Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Get your drunk on... (Score 1) 221

by AK Marc (#48683675) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Two things, compared to the cost of a DUI, a cab fare is a total bargain.

I know plenty of alcoholics. They all drive drunk. Often. Only two have ever been arrested for it. The chances of getting caught are small. Thus the expected cost (factoring in the chance of getting caught) makes it cheaper than a cab. The "responsible" choice is to drive drunk. Only if enforcement was 100% (or certainly much better than today) does it make it cheaper to take a taxi.

Comment: Re:I read a horrific post about this on Reddit (Score 1) 221

by AK Marc (#48683663) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices
I've seen those complaints before. Nearly always they are lies told by people angry at having to use it, not that it failed as they describe. They are testable and provable. If they were that bad, why isn't there YouTube footage of someone causing a failure by eating a slice of pizza? Because they work. Not all the time, and not perfectly, but certainly much better than the haters claim. I suffered through 3 of the Reddit linked videos. Not a single failure was documented. Just people interviewed who talked about things. Zero proof is given that they do what's claimed.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1) 221

by AK Marc (#48683615) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices
The difference is that you can test intoxication. The cell user lap-texting will lie and say they weren't, making it impossible to prove in court. You can assert that they should be treated the same, but in practice, it's impossible to convict the (barely) unsafe drivers, unless they crash (or are drunk).

It's already illegal, but unenforceable. That's why there are redundant laws about cell phones and drinking. To make convictions of already illegal impairments easier.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 2) 221

by AK Marc (#48683609) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Driving during that period is a felony.

Except that these are the current punishments (up until the third time, where I believe the punishment is rather harsher) in most places.

I know of no place that treats driving on a drink driving ban any more harshly than every other ban. If you can't name a place that does, then you are making up things to prove your (wrong) opinion factual. Why?

I don't see any reasonable way to do this, and cover the costs of hardware, and checking that it works, without charging the people who commit the crime a fee.

And why do you object to fees for dangerous drivers? You want more of them on the roads?

All you are doing is supporting low punishment for drink driving. Why? Do you drive drunk occasionally?

Comment: Re:Escort (Score 1) 173

by AK Marc (#48683595) Attached to: AirAsia Flight Goes Missing Between Indonesia and SIngapore
When you don't mention the two you are thinking of, how can we name the 3rd? MH 370, MH17, QZ8501. MH17 wasn't lost in Asia, but the OP didn't specify Asia, you did. MH17 was destined for Malaysia, the same airport MH370 took off from. And Singapore borders Malaysia. They are clustered, even if they didn't all go down in the same place.

Comment: Re:Don't take airplanes piloted by the Malays (Score 4, Informative) 173

by AK Marc (#48683563) Attached to: AirAsia Flight Goes Missing Between Indonesia and SIngapore
The plane was flying the filed pattern and was where it was authorized to be. The airline should have re-routed it, but that's not entirely the pilot's call. Like the weather, they rely on the word of others for the conditions, then do what they can with that information. They were told the flight path was safe, and it was the one the owners of the plane he was flying told him to take. How is that his fault for being off course?

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 2) 221

by AK Marc (#48683549) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

So what you're suggesting is get a DUI, and we'll ruin your life. I mean, I hate people drink driving, but ruining their life is not a good way of turning them into a functioning member of society, it's a good way of turning them into an alcoholic criminal.

The thought is that if they knew getting caught would ruin their lives, they might stop. Today, there's no reason to not drive drunk. The expected cost of driving drunk is less than the cost of a cab. So it's rational to drive drunk. So long as the cheapest/easiest option is driving drunk, people will still do it.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1) 221

by sumdumass (#48683115) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Drunks made the decision to do something completely legal. It's only afterwards when they are impaired that they make the illegal decision. Or are you on some religious crusade against alcohol entirely. If so, you might want to try and make your case a little more clearly.

And please try thinking before you post this time. It isn't hard.

Comment: Re:Poor tax? (Score 1) 221

by sumdumass (#48683105) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

There is a big push to hurt low income people. Governments lower taxes and increase fees for services all the time. The so called cure for climate change seems to be taxing energy use to actually make it unaffordable in the hopes that some day someone might actually be fed up enough to create an economically viable and reliable alternative while oppressing the bulk of the people into using less. Even the criminal justice system is infiltrated. You have a constitutional right to a trial by jury but in practice, you will have to pay for it. I've seen the prices start at $120 and get as high as $1500 in my area.

Ronald Reagan probably said it best when he said " I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help" was the nine most terrifying words in the English language. It is not because the government cannot help, it is because in trying to do so, it tends to wreak havoc on people. Without government helping, you might not be any better off but at least you won't be paying for the boots on your neck holding you down every time it seems like you could get ahead.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1) 221

by sumdumass (#48683081) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Drunks are impaired in their decision making and motor skills which is why it is illegal for them to drive while intoxicated. Saying there is a choice is a bit like saying people who drink and drive are completely sound and in control of themselves which sort of negates the reasoning for making it illegal in the first place.

Stop and think about that a bit.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1, Interesting) 221

by sumdumass (#48683069) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

You do not ruin a life by driving drunk. Drunk drivers only ruin someone else life when they have accidents which they are more prone to do. But simply driving over the legal limit often has no impact whatsoever at all on others or the drunken driver.

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim. -- Leibnitz

Working...