The police wants to escalate to that level, Then the Unrest will also.
Cops with full battle armor are a danger to society, it means the ones that think they need to defend themselves from the police will up their game to a 308 high power hunting rifle that will rip through Military armor like butter, or start using Armor piercing 5.56/7.62 home made rounds.
Want to keep a crowd calm, you don't freaking roll in like storm troopers hell bent on extermination.
In he countries it's built in, RPG's are not hard to come by, hell even a home made IED would take that thing out.
Don't forget that the unemployment rate is 42%. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate peaked at 25%. If it was actually 40% now, they would be rioting in the streets.
You can use many medications as directed and die. Doctors have been complaining about Tylonol usage being a leading cause of liver failure for years now. People die during routine dental operations. There is risk all around you. You can walk outside and get hit by a bus. A bus driver can fall asleep at the wheel and drive his bus into your living room. Right now. Life kills.
Literally never seen another stuck signal, and that was a temporary kit pulled from the trailer of a work vehicles. What makes you think this is a big problem?
And signals should change periodically WHETHER OR NOT the loops detect a vehicle. Anything else is a design flaw. It just adjusts the timing if vehicles are detected on one and not another.
P.S. traffic lights pre-date mobile phones by quite a bit. It's not a problem. Guess what country had the world's first?
This will not capture a significant percentage of the former drinkers who are non drinkers. So contrary to your assertion, the current study did not truly separate out the two categories.
It did the best that any survey can do - this is medicine not precision science. It will not capture those who were moderate drinkers and who then stopped since they would have no medical problems (indeed the study shows they would have less chance of a medical problem). However this would bias the non-drinkers to look more like the moderate drinkers i.e. it would make non-drinkers look healthier.
As for former heavy drinkers I see no reason to suspect that these would end up as non-drinkers over moderate drinkers unless given medical advice that they needed to stop - in which case there would be a record and they would be classed as former drinkers. So the only way you can achieve what you claim is if there are a lot of heavy drinkers who did not develop any medical problems related to their drinking and whom all stopped drinking completely without any medical advice to that effect. This seems highly unlikely.
So how many people use that as an excuse to knock back a couple wines every night, then continue to have a few more, then injure them selves or someone else because drunk? At least you will get slightly less heart disease eh.
The study showed that consuming more than ~2 glass of wine per day (less if you are a woman) is actually harmful for your health so the sort of people doing this cannot use the study to justify their drinking problem.
So is this another study that doesn't differentiate between 'never drink' and people who drank so much that they had to quit for health reasons and thus 'no longer drink'?
I know this is Slashdot so you are not expected to read the article but really you could not be more wrong if you tried. From the article:
The study's findings are particularly interesting because the researchers separated drinkers into categories that are typically lumped together in these kinds of studies. "Non-drinkers" often include people who have never drank, as well as those who quit drinking (who may have been heavy drinkers in the past, and so may have a higher risk of heart problems).
If you actually go further and click on the link to the BMJ article then they have "Non-drinker" and "Former drinker" categories with both of these showing statistically equivalent rates of cardiovascular and heart disease in the categories they looked at and in all cases both categories were statistically significantly higher than the rate for moderate drinkers.
So your assertion is completely wrong: their data show that even if you have never drunk alcohol you will have a reduced risk of heart disease if you start drinking moderately with a sample size of ~136k people. To me this looks like extremely convincing evidence that moderate drinking increases heart health.
My app, FuckSlahdotAds is the fastest growing app. It has grown from 0 users to 1 in the last 3 seconds, an infinite% increase.
This is by far the lowest value, least use slashvertisement I've ever seen.
Technically, you don't.
And any accident you're involved in by choosing to do so will be deemed (at least partially) your fault too.
I have actually witnessed this exact thing one (it was temporary lights for works, and it got "stuck" on allowing one direction of traffic and never switched to the other.
Literally, you were stuck there. Even when people know what's happening (after they've waited for what should be 2-3 cycles, they tend to realise), they do not want to proceed. And you can't. Because the other side might well be - as in this case - stuck on green permanently and not expect you to try.
We turned around, rang the police, and we weren't the first, and they sent out a car to fix it. Ten minutes later when we came back that way again, it was working.
What makes you think that a red light stuck on red is any safer than one NOT stuck on red to cross? It might well - with modern traffic management systems - be stuck on red for a reason.
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
There is a difference between local and national governments. If local governments receive the money they then have a vested interest in making sure that crimes are committed within their boundaries. Hence they can create dodgy local laws which many people will inadvertently break. National governments can't really do this because they set the laws for the entire nation which makes it a lot harder to do dodgy things like this because more people are watching them. In addition with their far larger budgets the income from fines is only a tiny fraction and not something which will make or break the bank.
Fines should go to national governments, not local ones which is not the case in the US, Canada or Switzerland but I think that does/might happen in the UK?
"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson