One important difference: in the US you get a license by memorizing a few signs and traffic laws. They will tell you "driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right" but in practice it's treated like a right unless you get multiple DUIs or something (even then, a few years later - or less - the irresponsible adult can re-apply). The result is lots of unskilled drivers on the road, including those with more than enough experience to know better.

It's regrettable but the more the USA continues down its current commercial and philosophical path, the more people tend to do the minimum even when the minimum (in this case, of skill) is grossly inadequate. It doesn't take much effort to gradually get just a little better at something day by day, but it does take an awareness that one should do so. Here driving is widely seen as nothing more than a means to an end, not something in which to invest any skill because the lives of oneself and others may depend on it. Actually almost everything is viewed that way. It's the same reason in computing, there are so many permanent newbies - they managed to avoid accidentally picking up any new knowledge day by day even when a computer is an important tool without which they can't earn a living.

So unsurprisingly, I see unsafe practices every day I drive. Also, stupid unnecessary shit like tailgating 2 inches from the other guy's bumper with two open passing lanes is unfathomably popular. On a related practice, I have no idea why it's so important to get beside somebody and carefully maintain the exact same speed, even though to appear there they had to initially move faster, but I simply cannot drive a few miles down an interstate without seeing it, even during low-traffic hours like 4am. I think it's just a mindless "go with the flow, do what everyone else is doing" herd mentality -- that's consistent with what I see elsewhere in this culture. It could also be some psychology of feeling powerless in one's own life, causing them to want to control others by blocking passing lanes and creating hazards. Also, during heavy rain, many don't seem to understand that visibility is vastly improved by not hanging out in the massive backwash from 18-wheelers; this is really not difficult to comprehend, but to do so, one would have to be aware enough to consider it.

As I entertain no delusions about controlling what other people do, my main goal while driving is to keep as much distance between myself and others as I can. They can drive in tightly clustered packs with no room to maneuver (and sometimes, terrible visibility) if that pleases them. Whether it means speeding up or slowing down, I'll be the guy between the nearest two packs.

Please educate me if I am wrong, but I understand that in most European nations, acquiring a license means you actually have to demonstrate skill with maneuvering the vehicle and it's not nearly so easy. The failure rate for license applicants is significantly higher, and since driving means we're talking life and limb, that sounds quite reasonable. If you have only driven in Europe you might even find my descriptions difficult to believe, but I promise you I see this and worse every day.

TL:DR right? I really think it boils down to culture. The USA once had a culture that promoted responsible adulthood but that was a long time ago. What's promoted now is convenience and the idea that nothing is ever one's own fault. The focus has shifted from responsibility to a childish concern about fault-and-blame that prevents so many from learning that cause precedes effect. It's really amazing how many things boil down to that. Ergo, what works great in Europe might not work here, even if it really should be that way. Would you offer unlimited liability coverage to these people? While I don't normally advocate using technology to solve social problems caused by human stupidity and irresponsible adults, I really cannot wait until fully autonomous self-driving cars become mainstream.

Do you deny that liberty tends to erode over time? Or did a hallucination cause you to falsely believe I wanted to get rid of all government?

br
If neither of those is true, then I cannot understand what motivated you to write that post. It looks like a knee-jerk response to someone else's conversation.

There are four things government is in a position to do better than anyone else: military defense, law enforcement, public works, and the erosion of liberty.

Sure thing. All it will cost him is his life savings plus whatever debt he incurs.

How could you tell?

I don't think you understood what was meant by "efficient". Greater mass (the ethanol plus the absorbent material) makes it a less efficient method of transporting ethanol. This product does not produce a drink nearly as strong as regular 80-proof, 40% liquor. It's not even close. I'd carry some 151 (75.5% alcohol) and be much better off. There are lightweight non-glass containers that would be more than suitable.

Did you ever consider that they already know that? These are people who jumped through so many hoops to get where they are that they just enjoy being in control, flexing their muscles, and feeling secure in their positions by using them to real effect. Frivolous shit like this is the low-hanging fruit for control freaks. The very fact that it doesn't involve anything important means that the degree of serious, committed opposition will be minimal.

The important part for this mentality: if it doesn't work, nothing is really lost and you can wait a bit then keep trying until it sticks; if or when it does work, it establishes a "useful" precedent, giving an appearance of legitimacy to the idea that yes, the state can regulate this thing, too.

This is how sociopaths think. It's about winning and winning is about strategy. Most of that comes from a good knowledge of history, what others have tried beore, which things worked and which backfired, and what one is willing to risk. The campaign promises and speeches are just part of playing the game. The problem, the disconnect, is that average people don't think this way. They keep misinterpreting the actions they're observing.

As long as that keeps happening, things are unlikely to change. It's really difficult to solve a problem you haven't even defined.

Have you ever tried to reason with a PHB? Especially when your argument, however correct and well-supported, doesn't come from someone who has that specific responsibility?

Actually when I read that comment, I thought: "it IS good to consider that this is not solely a Russian problem". I didn't necessarily see an appeal to the bandwagon approach to "morality". The person could have meant that, too, but since it was not specified, we don't actually know that.

But this is Slashdot, where assuming you know the poster's intent (through some sort of psychic powers, I guess) is somehow not considered arrogant.

White males are the one group that it's tacitly deemed "okay" to discriminate against. Especially if they happen to be Christian, and even more so if they're Protestant ("WASP").

You just can't have a civil, enlightened society if there's ANY grounp it's okay to fuck with. Even if you think they deserve it. Even if retaliation, based on group identity, against those who didn't personally decide historical events (with their enduring consequences) is somehow your idea of "justice", and simultaneously not your idea of "vengeance". Reversing the tide doesn't cause the state of "tide-free". And it isn't going to.

Otherwise, like if a single individual -- or single institution -- or small group of institutions -- made all these bad decisions, I would be perfectly fine with shunning and refusing to trust that person based on an observed track record. But what you have with the group-guilt scenario is this implicit idea that a large group of people, including those who had no input into the process, should bear some guilt for it. That's a total flat-out rejection of any sort of accountability or individuality.

If you want some kind of one-ness or collective, you don't get it this way. Dystopias are created by trying to find more efficient ways of doing it like that. No, you start by honoring the individual and letting those flourish, interact, and coalesce as they will.

I've yet to witness a Majority which was truly Moral in both word and deed.

I prefer red wine, myself. Like maybe a good, dry cabernet sauvignon. But to each their own! Enjoy that beer, my friend. Salud!

I wouldn't hire them anyway, based in sheer incompetence. The most readily observed incompetence: calling oneself an "editor" while remaining unable to spell-check or understand and apply the 5th-grade English grammar in which most news stories are deliberately written.

The problem is, the workaholics and institution types effectively have forced their ways on everyone else. Worker productivity has steadily risen since at least the 1950s, meanwhile wages (indexed against inflation) have remained relatively stagnant. That would be equitable if the number of hours worked per week had been reduced, but it hasn't (that, by the way, is what steadily improving technology could have brought us, but it's never enough, the owners want more, more more).

That means someone's getting screwed, and unless most of your revenue comes from investments or other unearned income, that includes you. If you don't work the overtime and place your corporation above your family, you're "not a team player". Because these are conflicting goals, they cannot all be simultaneously satisifed. One must be chosen at the expense of all others, meaning some group who want it one way are going to force this upon everyone else. Currently, in so many work environments, this favors those who want more work and less free time.

Rather than call it pure coincidence, which I deliberately and knowingly stopped short of saying, I was implying that it is not. I simply didn't care to get into the minutia of precisely how that happened and what the exact sequence of events were, since my point did not depend on the details, only on the truth that things happened in this manner.