As to facing your accuser... lets say I own a shop and it has a camera in it... and someone breaks into my shop and use the video from the camera to convict them.

The video is evidence... your accuser is the government.

As to discretion, i have a problem with this as well because it means the police officer can decide what is illegal or not on a case by case basis. That is not his right. The legislature has the right to decide what is and is not legal. The courts have the duty to decide who is actually guilty. And the executive's job is merely to write the tickets.

Discretion on balance creates problems because it papers over problems with bad laws. Congress or city councils would be pressured to fix bad laws if those laws were actually applied as written.

Making matters worse, police sometimes apply the letter of the law and sometimes not. They are held to no standard as to when they do or do not do this. They can choose on a whim what to do. And that is a kind of tyranny.

Do I prefer police officers? yes. Because they're expensive and can't be everywhere. So they are inefficient for many kinds of enforcement. I like that as a check against tyranny.

If the cameras were only used properly, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

I think one of the bigger issues with traffic citations is that they are a revenue stream for cities. They shouldn't be. An alternative should be offered instead of giving the city money. Community service or something. Most people will just pay the money. But if the city gets silly with the fees, then you can just do some community service for 10 hours or something and be done with it.

That would lower the incentive for the government to effectively raise taxes by increasing enforcement for petty traffic violations.

I understand the purpose.

However, in a democracy where everyone can vote... you run into problems when taxation does not equal representation.

By having different tax rates for people that are wealthier... while at the same time not increasing their influence over government relatively... you create a situation where one faction can vote themselves something at someone else's expense and the system is unable to balance the interests.

That is the problem with progressive taxes. They do not come with corresponding influence for those that pay more.

If you are prepared to reduce the influence of those that pay less or increase the influence of those that pay more... then go for it. Otherwise, progressive taxes should be avoided.

Further note that I am referring to tax RATES. If I make a million dollars and I pay a rate of 10 percent then I'm going to pay a lot more money then someone that makes 1000 dollars and also pays 10 percent. However, note that the rates are the same. That is fine. The problem comes about when the guy making a million pays a rate of 70 percent and the guy making a 1000 pays a rate of negative 900 percent. And yet they both have the same influence over the political process when they go to the ballot box.

Now you might say the rich man might get more influence buy donating to politicians. This is true. However that comes as an expense ON TOP of his taxes. He doesn't just get that. He has to pay even more money just to get the influence he should have gotten simply by paying those progressive taxes.

Now look, I don't want rich people to have that much influence. I like the idea of one person one vote.

But the price of that is that we all have to pay the same rate. Another option might be limiting what people on subsidies can vote on. I know... it sounds terrible but it might be fair. If society is basically feeding you, housing you, etc... then do you have a right to tell the rest of society how it must do it? I don't see that you do. At that point you are a dependent of the state not unlike being a child taken care of by a parent. And children don't get to vote.

... then you should be able to get someone to step up and do it.

They did it wrong clearly.

The idea is that a certain amount of the economy is flowing through the internet and the government feels it has a right a fraction of that just as they claim from everything.

I can get that far.

Then I get what they did by charging by bandwidth. This is an attempt to make the tax progressive so that small users pay very little and big users pay a lot. I get that too.

The problem with this idea is that the amount of traffic is accelerating and the tax isn't reasonable if everyone's internet speed goes up by a factor of ten or something.

A more reasonable tax would be a per user tax on the ISPs. I'm quite sure they already have those... so... increase them I guess if they want more. That gets us to a tax that should bring in decent revenue without limiting people to lower bandwidth.

How to make that progressive?... I guess you could say anyone with low income could file for relief from that tax... or you could just have bandwidth tiers. Every company has tiers... this is the 3mb tier, this is the 7 mb tier... all the way up to 200 mb or something. Have the tax associated with given tiers be reset yearly or something so it can keep pace.

That or just dont' have a progressive tax... progressive taxes are stupid.

Oh I am aware that bigots and ideologues find logic to be inconvenient. Nothing new there. I just find it useful to find the central fallacy in their running stream of bullshit so that when they pop up again with the same old crap... I can bop them on the head with logic and then go back to doing whatever.

In the case of this branch of feminism...

The killer point is that women are either inferior and in need of our aid as the big strong men. Or they are our equals and as adults able to manage their own lives can handle it on their own.

Next issue. :-)

I love how they're always saying women are equals to men... and then saying they're complete half wits or incompetent about something.

Its really sort of weird.

Look, if women are the equal of men, and for the record I believe they are, then they don't need to be coddled or shown special treatment beyond what men get.

So that is the logical trap that is pretty fucking inescapable here.

Either women are inferior or they don't need your help.

Pick one.

I pick option 2. Its called being an adult and taking responsibility for yourself.

Why didn't women get into coding? Because they didn't want to.

Coding is a solitary job with long hours that gives no shits anything besides if the code is good. Yes you can code in groups... but that's only with division of labor and once labor is divided you are working on your code yourself.

What is more, the coding all stars are always mad geniuses in the field that put insane hours into honing their craft. Would be sexist to point out that women don't seem to find that kind of work appealing?

And another thing, consider how many one man shops there are out there. How many one woman independent coders are there out there? Many of these companies get started in a dorm room or a garage with their moms doing laundry behind them or something. Discrimination? The bar is so low that anyone can get into this so long as they're willing and able to do the work.

If you lack the will or the ability... then that is why you're not a successful coder. Period.

And here some one is going to say "you can't just say period"... well yes I can... I just did... after a long argument that had a lot of supporting points and I summed it all up with a closing argument and then said period. Think I'm wrong? Tell me how women can be both our equals and in need of special treatment. Your brain will literally explode in raspberry jam all over the walls if you try to divide by zero by saying both of those things can happen. They can't. The logic is inescapable. Either they're just girls and inferior and thus deserving of protection... or they're adults, our equals, and don't need it anymore then anyone else.

So you're saying organized crime and smuggle tons of heroine into a country but not a handgun?

If they don't do it, it is because they choose not to do it. Not because your police stop it. Were that otherwise smuggling wouldn't be so prevalent. And of course it is. Can I get cocaine in Japan? Then I can get M16 if the price is right.

That however was the old status quo. That was the pre 3d printed world.

What we're coming into is a situation where anyone with the machine can have the thing. Right now, cheap machines can only pop out plastic crap. The higher end machines can print fully functional metal guns indistinguishable from production grade weapons.

Moore's law works on more then CPUs. The technology is improving geometrically. That is what you're arguing against here.

You want to say I'm wrong? Okay. You're denying the Sun. You're saying the tides are not real. You are saying gravity is a figment of my imagination.

And what I can say to that? I say... "okay"... and then go about my life knowing that reality isn't going to permit you to contradict it when push comes to shove.

... on the internet.

Imagine if he hadn't... you'd never know. The police didn't catch him or do some investigation. He said he had them on the internet. Did he even have bullets? In any case, what this makes clear is that if you print a gun... don't post that you've done it on the internet. They're watching.

And all of you that think you can control this thing... you can't. Your entire legal enforcement concept is obsolete. The most you'll be able to do is bust morons. Anyone with any sense won't broadcast that they've done it. They'll just have it.

And the crazies will of course use the guns for mass shootings or whatever. You can't stop this by going after the guns. You never could. You want to stop this? Go after crazy people. They are the lowest common denominator in mass shootings.

There is always a crazy person behind the trigger. But how many people that own guns go on mass shootings? Very very very few. As a result, if you want to stop mass shootings what does it make more sense to regulate? Something that often does not predict violent behavior? Or something that pretty much leads to one kind of inappropriate behavior or another.

Do I want to make their lives harder with government oversight? No. Ideally we should sort the violent from the non-violent. The violent crazies... sorry but we need to keep tabs on them.

dozens of examples. Judges across the country are ordering them illegal, the citations non-valid, and there are corruption investigations.

Some of the investigations have shown that city council members were getting their condo's paid for by the red light company.

These things are a scam. They're never put in places where there are safety concerns. They're always placed at busy yet statistically safe intersections. And they are typically configured to maximize tickets rather then flag unsafe or even just illegal behavior.

The fact of the matter has been well known for a couple years now.

And it has resulted in many cities taking down the cameras.

The sad thing is that it wasn't public outcry that caused the cameras to come down. They were never popular.

It wasn't the statistical fact that safety was actually reduced by putting up the cameras. People would slam on breaks to avoid the camera amongst other behavior which lead to an increase in accidents.

It wasn't even the corruption being caught red handed.

No, what is causing the cameras to get pulled is that despite everything they're not making enough money. And that is the only thing our city councils seem to care about. Revenue.

And that is deeply disturbing.

Just because the Russians sent a women into space does not mean that any other specific woman was superior to the male choices that were offered at the time.

As to passing all tests and qualifying, many men did as well and many of them never went into space. By your logic, the only reason they didn't was because of gender bias.

You have correlation, sir... not causation. You can show that a women that qualified did not go into space. You cannot show that she was not chosen specifically because of her gender.

That's just logic. Deal with it.

As to your question about advocacy... you're apparently a terrible reader.

Let me repeat... I said this above but I'm going to say it again because you're clearly a bit slow.

I complete support female EQUALITY. That would include female voting so long as men vote as well. Anything men are allowed to do, women should be allowed to do and they should both be judged on the same standards for anything requiring competency.

That does not require advocacy for women. Merely an insistence on general equality for EVERYONE.

As to my examples being dishonest, you've provided no evidence for this position. You seem to just be sputtering some sort of emotional outburst on the mistaken impression that it means something to me. Be rational or be judged to be irrational. Your choice.

As to being fair, you're going to have to clarify.

The system if anything gives women advantages over men. This has been documented repeatedly. Often men will have to pass one test and women must pass a much easier test. Which often as not they still fail in the very physically demanding positions.

We can get specific if you have any interest in actually having a rational discussion. If rather you'd just like to presume moral superiority in an issue that isn't ultimately about morality... then that is your prerogative... be irrational... your choice.

As to your sad attempt to threaten me with legal action for a rhetorical flourish... *yawn*... you're clearly deranged... Change your meds, sport. They're a bit off.

I doubt they care. These statistical studies are more to get the politically inclined laymen to dump grant money or get an article in the paper.

Almost without exception every statistical study I've read over the last few years has been bullshit. It has become a pattern.

The politics on gender equality have created a lot of zealots that are pushing propaganda of various kinds. We see it every day... And while I do believe in the equality between the sexes, I do not believe in advocacy for either of the sexes.

There is a lot of advocacy going on in this general topic and I have no patience for it because it is ultimately dishonest.

Do women deserve to compete against men? Sure. Join the male Olympics and tell me how well you do there. Sound unfair? That is competition. It isn't about fair. And when you're talking about enduring space travel under physically demanding circumstances... physicality matters.

Que the hordes of political advocacy trolls. I acknowledge again that women should be given an EQUAL shot at these things. Equal. Not subsidized. You put your finger on the scale to bias the results and I will cut that fucker off and feed it to you.

Guess China is just wasting money by not using solar power to power their whole energy grid... or you're full of crap.

You know... which ever is more credible... twit.

I disagree. Both men and women probably get their feelings hurt in equal measure. Men are simply TAUGHT to deal with it. Where as women are taught to complain.

So when a man gets abuse, he eats it or responds in kind.

When a women gets abuse, she screams.

This is a vestige of the old sexual status quo where men protected the vulnerable women. We provided for them. We guarded them. We spoke for them.

They were not quite adults. And not being quite adults when challenged by an adult, their responsible guardian was to step in and deal with it.

Women have rejected this relationship. That however has a price. If women are adults then they should act like adults.

Not like men... like adults. Deal with your own problems if you can. If you can't and a male peer could/did then that begs the question of why he is able to do something you are not?

If women are not inferior, then they can protect themselves as easily as men on the internet. The only advantage men have over women is their physical strength which is irrelevant on the internet.

There is no reason for men to be required to come to the defense of a women on the internet. It is all just words.

I don't find such statements credible unless they put the money where their mouth is on the issue. If they blew what they've blown on the war on drugs on the space program we'd have a colony on mars. Think about that.