Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:...liabilities (Score 1) 431

by Blkdeath (#35710646) Attached to: StunRay Incapacitates With a Flash of Light

Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.

Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.

Wow. One famous Taser victim. Care for a larger sample size?

Comment: Re:...liabilities (Score 1) 431

by Blkdeath (#35710574) Attached to: StunRay Incapacitates With a Flash of Light

no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan.

The term for the Taser and other similar law enforcement devices is "less lethal". You are much more likely to perish or suffer permanent injury from a high speed lead bullet than a Taser strike.

Comment: Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (Score 1) 496

by Blkdeath (#34681284) Attached to: Is Reading Spouse's E-Mail a Crime?

Nonsense. It's the addressee that matters.

US Code Title 18 Chapter 83 Sec. 1702 reads

(snip)

Thank-you. The very same law (though worded and located differently, of course) exists in Canada. I've had to remind employers and their subordinates that they were NOT permitted to open my mail, regardless of the address of their business or the placement of "c/o" in the address field.

Comment: Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (Score 1) 496

by Blkdeath (#34681262) Attached to: Is Reading Spouse's E-Mail a Crime?

You share a credit rating?

Actually, no. That's quite a common myth. In point of fact, a lot of married couples find themselves in very tough situations due to their lack of financial/credit awareness.

To wit; a lot of married couples will put most (or all) of the debt into the name of the primary breadwinner. Sooner or later it will come to pass that the other income earner in the household will need to lend their income to a credit application in order to qualify for the loan and their credit will be so thin / weak they simply won't qualify.

I counsel many of my clients to put both names on major purchases so they can spread the debt load between them. After all, marriage implies "community property", so no matter whose name is on the item and/or the loan, both the asset and the debt belong to both partners equally anyways, so you might as well spread it out when you can so you have available servicing room and income when it counts (eg; when you need to re-fi your mortgage!).

Comment: Re:remarkable (Score 1) 754

by Blkdeath (#34452610) Attached to: Rear-View Cameras On Cars Could Become Mandatory In the US

"If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you". They imply that if you can see the mirrors, then the driver can see you [...]

This

is absolutely not the case.

It means exactly what it says and nothing more. If you can't even see the mirrors be extra cautious. It doesn't mean or imply, if you can't see the mirrors, be careless. Seriously, learn basic logic rules before making use of words like "imply" and trying to make logical conclusions. I'm sick and tired of obviously wrong converse arguments. Fresh snow is white but that doesn't imply white stuff is snow. Is that so hard to understand?

Based on the statistical number of non-truck vehicles that cause accidents with trucks, and the general population's general lack of understanding of trucks and their drivers, and the empirical evidence of dozens of truck drivers I've spoken to (my father included) the original poster is absolutely correct. People presume that when they can see the mirrors, the warning is no longer in effect and they're free to do/act any way they please.

Over analyzing the situation isn't going to change the opinion of the general public.

BTW; there are enhanced warning signs that both illustrate a driver's face in the mirror and are adorned with the saying "If you can't see me in my mirrors, I can't see you." which eliminates the logical loophole quite nicely.

But thanks for playing.

Comment: Re:remarkable (Score 1) 754

by Blkdeath (#34452528) Attached to: Rear-View Cameras On Cars Could Become Mandatory In the US

Until somebody bumps into my mirror in a parking lot, and I drive off thinking it's giving me the same view of the adjacent lane that it gave me on the way to the store.

I'll keep a sliver of my car's bodywork visible in the mirror as a reference, thanks.

Why? It takes 3 seconds to check the same reference points when you have your mirrors adjusted properly. Lean left, see car. Lean right, see car. Done. You can do this while you wait for your oil pump to start circulating and warm up your engine for a few seconds before setting off.

Any more strawmen from the overlapping mirror crowd?

Comment: Re:remarkable (Score 1) 754

by Blkdeath (#34452478) Attached to: Rear-View Cameras On Cars Could Become Mandatory In the US

The problem with that method is that it requires that you be 100% confident in the placement of your mirrors because there is no feedback on their location until it becomes critical.

So did the old method, until people got used to it. This method, however, works better.

In contrast, when the mirrors are showing you part of your car, it provides an automatic reference point to judge the location of the images that does not depend on the precise mirror position. Furthermore, if your car does not show in your side-view mirrors, then it indicates that their alignment is off.

Since the standard interface with rear and side view mirrors includes easy adjustments, I'd rather not depend on the placement being accurate.

I'd rather have a proper view beside and behind my car without having to physically move my head (I still do anyways, but it gives me next to no new information when making a maneuver).

As to the notion that people will move your mirrors around, many new cars today come with memory seats and mirrors so you can have settings for 2 or 3 drivers programmed. Simple.

I, on the other hand, work in the car industry so I can set my seat, wheel, mirrors (and optionally pedals) and radio station presets in any given car within about 45 seconds, so it's not a huge problem for me. However if you practice in whatever car you personally operate you can get the hang of it in a few hours of driving.

Comment: Re:The Russians used a pencil (Score 1) 754

by Blkdeath (#34452350) Attached to: Rear-View Cameras On Cars Could Become Mandatory In the US

...and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".

Actually, if you're afraid to drive in any given circumstance, you're not qualified to drive. If you don't know how to operate the fundamental controls of your vehicle without so much as moving your eyes, you're not qualified to drive.

Then again, I sell cars. When people like you get involved in or involve others in accidents, I sell more cars. Feel free to carry on.

If you're routinely driving on interstates at night, you have a death wish. Even if you're not sleepy, others on the road might be. And even if they're not sleepy, they might be smugglers. Speeding to avoid the border patrol / police. Without headlights. On the wrong side of the road. Yes, this has happened.

There are a thousand things that can and will happen on a given road at any given time. It's how you deal with it that's important. Drive defensively and be confident in your abilities or get off the road. It's not complicated.

Comment: Re:Limited Options (Score 1) 425

by Blkdeath (#32834228) Attached to: Paperless Tickets Flourish Despite 'Grandma Problem'

Personally, I never considered a bunch of screaming idiots to be a draw; I go for the music.

As do I. Likewise when I visit the Air Canada Centre I go for the hockey, but the cheering crowd is a large factor in the experience.

You've been hyped, and fallen for it. A wedding is an uncommon special occasion. A rock concert is not (unless you're talking about Woodstock 1969).

Sure, but Woodstock was a festival, not a concert. :)

In my experience, especially in the summer time, weddings are far from rare, special occasions. I've been to more weddings in my life than concerts and I find them deplorable, boring and usually quite offensive. It all comes down to one's perspective, but I digress. A large venue event that often requires plans to coordinate and is looked forward to for some time is a special event. Going to a baseball game with my dad for the first time in over a decade was a special event and we were in cheap seats.

Money is just a tool. There's a sentiment against foolish wastefulness and overpricing, and against the worship of money. Only a fool worships a tool. There's also a sentiment against people who exploit the poor. There's sentiment against government welfare for the rich.

Absolutely and I couldn't agree more. However what I was referring to were the folks who get agitated when any hint comes out that another poster or an article submitter lives at a level higher than subsistence. Even when an article comes out about some new electronic gadget I see people ranting about the "rich yuppie idiots" who have the ability to go out and buy them, etc.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have shitloads of money is a lot more insulting.

The only people who've implied that thus far are the very same people demonstrating the anti-money sentiment I spoke about.

In another post I'd discussed the notion that when something is a priority in one's life, they will find a way to acheive it. Many people in the stands at concerts are brick layers, sandwich makers, wait staff, ditch diggers, etc. They're not all stock brokers and tycoons.

I think the sentiment against people like you isn't your money, but your sense of entitlement; you think you're better than anyone else.

Firstly, I don't like to think of myself as a "person" of any particular type. Moreover, there is no sense of entitlement here. Am I proud of what I've accomplished in my years in the work force? Absolutely. Would I ever lord it over someone? Absolutely not. Do I think I'm better than anyone because of my economic position in society? Of course not. Now, that's not to say there aren't types of people out there I look down on, but those are for reasons that have nothing to do with money.

What I do see quite often however is people who cast a sense of entitlement on people with money around them. I've actually witnessed a young(ish) gentleman utter something along the lines of "*&^@# rich asshole" as hey keyed a Jaguar parked in a parking lot, doing nothing but occupying one of many available spaces. That's the kind of sentiment I see portrayed here on Slashdot all too often lately that I'm talking about.

Comment: Re:Limited Options (Score 1) 425

by Blkdeath (#32816964) Attached to: Paperless Tickets Flourish Despite 'Grandma Problem'

So all I am saying is that this shouldn't be about what you or I can afford but rather what a large portion of the appropriate fan base can afford.

What is the impetus from the point of view of the owners of the organization, managers of the band or venue to lower the prices if they're selling out all the seats?

There are only x days per year in which they can schedule an event. There are only y seats in the venue. That allows for (x*y)*$ where y, of course, is a variable depending on seat proximity, colour, amenities, etc.

Now, if the venue is selling out at an aggregate average price of $60 per ticket, and they reduce that average to $30 per ticket, those in the higher income brackets that have always flooded the seats will continue to do so (they'll just have more money left over in their wallets aftwards), still pushing out a lot of the lower income brackets who may not have the ability or speed to purchase tickets quickly, yet the people on the back end will lose 50% of their revenue.

So where's the upside for them to lower their price?!?

Comment: Re:Limited Options (Score 1) 425

by Blkdeath (#32815772) Attached to: Paperless Tickets Flourish Despite 'Grandma Problem'

So... you assume that everyone who is successful got there by virtue of luck... and should thus sacrifice their success for those who haven't. Correct?

Basically, you're a fan of equality of condition.

Yeah, I've often heard this philosophy myself. When you really boil someone's situation down, however, you typically find choices along the way that one may equate to "bad luck". If you chose to associate with that bad crowd of people and landed in jail - bad luck? If you chose to have unprotected sex and got an STI/STD and/or someone got pregnant - bad luck? If you chose to go rock climbing and fell and broke your legs - bad luck?

There's a million examples, but I see it all the time when people complain about their luck all the while they've made and often continue to make poor choices which lead them further down the path they're on.

Much as I'm not a great believer of things like "The Secret" (movie, book et al.) I do believe quite strongly that one's attitude and outlook will have great bearing on one's successes or failures in life.

The corollary to this is those who always believe someone's out to get them / keep them down. Usually they find themselves being put in an almost constant state of "down" and their attitude becomes self fulfilling.

I do draw the line at positive hopeful outlooks that border on the naivete, however. You can't pray your way out of bankruptcy, folks.

Comment: Re:Limited Options (Score 4, Interesting) 425

by Blkdeath (#32811310) Attached to: Paperless Tickets Flourish Despite 'Grandma Problem'

I agree with you that the GP's "rich boy" call was out of place, but so is your "change your life" argument.

My statement was meant to be taken as a whole. People need to learn to accept their lot in life. If you don't like it, change your situation. Complaining about it focuses negative energy and generally gets you nowhere but further down in the hole.

I'd never presume to make a judgment about what a person has or earns; however I make judgments all the time about someone who earns X but wants to live the lifestyle of someone who earns X*2. I know many people who have combined household incomes that are well below my own income but who are perfectly happy. Conversely, I know people who's incomes are vastly superior to my own who are miserable.

We live to our means and easy credit and "keep up with the Jones's" syndrome runs rampant in our society.

My argument is to live within your means and be happy with what you have. Individuals are the authors of our own destiny. Hence my statement that if you don't like what you have, work to change it. If you're not willing to take positive steps to change what you have; don't complain about it, and certainly don't rail against someone who has [more|better|different] standard of living than you. It does no good for anybody. Am I wrong?

This isn't a personal attack by the way. I'm just answering your question about "why does mentioning the fact that one has money produce so much hate"

It's not even a case of mentioning money; it seems to be a case where someone mentions something that would require money, and that in and of itself becomes a target of ire.

One of my goals in life was to have stability and financial security. I achieved that some years ago and now I'm working towards the next level. I have my own goals in mind. I also have non monetary goals which I'm also working to achieve. There are people who have other goals in life, many of which are non monetary, which make them happy, and that's great for them.

If you're not happy in what you're doing or where you are, you have to ask yourself why you're doing it or why you're there. If there's a drastic change necessary to alter your situation to the point where you're happy you should consider making it. One area where I draw the line is people who don't feel the need to improve themselves or their personal situations. That's always driven me up the wall.

Back to the topic at hand, if premium concert tickets at major venues is one of your goals in life, you'll prioritize it and find a way to make it happen. If it's not a priority it won't happen. Sometimes it takes sacrifice in other areas of one's life to attain certain other things and that's a choice we all have to make. When I was struggling working 3 jobs to make ends meet, there were times when I decided that I was simply going to have {$X} and there was nothing anybody could to do stand in my way, and I made it happen.

For those who don't like concerts, rock shows, major venues or Ticketmaster; why expend the energy on this thread complaining about it? What good is it accomplishing in their lives?

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...