A human eye, a camera eye, what's the difference other than the fact that the camera eye is not subject to the fallibility of perception and can be replayed so that a more objective assessment of what actually occurred can be made? If it's recorded, whatever action it caught you doing, well, you did it. In public. It's not much different than having an eyewitness on the scene.. only their perception could be skewed, (psychology tests prove it often is) which might actually make it worse for you if you're ever in an accident and need to prove the other guy ran the light.
I never said I *wanted* cameras everywhere though, but I don't see the big deal with having them at intersections.
OTOH, that said, the fines actually charged for most minor offenses are totally incommensurate with the infraction, and are, in fact, a money making scheme.
I know a lot of privacy minded people have a problem with it, but there really are a lot of people around here who ignore very red lights and could cause accidents.
I don't see safety as an excuse for ignoring people's privacy or rights.
I fail to see how this is a privacy issue if you're out driving in public, they're not looking inside your car. What rights, exactly, are being trampled on? This isn't the same as speeding cameras, where calibration, angle, all that stuff can be questioned. This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Granted, the yellow light should last long enough to give you a chance (I hate Pennsylvania yellow lights, they're like 2 seconds long tops), and there should be some delay, but people will take that into account and still run red lights. The cops can't be everywhere, so this is one way of catching really bad drivers. I think blowing red lights (and failure to use turn signals) are ultimately much more dangerous than mild speeding, in any case, which is what most moving violations are for.
In the last two decades, CEO salaries have skyrocketed, there's no good reason for that, they're bleeding their companies dry. I'm pro-capitalism, but some of this has spiraled out of control. The problem of course is not the system, per se, but human nature. Any political or economical system is subject to abuse if taken to extremes, the best system is a hybrid one with good checks and balances.
The truth is, many unions *are* in fact extremely powerful and often self-serving, one of them put Hostess out of business last year, remember?
That said, I do believe the German Amazon workers should get overtime pay if they work overtime.
There needs to be a better system of checks and balances in place between employer and employee; between mega corporations and juggernaut unions, the little guy is still getting squeezed; both ends are getting too powerful.
In any case, it's a proper name, it's *her* name, so people should damn well pronounce it the way she says it is. I think it's incredibly arrogant for an (assuming) American editor to suggest otherwise... and for the record, I'm American, not British. (though I admit to being something of an anglophile)
Do you think that's more arrogant than assuming you can personally overwrite how a language is pronounced by it's own population just for your name - and then getting prissy when folk don't adhere?
And for the record I'm Scottish - I was born, raised and live in the city where she wrote the damn books - and I pronounce it roul-ling. Mainly because it's easier to hear the contempt in my voice when pronounced that way; Row-ling is too soft sounding.
Well, no, not really.. not when said person is of the land where the language originated, but in any case, it's a proper name, not a dictionary word.
Go back to sleep, Angus darlin'
BTW, I love the sound of a good Scottish brogue as much as I do Brit received pronunciation. No matter how you say it, I'll bet it still sounds cooler (to me) than the way we say it here across the pond.
For the sake of argument, what if she says to pronounce it as "smith"?
That's a silly argument. You are a silly person. And silly is a silly word. The more I say it, the weirder it gets.
Also, IANAL (linguist)
IMO, Americans have lost a great deal of understanding of the pronunciation of the English language where vowels are concerned. To us, Rolling and Rowling (not to mention bowling) would sound the same, but where the letter r is concerned, when following a vowel (Ls too), Americans tend to rhotacize; that is, minimize the emphasis of the preceding vowel. (for example, we pronounce, "fir", "fur", and "fer" (as in, "give her what fer") or even "her", if you like, the same. Europeans do not, you can actually hear the different vowel sounds when they talk. It sounds funny or quaint to most Americans, when it's actually correct.
Clarification for Americans, Rowling's name is actually pronounced "Row - ling", (as in row row row your boat), not "Roll -ling" like the way we say, "The Rolling Stones". Actually, I think even most Brits (though I concede it may differ based on dialect) pronounce rolling as "row - ling". I believe they also pronounce bowling as "Bow - ling". Put an R or an L after a vowel and we Americans fuck it all up.
Her name can even cause confusion for Brits though, because the "ow" in their word "row", meaning a loud quarrel, is pronounced as in "now", "foul" or "ouch", so some people pronounced it "roul - ling".
I remember being sick one winter with a bad cold, sore throat, mild fever, but being bored out of my mind laying in bed, got up and played Doom all day, it took my mind off of my discomfort. (Some of those things (cyberdemons) scared the crap outta me). In the long haul though, I grew to like Quake1 even more.
Ah, good times.
I won't pretend to know either way, and I'm comfortable with that. There are definite gaps in our knowledge, and while one should not rush to fill those gaps in with speculation, but hard reason, it's hard to ignore the fact that so many humans have believed in something over the millennia, and there are small experiences I've had that make me feel like sometimes something is pulling my strings on a cosmic level.
Personally, I don't believe in the anthropomorphic, personified personal god that "loves" us and listens to prayers; like Einstein said, that's just childish. But, also like Einstein, I won't rule out that there is, for example, something to it, maybe more akin to the "Force" for lack of a better description, that keeps total entropy and chaos at bay, kickstarted the big bang... -or any infinite number of other possibilities outside our current realm of understanding, until we evolve further.
When you think about, there is an apparent loss of logic when considering the beginning of the universe: how do you get something from nothing? Where tdid he stuff from the big bang come from? The singularity? Another universe? - then go back further and ask where that came from. You can do this ad-infinitum, but at some point you realize something had to come from nothing or just agree things were always here, neither of which makes a lot more sense than gods and spirits.
On the belief side of things, I prefer to see people practice spirituality over religion, if anything; the former is personal, passive, and generally malleable; the latter is typically organized, rigid, conformist, has a power structure and hierarchy, and is in some circumstances, obviously, oppressive.
I try not to hasten to pass negative judgement on anything in the name of science, because historically, that has often led to putting-foot-in mouth disease.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon". -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
On the other side of this coin are the religious devotees who refuse to question anything or use reason, and want to force their beliefs on others. Though frankly, outside of the most extremist muslims or christians, I generally find most "religious" people don't in fact do this. Still, I resent getting dragged to church on the rare occasion something in the family calls for it (wedding, funeral, etc) I wind up rolling my eyes so often they barely stay in their sockets.
This said, my concern is that the new wave of aggressive atheism might swing the pendulum too far the other direction; the smug derision, the name-calling, the "you will conform to our way of thinking or be cast out because you're wrong and we're right". This just perpetuates dissension, and is doing a lot of what religion has done wrong in the past.
Now, if I haven't managed to offend both sides at some point here, I'll be mighty surprised, because someone on either side of the argument is bound to reject my middle ground statements. But there they are.
Or just go with the flow and name it's next moon they discover, "Enema"..
A lock on your own house to which you do not have the master key is not a security system, it is a jail.
I get his overall point regarding source, I do, and I agree; but it would help his case if he didn't use such broken analogies. If I have a key, and the landlord has a master key, it does not mean I'm in "jail"; he's not going to lock me into my own home because I have a key of my own, just not a master key. It's just that the landlord can get into my home too. It's more like easy-peasy burglary, but "jail" was a rather stupid way to put it.