Sorry for the late reply. We had an ectopic pregnancy (as well as the normal one), which was unnoticed until too late, and lost both unborn children. Been in the hospital with resulting complications for the last couple weeks.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:03 AM, denstar wrote: ... >> The scary bit is the revenue from questionable methods. >> >> Hey, it cuts down on speeders, right? Cuts down on accidents? (the >> stats are actually quite interesting, but lets say they do) >> >> Why not just use cameras all over, and have computers looking for >> people breaking the law, issuing fines and whatnot? > > > Now that I would have issues with. Some things can be automated, but not > that. I already admitted I think that 'red light cameras' are a bad idea. What I find interesting is the idea of "this measure does X Good Thing(s)", and how easy it is to see the good, yet how un-PC it is to see the bad, so to speak. Road blocks (also called checkpoints, here in NM) cut down on drunk drivers, but are also being used as more than just "drunk driver nets". I don't think I'd have as much of a problem (if any, pragmatically(practically?) speaking) if there was real fine-grained control over that power-- limits/checks, if you will (for instance, solely checking for inebriation). I liked how, back in the day, you had to specifically put what it was you were searching for on a warrant, and probable cause was less discretionary, etc.. Yeah, honestly, I think I'd have a problem with checkpoints, period. How much do we really want to rely on The Law for? Should every 4th private missive be opened and perused by The Man, in case it contains something illegal? >> If that behavior is changing lanes without signaling, running red >> lights, perhaps messing up the flow of traffic(this is a funny issue >> too), sure. >> >> If the person takes 2 seconds longer to start up when the light turns >> green... "hey, drunk drivers do that! That's probable cause!" not so >> much. >> >> I think we're pretty close here, really, although, like the torture >> and wire tapping, I'm more in favor of letting some bad people go >> free, vs. imprisoning good people. Or however that whole "innocent >> until" deal goes. >> Not torturing fools, even if they "deserve it", because, well, shit man. >> >> Maybe these things aren't directly related, but I feel there is a >> pattern, or some such, that connects them. I'll try to stay more on >> message. > > > I think we completely agree here, we are just stating things > a little differently. I do not think I ever advocated that someone only need > exhibit 1 behavior of a drunk driver (or other type of criminal) to justify > a police officer investigating further. I hate the fact that we sometimes > we have to let the bad guys go free, but until a more foolproof system, its > something we need to live with I was talking this over with a buddy the other day. Would a foolproof system really be a Good Thing? I personally make a *lot* of poor choices. I make less of them as I gain experience, but still. If The Law were there to bust me every time, I don't think I'd've gleaned (or perhaps even grokked) the real reasons why some things are just Bad Ideas. There's no way to tell now, I guess, but it would seem a cold, inefficient way to have learned; relying on The Law. > I don't necessarily wish to torture fools, but sometimes I do wish stupidity > was painful. Not to take off on a tangent (he says, taking off on a tangent), but; would it be "smarter" to obey traffic laws because you think you may get busted, or because you know the road is a safer place due to these, um, "agreements", as it were? Is it "smarter" to pay taxes because you're afraid of the IRS, vs. paying them because you want to, um, contribute to our nation's efforts or whatever (a civic duty perhaps)? It sounds silly, but I sorta think that an imperfect system is perfect (so long as we acknowledge it as such), and that we shouldn't rely on The Law to make people un-stupid. I *really*... *really* can't remember what I was going to type after that first *really*. Sorry. Anyways, society should be doing the morals/ethics deal, and laws should be as few as possible. IMO. Admittedly, I'm not very litigious, and don't exactly "trust" government. >> I can see how that would seem to make sense. Might even be "right" most >> times. >> >> It's still wrong tho, according to my Good American handbook. >> >> Justice is blind for a reason. Or maybe it was just artistic... >> artistic.. what's that deal where artists get to make stuff up? >> Artistic leeway? No... eh. Not important. > > > Justice should be blind, but not the investigators. ;) These days, the investigators are our fellow citizens. Harken back to my "vigilante justice ain't cool" comments. Did anyone else see the UK deal about "200 school children identified as being 'at risk' of becoming future terrorists"? Trippy, neh? Or, how 'bout: Who investigates the investigators? :-)p >> Totally aware of all those statistics. And that many cops have >> preconceptions. And that, hey, maybe those preconceptions help keep >> them alive. >> >> Still didn't feel right when they'd just assume all kinds of crap >> about me, and my friends. > > > I think more often than not, a police officer's behavior is reactive rather > than proactive at traffic stops. But, then again, maybe you have just had > the unfortunate luck of running into the asshole cop. Nonsense (no offense). Past experience will tell them "folks who /look/ like that are dangerous" (or maybe it won't, depending on their experiences with folks who "look like that", or perhaps their mindset, but I digress). I've had the luck of running into a lot of cops. Mostly it was 80/20, 80 being pretty sucky. "Proactive", if you will. I get the feeling that being a cop is a lot like being a teacher. Where I've seen a similar ratio. I shouldn't blame the people themselves so much; it's probably more related to The System itself. >> >> Since a lot of crime is done by non-whites, wouldn't the fact that >> >> someone is non-white be "consistent" with criminal behavior? >> > >> > >> > Really, a lot of crime is done by non-whites? That sounds an awful lot >> like >> > 'a lot of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims'. A statement that >> people >> > in this thread seemed to take offense to. >> >> Really? Do you like airplane jokes? ;-) >> >> On the realz tho, by the numbers, some "races" have higher per-group >> rates of crime. >> >> Does that mean that the problem lies with these races? >> >> It's not poverty, and x,y,z (which also happen to be color blind)? >> >> >> So the people in the plane, who feel safe, alter randomness itself, >> and that dude with the rocket, on the ground lining the plane up in >> his sights, sorta goes... "hey, that plane looks too safe to shoot >> at"... maybe he sees a small child, smiling in one of the windows >> (smiling because his mom feels safe, or whatnot), and can't do it. >> >> Heh. I actually quite like that. The power of a smile is an amazing >> thing. > > > What I actually meant is that if the anxiety level of those on the plane is > reduced somewhat, it CAN be a safer flight. Not implying that we stopped all > threats. I had to fly a few times after 9/11 (maybe 2 or 3 months after) > and you cut cut the tension like a knife. Everyone seemed on edge...like an > animal waiting to pounce on some unsuspecting prey. Reduce that tension and > air travel will be safer...just maybe not safer from the people we are lead > to believe we are being protected from. Make sense? It makes an inefficient kind of sense, yes. ;) "Hey, what's giving up some freedom if it makes people less tense?" (I flew right after The Attacks as well, and I don't think the "obviously not really making us much safer" measures really made people feel safer. Seemed like it made folks more frustrated, if anything, but sadly, many people probably thought "this is what it takes to make us safer", or some such cognitively dissonant idea... hmmm, no, most people thought it was retarded-- no fingernail clippers? [At least that's how I remember it, could be mis-remembering it tho]). We spent a lot of money for not much gain. Money that very easily could have produced *much more* gain. Not an unknown phenomena, but still. Seriously tho, I too think we are pretty close on these issues. There are a few [key? ;)] differences, but we could have a grand old time discussing them over beers or whatnot, I get the feeling. I hope I haven't come off as insufferable. >> -- > Scott Stroz > --------------- > The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are > willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson > http://xkcd.com/386/ Heh. I'll discuss this shit 'till the cows come home in real life, too. I probably should stop socializing now tho, and do "stuff". Been kinda especially hard to motivate myself for the other stuff lately tho. :-/ Yeah, I'm going to go click through a bunch more email before I pass out, instead. :Den -- That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas formed by the imagination, exist without the mind, is what every body will ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:293155 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
