We could set up speed cameras to ticket everyone who's speeding. We don't. We could just mandate in-car GPS tracking and not even allow speeding in the first place.
We could also sell the Constitution to Kimberly-Clarke Corporation and have it turned into toilet paper. On second thought, I'd rather we defer your Orwellian Nightmare until Google self-driving cars have replaced personal autos.
I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.
I have known people who lost their license for repeated offenses, in one case permanently (is a specific state, as this is not a federal matter). The ability to pay a fine doesn't mean they can go on in perpetuity offending.
So what about a fine that devastates a poor person while at the same time being not a measurable punishment to a rich person makes it truly equal under the law? If a fine applied the same level of hardship to both rich and poor, that tells me it's treating all people equally.
No one is compelled to speed, and the fines aren't shrouded in mystery if one takes the time to find out what they are (other than the obvious way: getting pulled over).
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules. The guy in the article makes €6.5 million a year, almost €18000 a day--do you think he gives a single shit about a €50 fine? €1000?
We sort of cover this in the US with points; you can't just drive recklessly and pay for it out of petty cash forever because you'll lose your license. But the day fine concept seems like a decent way to instill the same kind of aversion in everyone, fairly. Points are ephemeral but your money is obvious.
My concerns are the accepted equation for determining one's daily spending money. Is that really such an easily defined amount? And of course the question: Is it truly fair to dole out punishment based on income or net worth? Just because the rich guy can afford it does not mean we should just accept that it is fair.
Like prescription options for the monocle? If this is just clear glass, it's useless. If it's just a magnifying glass, I'll head to the dollar store.
Novelty items -- like the well-worn glasses/nose/mustache -- generally don't offer an option that includes a prescription or other medically relevant requirements.
Or, if you prefer: Whoosh. [that was the sound of the joke going over your head]
And why should it, pray tell?
It shouldn't. But the further we allow the line between "right" and "privilege" to be blurred and/or moved, the closer we get to that point. If Grandma were to enter into a contract with Google, maybe there is a story; however, simply relying on the current Google algorithm should not afford anyone protection under the law from it being changed.
Summary: "The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame."
There is a focal point for the blame: Us. We're the ones that keep the story moving, evolving, and being repeated.
Does Grandma's blog have to be regulated too?
More like, does Grandma's blog have the right to equal protection/representation under the Google algorithm? I say, no.
I don't mind, so long as the government doesn't have a problem with me giving them a sample at a time and place of my choosing.
I have seen Predestination, and I enjoyed it. I don't think the Star Trek reboot is meant to get into such heady topics, at least not in that detail. Predestination is specifically about the exact things you mention. Primer is directly about time travel. Star Trek uses the idea of destiny and time travel to further a story line, but isn't specifically about those things, because it wouldn't survive as a franchise if it was.
Agreed the second movie sucked balls. The homage was pure hollywood crap. Shows how JJ Abrams is utterly over-rated. After creating their Star Trek universe they had an opportunity to create new story lines. Instead they punted and decided to destroy a classic movie.
My thought on the reboot is not that they punted and rehashed old story lines; rather, it is meant to demonstrate that even with an alternate future from the original movies -- a smart way to retell a story with the same characters and not be beholden to an old story arc -- they couldn't escape their shared fate, or their shared destiny.
Regardless, I'm just going to enjoy the reboot. That is, unless the next one involves whales and time travel.
I figured out an endless pattern to Atari 2600 Space Invaders and PacMan, high score stuff. Was thrilled and disappointed to read about my solution in some Atari mag several years after my discovery.
I figured I had beat the computer and was disappointed when I wasn't asked to help defeat Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.
Fixed that for you.
Why is it that anecdotes are not data when we disagree with where the evidence points and they are when we don't?
Because people tend to accept information/data/analysis/anecdote as fact if it supports what they already believe to be true.
Yeah, but most of them can spell "holes" properly.
Oh yeah, and math.
I meant to write "whores." Stupid auto correct.
And math? Having all the math we know about correct doesn't mean it isn't based on a faulty premise to begin with. The stranger, or more Star Trek that predictions and hypotheses get, the more I wonder if people are using a little too much imagination to fill in the gaps. Maybe they are correct. Or maybe the alternate universes aren't what we typically conceive them as -- Buckaroo Banzai, et al -- and instead they are states of matter we lack the science to comprehend.
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs
