Saturday night special refers to a 38 revolver.
Saturday night special refers to a 38 revolver.
Don't fuck with me you faggot bitch. I will find a way to make you sorry as fuck.
So if a car hits a pedestrian the driver WILL go to jail and WILL be deemed the one at fault.
Not in NY. The mayor was pushing for Operation Zero Visibility, which would make drivers liable for criminal misdemeanor if they hit a pedestrian who had right-of-way. It did not pass. When a driver hits a pedestrian, it is usually written of as an accident.
In a roundabout way, I am trying to get you to see how ignorant the "see how you like it" school of social justice is. How does it feel to have to lie, upvote sockpuppets, and harass to get your point across? All I have to do is use words, you pathetic bitchboy.
Well, I guess you just fall into the indeterminate gray area between willful trolling and pure idiocy. My mistake.
More upmodded sock puppets with nothing to say. I am glad I am not so insecure as to require lying to make myself feel better.
I see your insightful post has been upmodded. I assume the only way you will ever be able to combat anything I say is with mob tactics, you hypocritical moron.
Local social justice warrior attempting to troll. How does it feel to engage in disingenuous dialogue to combat those you disagree with, like a huge hypocrite?
I read it after I jumped to my conclusion, thank you.
But come on, there were only two sentences left out of the summary (article and site of bot included) and they were the most relevant sentences to claiming that this bot provided any social benefit.
I was trying to find details on how the bot works. All I can really see is that it asks some questions about the ticket. So the creator must have figured out what information is relevant and the bot files the appeal. I agree that this is working within the system. I think that plenty of people who cannot afford the tickets will be pleased by this invention. Overall for society, I do not think it is a good thing. If I get a petty fine for something I don't think is a big deal, it seems like quite an injustice at the time but when I step back, I usually can understand the reasoning.
The bot really seems to be more of a general law advice bot. So the creator may be able to salvage their hope of retaining moral high ground even with the societal loss in terms of driving safety.
I don't see any reason why a red light camera would not be accurate unless it wasn't created and tested properly. I imagine it would be a deterministic process. A human is bound to be much less accurate. I would like to see people who run red lights lose their license or be jailed, not just be fined $50. If you cannot stop for a light, then you are basically just saying fuck any pedestrian or cyclist. If people weren't so short sighted, they would be driving at about 25 mph and praying to the concrete god instead of bitching about the inconveniences of driving.
I agree with the financial deterrent philosophy as far as traffic tickets are concerned. Those are the laws on the books as well. So we can either lobby to change them or work within that system.
You seem to really hate the government, but what else do people do when they share land, air, and resources? Whatever you want to call collective existing, it is still government.
Sure, I feel you. So maybe the solution to that is to change traffic fines from purely monetary to in-kind payment, community service or something. Many states already allow for this kind of thing if you are indigent. I don't think it is productive to just try and avoid paying the fines if you get a ticket. I wouldn't even fault someone for trying to get out of the fine, but it needs to come with some kind of annoyance like a day in court in order to deter bad drivers. Personally, I like to have a deterrent in place so people don't feel free to blow through a stop-sign with impunity.
What is the deal with this dichotomy between "the evil government" and you or me? Do you have a better method for wrangling the cats of many competing viewpoints in an ordered society? And yes, using technology to gain the upper hand in civil matters can be a bad thing. If you have traffic fines to deter people from driving in a way that is inconvenient or dangerous for others, and then a few technologically savvy people figure out how to avoid those fines, all you are going to create is a group of people who are undeterred by traffic fines and drive like maniacs. Ideally there would be a process for appealing unjustified citations (which there is), but the solution is not just to circumvent the whole system unless you think the laws are fine for everyone except you.
What is the deal with every startup or tech company or whatever trying to take the moral high ground on whatever they happen to have found some marketable niche for? "...The most vulnerable people in society"? Give me a fucking break. If you really cared so much about vulnerable people, you would be doing social work or something along those lines. This is just trying to justify intellectual curiosity (or sometimes greed) after the fact. I am tired of all this lip service from morality gluttons. This guy isn't helping anyone except the people who think they are an exception to traffic laws. If the system is that onerous, then change the laws. Otherwise, you are just putting a bandaid on a broken arm.
"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI