"if you are so sure, why dont you point us to the evidence that shows over and over again, you're claim."
He did. Check the links in the post and beginning commentary.
"what evidence can you have that speed cameras that also check for valid rego does not improve road safety ?"
He didn't specify this exact kind of camera, obviously. These cameras are still in the testing phases, and haven't been rolled out. He referenced real, actual research showing that this kind of camera doesn't improve safety.
"No as far as you are concerned, taking stolen, or unregistered cars off the road, as well as those driving against the law. Will not improve road safty !!."
No, he stated that these kinds of cameras don't actually make anyone safer. Of course, your statement is crazy as well, because driving without paying a tax isn't inherently dangerous.
"So we will all be safer if we do not enforce the laws !!! "
No, as he stated, we'll be equal or slightly better off without the cameras, not the laws. I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but in my dictionary, the words 'camera' and 'law' have very different meanings.
"And where are you example of this Mike ?? where its shown over and over."
Again, click the links in the post and beginning commentary. It's very easy. They're all bright blue.
"I guess you can fool some of your followers. the ones who cant be bothered to think for themselves that is.."
Actually, the majority of the commentors here think fairly well. However, even if that were not the case, thinking 'with' Mike Masnick is better than not thinking at all.
I mean, Google is always coming off badly in the media. Finally, we hear a good story about Google, that makes you think good things about them as a company, then then they go and ruin it with the news that they fired the guy for making them look good.
First, if all it does for tailgating is measure the distance, what happens when someone has to slam on their brakes, and you slam on yours, safely coming to a stop without hitting them, but within that distance. Will you get a ticket for being able to come to a safe stop? Or what?
Next, what happens with stolen vehicles? Does the owner of the car get the ticket for no seat belt or tailgating, or does the camera somehow identify the actual driver? (I have problems with both answers, actually, but whatever.)
Last, what happens when the records are just flat wrong? Ar one point, Geico reported me as having no insurance, when I did. A year later, I went to renew my tags and found that someone had made a typo the previous year, and registered my tags to a different VIN. Also in the past, checking our credit before buying a home, Progressive had reported my husband as a non-payer to both the state and the credit bureaus. That just two people, within a few short years.
Based on both my own experiences and the multitudes of anecdotal experiences, I conclude that we're simply not good enough at record keeping to ticket people in this way yet.
In other words, only real people need to write tickets. Not machines.
Also, why not spend money and install roundabouts instead?
"People laugh at your 1st amendment because it's only applied in cases which suit your government of the time."
Yes, because the government 'of the time' hated the Pledge of Allegiance (WV v. Barnett) and our very own Congress (Reno v. ACLU), and loved Vietnam protesters, (Tinker v. Des Moines), the KKK (Brandenburg v. Ohio), and flag-burners (Texas v. Johnson). Also, the government 'of the time' openly loved the pornographer Larry Flynt and detested poor Baptist Jerry Falwell (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell).
"Do you believe that, if a police officer were to come and speak to you for some reason, you should be able to say "Go f*** yourself you pug-eyed sack of sh*t"?"
Yes, and we do. Why shouldn't we be able to?
Of course, we also don't arrest and/or beat our photographers for taking photos of our police officers, and we don't keep the parents behind a fence while their children play on our playgrounds.
Indeed. I remember last year (or the year before), a newspaper published a photo of some seniors. No one had noticed a senior whose barn door was open (and the horse escaping). Everyone who purchased a paper possessed a naked photo of a minor.
You could make a case for accessory. He knew that there was a crime, and he didn't report it. In some states, accessories to felonies are equally culpable. Or maybe that's just felonies involving murder...
Anyway, he didn't report it, so he's definitely a part of the problem.
The Act isn't necessarily about pedophilia, though.
Last year, or the year before, I read an article about a controversial work at the Tate Museum. It turned out to be a sexed-up, naked, oily Brooke Shields as a child. The article included a photo.
In reference to people who possess, maybe not. I'm undecided. Possession is so hard, because it's hard to tell who actually possessed what, and with what intent.
However, the comment I was responding to didn't specify possessors only. They flat stated that victims didn't deserve financial damages. The Act isn't just about possessors, it's about abusers as well.
If there's anyone that a victim deserves an award from, it's from the abuser who caused the need for medical work and therapy in the first place.
The people who talking about 'fixing' tickets have no clue what they're talking about.
My mom is a court clerk, and there isn't any way for an officer in any reasonably sized city to 'fix' a ticket. In small towns? Maybe. In cities? Unlikely. Computerization, ftw.
In addition, there's no need for ticket-fixing. In many states, immediate family members of police officers are allowed to attach a special badge-shaped medal to their back license plate that indicates where their family member works. LAPD, for instance, or OKCPD, or whatever.
When an officer sees this tag, they generally choose to either not pull the driver over, or to pull the driver but not to issue a ticket.
How do I know? My tag says NPD. Nepotism at it's best/worst.
Dude, your dad (and mine) is a very important person in Obama's administration, and also a Jew. His family members can do all kinds of things that are illegal.
(Bonus points if you can correctly identify all of the memes I referenced there.)
On the post: New Speed Cameras Can Spot Multiple Offenses At Once... And Send Off A Ticket Immediately
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is crazy.
Of course, I've never rented a car, except after two accidents (Not my fault, in either case.) and I refused to hand over my credit card both times.
I guess I'm kind of a bitch about things like that. :D
On the post: New Speed Cameras Can Spot Multiple Offenses At Once... And Send Off A Ticket Immediately
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is crazy.
What will they do with rental cars?
On the post: New Speed Cameras Can Spot Multiple Offenses At Once... And Send Off A Ticket Immediately
Re: Re: This is crazy.
Got it. :)
On the post: New Speed Cameras Can Spot Multiple Offenses At Once... And Send Off A Ticket Immediately
Re: What evidence ?? 'shown, over and over again.
He did. Check the links in the post and beginning commentary.
"what evidence can you have that speed cameras that also check for valid rego does not improve road safety ?"
He didn't specify this exact kind of camera, obviously. These cameras are still in the testing phases, and haven't been rolled out. He referenced real, actual research showing that this kind of camera doesn't improve safety.
"No as far as you are concerned, taking stolen, or unregistered cars off the road, as well as those driving against the law. Will not improve road safty !!."
No, he stated that these kinds of cameras don't actually make anyone safer. Of course, your statement is crazy as well, because driving without paying a tax isn't inherently dangerous.
"So we will all be safer if we do not enforce the laws !!! "
No, as he stated, we'll be equal or slightly better off without the cameras, not the laws. I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but in my dictionary, the words 'camera' and 'law' have very different meanings.
"And where are you example of this Mike ?? where its shown over and over."
Again, click the links in the post and beginning commentary. It's very easy. They're all bright blue.
"I guess you can fool some of your followers. the ones who cant be bothered to think for themselves that is.."
Actually, the majority of the commentors here think fairly well. However, even if that were not the case, thinking 'with' Mike Masnick is better than not thinking at all.
On the post: Google Employee Leaks The News That Google Fired Employee Who Leaked Salary Info
It's silly because...
I mean, Google is always coming off badly in the media. Finally, we hear a good story about Google, that makes you think good things about them as a company, then then they go and ruin it with the news that they fired the guy for making them look good.
Real smart, 'Googlers'.
On the post: New Speed Cameras Can Spot Multiple Offenses At Once... And Send Off A Ticket Immediately
This is crazy.
Next, what happens with stolen vehicles? Does the owner of the car get the ticket for no seat belt or tailgating, or does the camera somehow identify the actual driver? (I have problems with both answers, actually, but whatever.)
Last, what happens when the records are just flat wrong? Ar one point, Geico reported me as having no insurance, when I did. A year later, I went to renew my tags and found that someone had made a typo the previous year, and registered my tags to a different VIN. Also in the past, checking our credit before buying a home, Progressive had reported my husband as a non-payer to both the state and the credit bureaus. That just two people, within a few short years.
Based on both my own experiences and the multitudes of anecdotal experiences, I conclude that we're simply not good enough at record keeping to ticket people in this way yet.
In other words, only real people need to write tickets. Not machines.
Also, why not spend money and install roundabouts instead?
On the post: Police End Up Paying $4k To Guy They Gave Bogus Traffic Tickets To After He Flipped Them Off
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because the government 'of the time' hated the Pledge of Allegiance (WV v. Barnett) and our very own Congress (Reno v. ACLU), and loved Vietnam protesters, (Tinker v. Des Moines), the KKK (Brandenburg v. Ohio), and flag-burners (Texas v. Johnson). Also, the government 'of the time' openly loved the pornographer Larry Flynt and detested poor Baptist Jerry Falwell (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell).
Yeah, uh-huh. Right.
On the post: Police End Up Paying $4k To Guy They Gave Bogus Traffic Tickets To After He Flipped Them Off
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and we do. Why shouldn't we be able to?
Of course, we also don't arrest and/or beat our photographers for taking photos of our police officers, and we don't keep the parents behind a fence while their children play on our playgrounds.
On the post: The 'Spam Filter Ate My Notice' Reasoning Convinces Court To Extend Deadline
Re:
On the post: The 'Spam Filter Ate My Notice' Reasoning Convinces Court To Extend Deadline
Re: settings
Roflmao.
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: Seriously?
Anyway, he didn't report it, so he's definitely a part of the problem.
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: Re: Re:
Last year, or the year before, I read an article about a controversial work at the Tate Museum. It turned out to be a sexed-up, naked, oily Brooke Shields as a child. The article included a photo.
I was in possession of child pornography.
Shit. Hope she doesn't decide to sue.
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: Re: Re:
However, the comment I was responding to didn't specify possessors only. They flat stated that victims didn't deserve financial damages. The Act isn't just about possessors, it's about abusers as well.
If there's anyone that a victim deserves an award from, it's from the abuser who caused the need for medical work and therapy in the first place.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom on speech and Guns now..
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: Re: Re: Buddy System
My mom is a court clerk, and there isn't any way for an officer in any reasonably sized city to 'fix' a ticket. In small towns? Maybe. In cities? Unlikely. Computerization, ftw.
In addition, there's no need for ticket-fixing. In many states, immediate family members of police officers are allowed to attach a special badge-shaped medal to their back license plate that indicates where their family member works. LAPD, for instance, or OKCPD, or whatever.
When an officer sees this tag, they generally choose to either not pull the driver over, or to pull the driver but not to issue a ticket.
How do I know? My tag says NPD. Nepotism at it's best/worst.
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Bonus points if you can correctly identify all of the memes I referenced there.)
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, is Mike Masnick Yoda?
Next >>