Not just motorbikes. Today I noticed another scratch on my quarter panel (Perth, this is why we cant have nice things). If I knew I could replace the thing for less than $100 I wouldn't care so much (then again, the people who think it's OK to bang their door carelessly against my car might become even more reckless).

Not any more... he had to give up his Australian citizenship to get US citizenship.

He's your nutbar now.

The pendant in me desperately wants to point out that the Vulcans have emotions, they just control (suppress) them and because of his Vulcan upbringing, Spock learned to do the same.

This,

People who dont understand what the word "atheism" means dont know that atheism describes everyone from the non-religious to LeVayan Satanists to Buddhists (yep, Buddhism is an atheist religion, they dont believe in a god or gods).

People who spend a lot of time studying beliefs are the ones that are typically most accepting of others who dont share their beliefs. Its the lay preachers and blind believers that are intolerant of any viewpoint except their own. I think this is because they haven't thought about why they believe what they believe and find any idea that challenges their blind adherence to be uncomfortable and must be silenced.

A theist who commits themselves to study their own faith will find the flaws of it pretty quick. This does not mean they'll stop believing, but it makes them more rational when dealing with people who dont share their faith.

Like in any situation, knowledge of the system is a must for doing this sort of thing. In the USA it's pretty easy to sue in small claims, and normally speaking if your claim is tossed out in small claims that doesn't disallow you from 'appealing' it right into the normal court system, which is what I was talking about.

In Australia it's pretty similar with small claims and appeals. Our legal systems have the same historical basis.

Vexatious litigation is reserved for people who have repeatedly made frivolous cases with the obvious intent of trying to harm the other party (be it financially, reputation or otherwise).

I wasn't actually talking about repeatedly suing them for the same thing. I was talking about doing the usual procedure - sue them in small claims, then elevate to the civil courts. The trick is that the normal response to a letter written by a lawyer is another letter written by a lawyer, and this can get quite expensive quite fast, but quite a bit of back and forth via official documents isn't unusual before an issue ends up going to the courts.

It doesn't matter if it's the same thing, multiple frivolous cases are considered repeatedly suing even if they're for different things. For the times where you legitimately (or even could legitimately) have a problem with the police, the court wont think twice, but making a claim for every single time you get in trouble with the cops and the court will notice. In Oz we take police corruption very seriously. I know someone who thought it was a good idea to fight every ticket. After their 10th court appearance when they were obviously guilty (the cops always had photo or video evidence) he had his license cancelled and declared a vexatious litigant. He's got his license back after his suspension period (and subsequently lost it again due to a pair of reckless driving charges) but any appeals he wants to make now have to be launched on his behalf by a public notary (lawyer, justice of the peace, holder of public office and so forth) which he's failed to do.

Point in short, abuse your right to sue in Oz, it will be taken off you... but it takes a lot for that to happen.

This is actually something I've written to my representatives about. I know it's screwed up, I don't like it, and want to see it stopped. You Aussies, going by statements from Australian citizens I've had conversations with on other boards, have your own issues that are seriously FUBAR.

Yep, Hoon laws.

We have a few dumb laws but less corruption. All in all, I prefer our brand of madness :)

This.

I certainly understand that there is no need nor is it prudent to surrender more information than necessary to the police but trying to play smart arse with the cops is asking for trouble.

So the way it goes down in Australia

Officer: Good evening sir.
Me: Officer.
Officer: How are you tonight sir?
Me: Not bad.
Officer: Have you had anything to drink tonight.
Me: No.
Officer: Where have you come from tonight.
Me: Work.
Officer: Please breathe into this until I tell you to stop.
/breathing until the machine beeps
Officer: All OK sir, thanks for your co-operation.
/I drive off.

Plus it leaves the cops in a good mood so if you blow slightly over (say 0.01) they'll tell you to go and sit down for half an hour when they'll retest you again instead of booking you right away (half an hour where your body gets rid of the alcohol in your system).

If you start getting cagey or trying to use laymans legalese on them they'll get suspicious and hold you on that.

I prefer Australia's breathalysers because they're much faster than roadside sobriety tests (and not court admissible, if you blow over you have to have a blood test which gives you extra time to metabolise the alcohol) and means there is a minimum evidence requirement above the officers word that he or she smelled beer on your breath.

In Australia that will have you listed as a vexatious litigant and you'll be denied access to the small claims and civil courts unless the court decides your claim has merit.

The most famous case of vexatious litigation in Australia was in the 70's where a person repeatedly sued the government of Australia claiming they did not have the right to issue paper money.

Then again in authoritarian Australia, we have this silly law that the police cannot seize cash unless they have a warrant to seize evidence (I.E. if a house is raided as part of a warranted drug raid, large amounts of money can be seized) and they are not permitted to keep it (even if proven to be proceeds of crime, the money goes back to the state or federal coffers).

Yes, but "spoils" are expired meat.

Fair enough.

We get fewer Americans in Oz and they generally dont drive very far because of the drop bears, hoop snakes and land sharks.

I think its saying that the DMV has been paid for a specific result, regardless of the actual events.

In order to pass a driving test, an autonomous car must not only be able to complete a random course without assistance from the assessor (in Australia interference or assistance from an assessor is an instant fail) it must be able to take natural language instructions from the assessor.

In a (Western) Australian driving test, you do not know the route in advance, the assessor will literally tell you where to go as you go (I.E. "Please take a left turn at roundabout" or "Take a left turn at the lights and move into the right hand lane"). Right now natural language interpretation requires it to be trained to your voice and is still very inaccurate. Basically:
You: "Car, dont take the parkway."
Car: "Calling your mother now. Beep"

We can make the other systems good, but also need the interface to be usable and accurate (I.E. dont let Apple anywhere near it).

I have never seen this. Ever, not even with blind drunk drivers. Not even with the ditziest of SUV drivers and Australia has a hell of a lot more roundabouts than the US.

I think you're right, we're looking at a slow, long term roll out. Initially it will start out as road designed as or retrofitted to specifically carry automated cars, similar to an O-Bahn except instead of being a mechanical design, it will be electronic.

The anti-government and revenue conspiracy nuts will hate it as it will mean every vehicle on this road will be tracked in real time (as automated cars will be sharing the road with human controlled cars).

And this is why you get crap service.

No, they dont.

You've written this with no idea how to run a hotel. The customers who are more valuable to you get better service. Like it or not, booking through an agency means that a hotel sees less of that money, so they're going to reserve the better rooms for people who book direct. Its the same with free upgrades, people who book direct are bumped up before people who book through agencies.

Like I said, you're someone who expects Champagne service for beer prices. You're the problem here and have no right to complain. And yes, hotels will put a note in your file saying "troublesome cunt" if you complain about it. Hotels keep notes on guests (normally it's useful stuff like Mrs Smith prefers the room to be made up around 9 AM, but troublesome customers are noted as well).

Its about doing what's right by others to get what you want. Your method is passive aggressive, if you lose, they lose. My method is assertive, if I win, they win... So naturally I'm going to win more than you.

Nope, it's about being able to do something simple, to get the ball rolling on something hard.

Again you have no idea how to run a hotel (but you like to pretend you do). Managers have a million and one things to do, if you get the ball rolling on something it's a lot easier for them to keep it rolling (plus you'll earn the respect of the manager, which leads to discounts, upgrades and free shit).

At a hotel I stayed at a few years ago I noticed the WiFi was a bit slow. Rather than go down and have a big self-entitled cry to the manager, I used WiFi analyser on my tablet to determine what the problem was. Turns out there were plenty of AP's but they were all on the same channel. I went downstairs, caught the manager and explained the problem (and how to fix it) He stayed a half hour after work changing the AP channels. The next day he walks up to me and says "I've received a dozen comments that the internet is a lot faster today, thanks and I've knocked 5% off your bill". This also highlights that people who run hotels aren't experts in every and any thing.

I'd focus on the first three words in that sentence.

But the answer to your question is a lot. Repeat customers are often 50%+ of a hotels business. Especially for business travel and some tourist areas get a lot of repeat business (I.E. Phuket, Thailand tends to see the same people escaping the European winter each year).

If you've never stayed in the same hotel twice, you are not an experienced traveller. I have preferred hotels in over 25 cites across the globe.

Again, this is passive aggressive. The problem with being passive aggressive is that you shoot yourself in the foot to shoot others in the foot.

I'm sure the retirement home is right behind this action :)