Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
No one contests that a "too drunk to stand" driver is a problem. The issue is that "Impaired" is a pretty damn vague term. Sure a BAC of 0.08% slows your reaction time. But so does less sleep, or looking at the hot girl jogging on the side walk, or age, or any of 400+ other things.
One person's reaction speed is not the same as another. This means that what is "impaired" for one driver might be a better-than-average day for another driver. This means that the law has had to pick an arbitrary amount of alcohol that is supposed to represent "impaired" abilities, but in reality there is a whole spectrum of fitness to drive.
I'm just saying if there was a concrete standard for "impaired" or "not impaired", the situation would actually be black and white; in reality, its a gray gray world.
According to the info my GF got in Al-Anon meetings, the vast majority of drunk driving casualties are by repeat offenders (or at least chronic drunks) with BACs of 0.20+, not the had-three-drinks type.
Has anyone here heard of Stratfor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor
Their analysis costs like $320 a year (or like $40 a month if you don't buy the full year at a time). It includes first-hand accounts and full strategic analysis of international events, like the Mumbai attacks, the Mexican cartel violence, and the new TSA groping procedures. Today's free-to-non-members article is about the strategic implications of Egypt destroying churches. Last week's one was about the real nuts/bolts of START: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101227-making-sense-start-debate. Another good recent article was about the actual balance of power shifts that the European economic crisis is causing: http://www.stratfor.com/content/europes-new-plan
I know the cost is outrageous. But it's hands down the best "reporting" I've ever seen. It's unbiased (Seriously. It really IS unbiased. I didn't even think that was possible until I subscribed...), and most of the reporting is done by ex-military or ex-intelligence agents.
I think my answer to the poll is that I'm willing to pay >$10 but I'll probably let my subscription run out and then just get their free weekly emails instead. I never thought I'd have TOO much access to intelligent, informed, timely, accurate, well written information. I hate to sound like a fanboy or a spammer for them, but their briefs really are that good.
Lets use a car analogy. Is your local used car salesman engaging in censorship (or the automotive equivalent thereof) when he refuses to sell vehicles with more than 150,000 miles on them? What about if he refuses to sell Kias? He has the right to sell any car he chooses to, as well as to NOT sell cars that he thinks are inferior or morally unacceptable.
The key thing everyone seems to be missing is that what Amazon is doing is PASSIVE. They are NOT selling a book.
They're not actively engaging in censorship, which would mean they'd be reaching out to publishers or other book stores to try and get others to not carry the book either. At worse, they're guilty of not supporting things which may potentially appear to support pedophilia/incest.
The power to
requir[e] that providers offer their services in an equal way to all who want them
is the power to tell the telco's what to do. If they can tell them to do things we like, they could also tell them to do thing we don't like, like censor, exclude, or politically filter traffic.
The problem with giving the FCC power to do this is that the FCC has the potential to become more tyrannical than Comcast does. Comcast can only impose its will on Comcast subscribers; the FCC can impose its will on all Americans.
Now get back to running the clock down on your last day before a three day scotch melee
Thats the best description of today's work I've ever heard.
Yes, they simply don't care. In most of their markets, they are the only serious provider. For example, here in Houston, you can get DSL (from about 6 different companies) or you can get cable (only Comcast provides cable). Thats like 6 million people in this market alone!. What does customer satisfaction have to do with anything if the customers can't leave you (w/o going from 80mbit to 4mbit)?
Personally, I opted for the 4mbit DSL over having to put up with Comcast's shit. I was first getting my connection set up after moving to Houston, I wanted Comcast, so I called their customer service number. That was the day that the FCC censured Comcast for the whole throttling incident. The CS rep was like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic." I couldn't resist reading her some of the juicier bits of the FCC's statements. She was still like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic".
In order to "provide healtcare to those that can't afford it", you have to have money. That money is taken from the wealthy. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (in this case in the form of health insurance) = wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution is "always considered a bad thing" because our constitution guarantees security of property. Remember the 4th amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Wealth redistribution requires the seizure of property (in the form of money) from people in a disproportionate way.