Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why not just 0? (Score 1) 996

Reducing the BAC to 0.05 and implementing random breath testing has been very effective in reducing road deaths. We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.
For reference, Victoria introduced a 0.05 limit in 1966, NSW in 1980 and Qld in 1985. I'm not sure about the other states, but the only one I can imagine holding out until the '90s would have to be the NT.
It's interesting to hear older folks talk about drink driving in their youth, however. My father (now in his late 60s) worked in insurance and used to do a lot of driving in western Queensland. His habit after finishing his rural appointments was to buy a carton of beer and start the 2-3 hour drive home - he reckons most times he'd be 1/2 to 2/3 through it by the time he rolled into the driveway.
Of course, the roads were a lot emptier back then as well, which probably saved a lot of lives.

Comment Re:Why not just 0? (Score 1) 996

At the same time, a 0 limit means you'd pretty much have to avoid all substances with trace amounts of alcohol, which would be difficult from a practical standpoint. Start looking at how many brands of mouthwash and similar products contain alcohol, and you'll see what I mean.
In Australia (and I imagine, most other countries) the breath test is not what gets you charged, it's the blood test that follows. This prevents the mouthwash problem.

Comment Re:Is it bribery? (Score 1) 317

You put a cap on how much they can spend on political donations (including advertising). Ideally one within reach of the typical person (say, 1% of median income, or the equivalent of two weeks worth of minimum wage).
Then, everyone can still say whatever they want, but being rich doesn't automatically give you the ability to yell louder than everyone else. If you want to be loud, you need to convince a lot of people to yell the same thing you are.

Comment Re:Is it bribery? (Score 1) 317

It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.
Capping any individual's contribution to, say, $10/yr would not infringe those rights, it just attempts to ensure the person with a billion dollars to spare doesn't get any more attention than the person with ten.

Comment Re:Is it bribery? (Score 2) 317

The hard part is deciding what 'appropriate levels' might be for any given political election [...]
Better to attack it from the sourcing side and let the people decide.
Campaign contributions should be limited to natural persons, and to a maximum of two weeks worth of full-time minimum wage labour.
That way good ideas can still attract large amounts of funding, but bad ideas that appeal to a minority of very wealthy individuals cannot.

Comment Re:In capitalism... (Score 1) 668

So let me get this straight. You want to have a third party threaten everyone with violence in order to get everyone to turn over a percentage of their property so that the third party can keep most of it for themselves and then redistribute a small portion of it with the net result being that almost everyone is poorer than they would have been. This is what you want?
People who wonder what a Straw Man argument is, should read the above quote.
And where did you get that this is the only way that serfdom can be prevented?
History. The greedy and powerful are incapable of self-regulating.
In the early part of the past century the trajectory of the American working class was moving up - and fast. Then the third party decided to fix it.
The single most prosperous period of human history was post-WW2 America. Right up until the early '70s when the neo-liberals took over and started implementing policy to concentrate wealth, eliminate the burgeoning middle class, and slam the brakes on social mobility. Since then, as the GP noted, the vast majority of productivity and wealth increases have gone to an increasingly small section of society.

Comment Re:Q&A (Score 1) 668

I escaped from poverty on my own, without someone else paying my way.
So no public schooling ? Never taken a dime of welfare ? Parents never on welfare ? Never taken public transport ? Never called the police ?
I really can't stand when some prick like you acts like its impossible for someone to pull themselves out of the slums in America. This isn't fucking Kenya. In America, contrary to what all you Occupy Wallstreet douchebags with your North Face backpacks and tents think, you make your own way in this place.
America is one of the least socially mobile societies in the civilised world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Working...