per charge. New car with warranty. Safer body to meet modern crash standards. Seats 5 to 7. Sub-6 seconds to 60. Cost -- $60,000. The summary is right. There is no comparison between the two cars. The Tesla is not only a better car, but it's a better use of his money and time. It is more than five times the car for four times the money. Other than the street cred one gets for driving a sub-standard homebrew EV (if that gets you any in his circles), I can't see any justification for the time and money he pissed away.
It's a movie. Sort of a reboot of the anime/manga series. And it looks completely awesome.
Mostly correct. The system was originally titled "National System of Interstate Highways." When it was conceived and passed into law (in 1956), the primary focus was on civilian movement and trucking. The words "and Defense" were added to take advantage of Cold War mania.
The Department of Defense, however, has had a great deal of input into construction standards for the highways, specifically with regards to minimum overhead clearance. Original standards for things like overpasses was set to fourteen feet, but the military wanted a higher clearance to allow for heavy equipment transport. Today, the minimum clearance is sixteen feet, and the DoD is a part of any reconstruction project that involves raising old bridges to meet the current standard.
Also, if you've ever wondered why Interstates are mostly below-grade, the potential for military equipment transport is part of the reason why. The other is that it's far cheaper to build a two-lane bridge than a six-lane one.
This is the your big concern?
Three-year-olds shouldn't be using Skype at all, and most certainly not unattended. If you're tired of holding the laptop for her, then don't use Skype. It is okay to say "no."
Help her get an actual social life. She'll benefit far more than by talking to the moving pictures on the laptop. In fact, I'd guess she may not even know the difference between the stimulus provided by the laptop and the television.
From the article:
Before you dismiss this as a "no shit" statement, keep in mind that the Mr. Baker was previously employed by Homeland Security and the NSA -- two organizations not known for their even-handedness and promotion of actual freedom and justice. For someone who may have been employed by the very same Presidential Administration seeking to expand the reach of the CFAA to be this blunt is amazing. I sincerely hope that our "leaders" keep that in mind.
Fuck those guys.
Or, better yet, don't. We don't want more of them around.
I agree, but I'll take it one step further.
You've received a job offer for seven thousand pounds more than you are making right now for doing the same job. That is not just "come work for me" money. That is a sign that you have outgrown your current job. Recognizing that is important because your current employer probably already knows it. At this point, I see the only way of you keeping your current job is to not give any indication to your boss that you know you have outgrown your current job.
If you go into your boss's office and ask for that kind of a raise, he will know that you're aware of the situation. Once that happens, your days are numbered. Remember that this is a company that is already outsourcing its positions. They have shown where their loyalties lie, and it's not with their employees. It's with money.
It sounds like the new opportunity has a lot to offer that you can't get where you are now. Investigate and if it's really all it seems to be, go for it. If your relationship with your co-workers is what you believe it to be, then they'll support you.
I take it that you've seen the (nearly) 1:1 Enterprise-D that someone built. Impressive for the details, as well as the absolutely ridiculous amount of time needed to build such a thing.
Looks bitchin' in YouTube, though.
Ack, wrong button! The last paragraph is my opinion, not a quote.
The standard set in 1976 was not "sloppy." The standard is for minimum yellow light durations, with the final determination based on other factors in addition to approach speed, such as geography, traffic volume and current automotive technology. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices calls for a yellow duration of 3 - 6 seconds. Any sloppiness you see is due to the need for the standards to have leeway for situations that aren't best-case.
This is from the FHWA website
Technically, this is correct. This is true regardless of what one uses as money--even gold has no absolute financial value. Things that are rarer and non-consumable, like gold, often have a higher relative value than to tree leaves and bread, but there's also quite a bit of "What do I do with it now?" involved in any sort of trade. In other words, if I don't like gold and don't have a use for it, it's worth less to me than it is to a jewelry maker.
However, currencies don't need to be backed by anything physical. Let's put aside the argument over what any currency's component worth is for the moment (because it is fairly close to nothing). The real value of any currency is the ability to pay taxes to one's own government without having to suffer through currency exchanges. As an American citizen, I can pay my taxes in U.S. Dollars, but I can't do the same in Yen, Euros, or Bitcoins. Those other forms of money may be stronger, but come April 15, no currency has more value for me than the Dollar.
Bottom line is this: Until taxes can be paid in Bitcoins, they will remain a fringe alternative money utilized by people who don't mind the hassle of finding a place to trade them for local currency. Things like this trojan won't help Bitcoins gain acceptance.
Cell phones are known for having other functionality as well as being able to tell the time. I've never seen the point of strapping a somewhat functional piece of jewelry to my arm when I have a small device in my pocket that tells the time, as well as doing a hundred or more other things that I find useful.
Allow me, tender age of 31 with a case of old-man-itis, to show the superiority of the wrist watch.
Steps required to tell time on a watch:
--Flick wrist.
Steps required to tell time on a cell phone.
--Dig through pockets, or worse yet, purse.
--Flip, slide, or otherwise turn on screen.
--Find clock application or tiny time display.
--Put phone back in pocket or purse.
I feel naked without a wristwatch on. As a consequence, I have a garish tan line on my left wrist even in the dead of winter. And I love analog for the sole reason of I think they look cooler.
First: Agreed.
Second: No one died, but that doesn't make Harold Camping less culpable for intentionally sowing fear and panic based on bullshit numbers pulled from thin air pointing to a made-up date for his prophecy. The seismologists were acting on good faith in accordance with their training and experience. That's a huge difference, and one that does carry a lot of weight.
Third: Off-topic it may be, but it does make for an interesting comparison.
Fourth: I'm sure there's a lot of people who agree that the intentional actions of a predatory fraudster should be punished more severely than the seismologists who made an honest, if not slightly careless, mistake. I certainly didn't read the question as a joke.
it doesn't matter what legal liabilities you have, nor what the legal system ultimately decides with regards to your guilt. There's a great deal that you can't just waive a "not guilty" verdict at to make go away. Because we place too much faith in law enforcement to do things right, there's an automatic assumption of "arrest= guilt." The police aren't infallible, though. Due to complacency or laziness or incompetence, they screw up, and their mistakes, which inflict a harm on society that is at least equal to the damage caused by the criminals that they do manage to take off the streets, are an all too common occurrence. Then, when the cops screw up, we act surprised and wonder how this could possibly happen.
When the dust settles after a major police screw-up, something that I find to be absurd happens: The police continue about their way, immune to any real consequences. They are free to screw up again--which they will. Meanwhile, the poor soul whose life they've ruined has little to no recourse to repair his reputation and make himself a productive member of society again.
As much as a applaud the EFF's efforts to bring sanity to law in this digital age, they're wrong on this. My first responsibility is to protect and provide for myself and my family. As long as I don't bring harm to others by taking care of myself, any protections I take in the fulfillment of this first responsibility are reasonable. Encryption on a wi-fi router is hardly damaging to anyone else, and, therefore, is reasonable.
It's not a new tax. It's not a tax increase. It's a new attempt at the enforcement of an existing rule.
I predict that we'll have just as much compliance under the new enforcement as we do under the current honor system. As long as "zero" is a valid input for taxes owed on any form, people will put it in.
What law does this kind of app aid a person in breaking?
I do not jest when I ask this, because it is NOT illegal to avoid contact with the police. Driving is not a right, but rather a privilege. However, you DO have the right to travel from one place to another free of undue and unwarranted harassment. Because of the way that DUI checkpoints are conducted, they absolutely qualify as undue and unwarranted harassment. You personally may not mind being the presumption of guilt that hovers over you at a DUI checkpoint, but most reasonable people resent the mindset of police who are looking for any excuse to slap you with a ticket--or worse. I consider the ability to avoid unnecessary interaction with an agency that does not have my best interests in mind to be a legitimate use. If you don't, then you really need to get a clue.
Furthermore, the locations of DUI checkpoints are published beforehand. Would you also take newspapers to task for publishing this information? You could certainly use it to get plastered and then avoid the cops. The checkpoint locations are intended to be public knowledge, and trying to restrict that knowledge is not too good an idea.
Yes, it is illegal to drive when drunk. Here's the thing, though--as soon as you get behind the wheel of a car you can't control (for nearly any reason) and start driving it, you've already broken the law. Once you're truly drunk, you don't have the mental capacity to take a route home based on where the police aren't. If you can think ahead and plan out your trip home based on a DUI checkpoint alert program and actually stick to it, then you probably aren't the danger to the driving public that MADD and the police say you are.
I haven't even gone into the inaccuracy of breathalyzer readings, nor the fact that field tests are designed to be failed. I could, but I trust that I've made my point.
This is only partially correct. I'm for getting rid of most of the leniency that comes with drunk-driving "punishments" handed down these days. There is no excuse for the unbelievable lack of forethought that comes with getting behind the wheel of a car that you can't adequately control.
However, so long as we rely on inaccurate breathalyzers (none of which are accurate, fwiw) for determining who is drunk and who is not, leniency is absolutely called for to counter the grossly wrong way in which DUI cases are handled. People talk a lot about punishing DUI offenders as is done in Europe, but Europe doesn't screw around with breathalyzers.
I know it's been thrown around here before, but this should be enough to make anyone who thinks that our current system of evidence gathering is good enough change his mind.
It takes a real man to admit that he might not be a good father. I get the "you'd make a good father" line all the time, but I've never really agreed with that. And so, because I don't want to do my kids a disservice by not being able to raise them properly, I sit here at the age of thirty with no kids in my past and none in my future. Personally, I believe that to have a kid when you shouldn't be doing so is selfish, far more than not having kids at all.
I don't feel bad about not wanting to have kids. Not in the least. If someone calls me selfish for it, I smile and agree and crack a joke or two. If someone asks why, I say straight up that I don't trust myself to do the job. That usually puts the issue to rest, but if it doesn't, the person I'm talking to isn't worth talking to about the subject.
The funny thing about parenthood, though, is that you don't know for sure until you try--and once you try, there's no easy way to go back.