The rational for the value of real property is scarcity. There is only so much and only one person can use it at a time. It cost time and money to produce more in the case of goods and services.

No they're are not. Scarcity is what gives property value. Copyright and patents are a way to artificially create scarcity. In a market economy the the price of a good or service should approach it's marginal cost over time. Copyright and patents prevent that. Copyrights are an artifact from a bygone age where publishing creative works was expensive and difficult. The current copyright laws address a 20th century problem. The rapid evolution of most technological areas means patents primary function is to retard advancement and provide rents for unproductive entities. I neither case are these the intended functions of there respective laws. There intended (and in the US only Constitutional purpose) should be to encourage advancement.

Ummm...Yamato was deployed at the Battle of Midway. She was Yamamoto's flagship. Guadalcanal wasn't really a single naval battle per say. There were a series of naval engagements that occurred as a result of one side or the other trying to reinforce thier ground forces. The naval forces involved in any given engagement ranged wildly from full blown carrier battles to night destroyer skirmishes.

It doesn't make the statistics flawed. It makes the conclusion flawed.

The more churches there are per square mile the more crime there is per square mile, ergo churches cause crime.

Statistics are numbers. They don't lie. It's the people twisting conclusions from them that are the liers.

Except police don't provide information on where, how often and on who they deploy SWAT. Nor do they keep records on violence used by police. That kind of information would be inconvenient in the hands of the public.

I made a joking comment about police calling out SWAT for someone with parking tickets. A cop I know was there. He commented in a very exasperated tone that it was "command" that called in SWAT not the line cops. He seemed very frustrated by it and as confounded as I am.

Ummm...you really should have added the above to your "etc...". The idea that this is a valid way to perform training is criminal. Anyone claiming so should be in jail for criminal negligence and the least. I'd say attempted murder would be more appropriate. Or in those tragic examples murder.

Yeah, a cop should be able violate his his own department rules and use a choke hold on someone that kills them ignoring pleas from that person that he can't breath and then stand around doing nothing when he stops breating. Note his level of resistence consisted of raising his arms up. There should be no problems with a cop summarily executing a kid running around with a pellet gun without any form of interaction with the kid before killing him even after they were told it was probably a toy gun. Any less than outright execution might have put an officer at risk. And there should be absolutely no issues with a cop shooting someone walking up stairway with his girlfriend and then taking no action to render aid to the person he just shot but rather call his union representive so they can start the spin machine going. There shoud be no problem with a mob of cops shooting hundreds of rounds at 2 unarmed people in a car including one cop jumping on the hood of the car and putting several rounds into them through the windsheild. There shouls be no issues with cops making no knock raids on wrong houses that results in innocent people being killed. Not cop people. If you shoot at the unknown black masked thugs invading your house you'd go to jail. Mind you I can go on all night listing crap police have done and gotten away with that would have resulted in serious incarceration for anyone not a cop.

And lets talk about the one your defending. At the grand jury hearing to decide if charges were justified apperently the prime witness supporting the cops account of what happened that the DA brought in to testify was outright lying and couldn't have possibly been near where the shooting happened. And no one should have an issue that the DA admitted he knew that she was lying before he brought her to testify at the hearing. The DA did everything he could to make certain no charges were brought. To paraphrase one expert normally a DA can get charges brought on a sandwich. Whatever the truth was there was more than enough question that there should have been a trial.

And I'm tired of dipshits who too stupid to realize that there are serious systematic issues with the policing in this country. I was in the Infantry stationed in Germany at the peak of the cold war. Our sector was dead center in the Fulda Gap which was the prime Soviet invasion route into central Germany. Those cops on the streets in Ferguson were better equiped then we were. And they weren't at all hesitant to point their assault rifles at anyone and everone violating the first rule of gun safety. You have to be turnip level of stupid not to see any of this as being an issue.

What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they are really happening and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.

No you don't. Location, control inputs and velocity are all you need. Most cars already have that in them. Almost all cell phones do too.

As I stated just record the last half hour or so. That would limit there viability for intrusive monitoring.

Scale the fine based on income. The fine is more of a wake up slap than than anything else.

Yeah, because 40,000 dead and 2.5 million serious injuries isn't ruinous for anyone. And a good many of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Your argument is specious. I follow the traffic laws. Yet I engender road rage for such things as actually stopping at a stop sign. Yeah, people beep and flip me off for obeying the traffic laws. And this results in 40,000 dead and 2.5 million seriously injured every year. But you think actually making people responsible for thier actions that cause this carnage is ruinous. Causing the carnage though thats perfectly ok in your book.

Again a specious argument. Did you miss the part about the black boxes in the cars? There is no he said she said. There is no subjective judgment. There is an exact pretty much inflatable record of the actions.

The problem has nothing to do with technology. People eating, guys shaving, women putting on makeup, the list is endless and no technology is going to help (short of fully autonomous cars which are a long ways off). People will drive like idiots until they are held accountable for the consequences.

That's why the black box. Outside of jury nullification the evidence is irrefutable. Also make the law with no exceptions for anyone. Going to trial would have no benefits and would thus be pointless.

The primary benefit of enforcement would be the 40,000 lives lost every year. Think about that number. The Vietnam war only averaged 5000 dead per year and that was a friggin war. Auto collisions are the number one cause of death for children. Do it for the children and all that crap. I would also argue, even looking at it from a pure fiscal aspect it would make financial sense even if the enforcement cost was high. The direct and indirect costs of traffic issues cause by collisions alone would probably justify it without even going into the 2.5 million emergency room visits and other health care cost.

This would never work. The idiot who didn't think I was passing fast enough because I wasn't going 20 over the speed limit would report me. A good percentage of the idiots on the road think the people driving by the rules are the assholes causing the problems.

Not really. How much a fine affects someone is directly related to how much money they have. You can't have a fine that's fair across economic brackets. Better and more democratic than fines is taking away their driving privileges. That solves the problem in 2 ways. Add to that, if you drive without a license you go to jail for a year. No exceptions.

Make the punishment fit the crime. If you're swinging a loaded gun around pointing it at people and unintentionally shoot someone you're going to jail. You drive around like a jackass, speeding, weaving in traffic, running lights or stop signs, at worse you get a ticket that cost a little bit of money. And yet far more people are killed by idiot drivers than are by gun accidents. It's completely irrational.

It's simple. The first ticket is a freebie, a $1000 and lose your license for a day. The second ticket within a year and you lose your license for a month. The third ticket in a year and you lose your license for a year. You get caught driving without a license you go to jail for a year. You put black boxes in cars that record the last half hour of activity to provide irrefutable evidence. Also use that information in the case of a collision and if it shows any person caused the collision it's their third strike and they lose their license for a year. No need for distracted driving or no telephoning or no texting or even drink driving laws. One way or another the people left on the roads will be much safer and nicer. Oh, and the 40,000 killed and hundreds of thousands more injured and maimed would go away almost over night along with much of the massive financial burden caused by the idiotic carnage on the roads.

Not taking a section quoted out of context to make it appear you are right when you were really wrong:

Ummm...you do realize the parts you quoted out of context are really the exceptions to the law that state where recording is legal? Reading the entire section it only states it's illegal to record activities "which occur in any private place and out of public view". It doesn't say a single word about recording on another persons property. In other words what you linked to actually shows you're wrong. At least with regards to GA law. Please try again.

My original post said exactly what you suggest except I spelled out "bullshit" instead of a weaselly acronym. I even said please. I certianly didn't say you smelled like it or were stepping in it or anything.

Ok. I'm calling bullshit. Please provide a sample of such a law. I've never seen video camera footage that did NOT film others peoples property. I'm not really sure how that would be possible while still getting a useful image.

Da. Their 20th business model doesn't work anymore. Rather than adapt to the world changing technological advancements of the last 30 years they just bitch and moan lamenting over people no longer wanting their news spoon feed using 20th century technology. But of course none of that is the news disseminating organizations fault. It's technologies fault or their customers fault or anyone elses fault.

You're arguments make no sense. No one pays directly for news nor have they for the last century. The cost of a newspaper doesn't even cover the printing and distribution costs much less the actual news gathering cost. I don't recall ever receiving a bill for the nightly news. You're as clueless as the news organizations. You don't even know what they were selling (hint: it had nothing to do with the news). Their ad revenue dropping, well let me just guess who's fault you think that is.

There are organizations that that are taking over at least part of the function of the 20th century press. You've probably heard of at least one, WikiLeaks. And the government is doing their best to outlaw them. The government wants nothing more to do with that whole freedom of the press thing again. It's too much of a pain in the ass when they do all the things they're not supposed to be doing. It actually holds they accountable. The only press they want is press like the LA Times.

In that era, yes. I beleive most anti-aircraft missle systems in that era were semi-active radar guided missiles which require a ground based radar to paint the target. Most likely there was a safety system where if the painting radar shuts down the missle destructs. Even air to air radar missles (e.g. Aim-7 Sparrow) required the firing aircraft to keep it's nose pointed towards the target aircraft to keep it painted. I beleive the Aim-54 Phoenix was one of the first missles with self contained terminal guidance.