I'm not a fan of recreational drug use, but I don't see why someone should require someone else's permission to do something. In other words, prescriptions are great for two reasons: the doctor knows better than me what will help, and I acknowledge that; and you can get your insurance company to pay for it (or at least offset your deductible) because the doctor actually prescribed it. But I've never felt a prescription should be necessary to obtain a drug. Then again, I don't agree with vice laws at all, even if I don't recreationally use drugs or solicit prostitutes.
I've had several shoulder surgeries and was prescribed both oxy- and hydro-codone. I experienced the itching, but it worked great, and the OTC pain relievers did nothing. I still suffer, in fact; I never became addicted - once it ran out I tried all the non-opiate alternatives the doctor prescribed. None of them worked. I live in pain every day, but most days are completely bearable. When I do feel pain, the other medications don't help. I know that if I work out or do yard work or something, I can take the non-opiates and stave off the terrible pain I would feel hours later, but when I already have pain they are ineffective. I haven't had any of the "strong" stuff in over a year and a half... and yet, if I mention that the other drugs don't help to my doctor, it's obvious to me he thinks I'm pill shopping.
I mention it because the biggest complaint I see against this over-the-top, for-your-own-good regulation is that the people who are actually in pain are treated like criminals and often denied medications that would make life more bearable. I admit I've managed without, so I'm not including me in that list... but I understand the position completely.
Frankly, even before my surgeries, I never agreed with the war on drugs; I do not agree with vice laws in general.
As another poster said, this isn't fair. Lots of us drive with winter tires, I doubt anyone down there has even heard of them.
We (most Canadians) have the equipment and machinery to clear snow, maintain highways, and the experience to get around in these conditions. They don't.
On top of that, we don't need more machinery and equipment... why waste tax dollars on such a rare occurrences? At the same time, during "snowpocalypse" (Atlanta two weeks ago) the extra sanders, salters, and plows were useless - because they couldn't get through the gridlocked traffic that was stuck on the roads. The online traffic map went from green at 12:00 to BLACK at 12:30... the trucks couldn't get through. I grew up on Long Island, and drove in plenty of snow and slush - but not ICE. This was ICE. And Long Island is relatively flat compared to Northern GA, which is at the tail of the Appalachians... all the problems happened on hills.
Yes, people were being terrible drivers, but it's a confluence of a number of things that caused the headache; we were lucky this time mainly because the ice accumulated over night instead of midday. People were already home, and just didn't go to work.
No matter who you are, where you're from, or what vehicle you drive, driving on ice is treacherous and dangerous. I will agree with you, though, that many southern drivers aren't merely ignorant about driving in ice and snow, they're downright stupid. The number of people sitting there spinning their tires thinking it would somehow help was ridiculous.... "oh, my tires are spinning... maybe if I push the gas HARDER they'll stop!"
People still drove too close, which caused some of the grid lock problems as a lot of idiots, when hitting a dip in the road, would slow down on the way down... and then not be able to make it up the other side. I was stuck on an up-hill on-ramp to I85; I left over a car length between me and the driver in front in case they slid; the person behind me pulled up as close, or closer, than people do if the pavement was dry. Probably less than two feet. I was panicking, but luckily I didn't slip when we started moving. After I got out of the city gridlock, some guy in a Chevy Avalanche came flying by me. Turned out we were going the same way, and when I got to the right turn about ten seconds after the Avalanche, I turned the corner to see him facing me, slammed up against the curb. I was driving cautiously enough to stop and give him a chance to get going. After that, I think he was going slower than me.. Add in the mix all the idiots driving with their emergency lights on, and it's clear a significant number of drivers should just have their licenses taken away, bad weather or not.
I want to echo this sentiment - I'm transplanted from NY, eventually ended up in Atlanta, GA. I drove many winters in NY, and being the youngest of four I learned a lot from my parents and older siblings about driving in the snow. I can tell you that no matter where you grew up, how great a driver you think you are, or what vehicle you have, driving on solid ice is not just difficult, it's treacherous. Add in all the hills we have around here, and you're really screwed.
Now; first "snowpocalypse" from two weeks ago: it started snowing mid-morning. Around noon, people realized they'd better start getting home. By 12:30, the roads were ICY (not snowy); it's very hilly around here and many vehicles couldn't make it up hills. This caused massive gridlock; even people with 4WD, AWD, and yes, FWD that could have made it were stuck in the gridlock anyway. This all happened before the local and state governments could react... there were vehicles out salting and sanding, but they didn't get a chance to hit even a fraction of the roads. The traffic map on the GA511 website went from green to black in a half hour. Yes, I largely blame ignorant drivers who don't know what to do... all those mid-level pickups and sports and luxury cars with rear wheel drive, just sitting there spinning their tires (they didn't realize after a few seconds it just wasn't working? Unbelievable). The number of idiots trying the same things over and over again, getting worse and worse results was baffling. Once I got past a few gridlocked areas I made it home just fine with my FWD car... but the way I get out of the city is largely level once I'm away from the mid town area. Other interstates aren't so "lucky," virtually everywhere there was a hill there was gridlock. And yes, while I blame the drivers, the "pros" were no better - the biggest problems I encountered were buses and trucks which, when they spun out, blocked the entire road.
Fast forward to this time, and all the gun-shy drivers just stayed home. Up in North Carolina they experienced the same problem this time that GA felt last time, and I won't belittle them about it. In GA, with everyone warned to stay home, the service vehicles are able to salt and sand the major roads. I want to make this clear - people didn't know last time how bad it would be, the storm was supposed to pass to the south and it shifted north. Even when it started snowing it was not icy, it was just snow... it just didn't last long. Everyone from schools, to private and government employees all left at the same time, when they realized it wasn't going to let up. A lot of people blame the government... I don't. They had trucks ready, it was just a bad confluence of events and eventualities that led to a bad situation. There was really nothing they could do. Even the supposed idea of staggered release times (first schools, then private businesses, then government) is ridiculous - and it's the fault of the people, not the government, because as soon as schools get released, everyone tries to rush home to beat the traffic, it's just the way people are (not all of us, obviously, I waited until late evening to even try to leave).
The other BIG difference between this and last time - and this is how it usually is - the problems didn't start until Tuesday NIGHT, which means most people were already home from work. When it hits mid-day, people are already at work and screwed. Usually these accumulations happen over night, we wake up, and say "snow day!"
It's like any other weather event; they can be unpredictable and catch people off guard. It's just the way it is sometimes... sometimes the best laid plans work, sometimes they don't.
At least it's some choice... the same ones I have. If I could half of comcast's speed from someone else, I'd be there - I already canned their asses for the lousy TV service I got, but if I want to work at home occasionally then I need better than what I can get from AT&T. Aside from them, there's satellite (really expensive and high latency), and nothing else.
As I mentioned in another post - I am Comcast's customer, not Netflix or Hulu or anybody else. I am the customer and if I am choosing to use the bandwidth that I paid for by using Netflix, then that's my prerogative. If Comcast has a problem with it, the problem is with me, not the content provider I chose.
That's not true (nor is the AC response to your post). My initial knee jerk reaction was certainly that it's anti-business and over regulation (read that again - over regulation is a problem; regulation might be needed, but over-regulation is bad). But after giving it some thought, I am completely on board with the idea of net neutrality. I am my ISP's customer, not the content provider. If Netflix is using my ISP's bandwidth, it's because I, as the customer, requested it - and I'm paying for it. If my ISP doesn't like how I'm using the service that I am paying for, their beef is with me.
The obvious reason they want to go after the content provider is because then their internal competitor to the service (in this case, video streaming) gets an unfair advantage... even if they're "paying," it's only "funny money" if they are owned by the same parent company. If, however, they went after me, then both services are equally penalized. That's a second strike in favor of net neutrality.... what the ISPs want is obviously anti-competitive... that is NOT something a free market person supports. I MIGHT support "anti" net neutrality if the ISP was barred from competing against services that they would otherwise be charging access fees for... but even then my former complaint is still valid.
Ubuntu numbering is a decent way to do it, but names only work in conjunction with number, like saying "Ubuntu 13.10" followed by "Saucy Salamander." When people say things like "Oh, that's not supported in Gutsy Gibbon, the feature was added in Natty Narwhal." I want to whack them with a whacking stick.
I realize there's a lot of "name" supporters here, and it's fine when used in conjunction with version numbers, but there's too many products with oh-so-zany naming that it's just not funny or cool anymore, it's just confusing.