prev <-> next
[2001-06-18 10:24:00] - paul: because we had to fork out enormous sums of money to get road work that wasn't even as good as what normal roads were. and we had to plow it when it snowed -dave
[2001-06-18 10:23:00] - vinnie: i agree. i think we should try to make our govt better. but i think you should show it the proper respect for what it has done for us. -dave
[2001-06-18 10:23:00] - dave: What was so horribly bad about owning your own road? -paul
[2001-06-18 10:23:00] - and how would your community pay to get its roads paved? You would have to pay taxes to your community, which has no legal authority to collect taxes. so all the roads would go to pot(holes) - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:22:00] - paul: i think you're wrong. people in other countries don't have half the ideas about liberty and whatnot that we do in the us. we grow up with that kinda thing, they don't -dave
[2001-06-18 10:22:00] - dave: You can't have a double standard. If you are comparing the US with the entire world then you can't compare microsoft with just computer users -paul
[2001-06-18 10:21:00] - who would be in charge of 123 or Rt. 50? - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:21:00] - paul: our neighborhood didn't know squat about what road repairs we needed, what pavement we needed to put down. and when the snow fell, we had to plow it ourselves -dave
[2001-06-18 10:21:00] - dave: I don't think that living in the United States is the reason I think the way I do, it certainly means I am more expressive then I would be otherwise -paul
[2001-06-18 10:21:00] - dave: why settle for less? just because we are comparatively near the top doesn't mean we should stop fighting for better things - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:20:00] - paul: yes it was. we owned our own road. we tried for a long time (and eventually succeeded) in giving it to the govt -dave
[2001-06-18 10:20:00] - paul: wrong. we're talking about govt's and their laws. the us govt does not have a monopoly, there are plenty of other countries out there with different govt's and laws -dave
[2001-06-18 10:19:00] - dave: agreed. when the neighborhood has to pay for it, they get charged high prices. the government does it all themselves, so they get stuff in bulk for real cheap. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:19:00] - dave: How was your road privatized though? I doubt it was fully privatized -paul
[2001-06-18 10:18:00] - in regards to that comic, micropayments is one of my favorite subjects to talk about
-jdb[2001-06-18 10:18:00] - paul: i'm saying that the only reason you think that way is because you grew up in the united states, where ideas like that are fostered. and i think it is ironic that you are lambasting a govt that allows you that -dave
[2001-06-18 10:18:00] - dave: You say the US has no monopoly because compared to the world it has a small population, well if you are going to call microsoft a monopoly using those terms you have to look at the entire world (even people without computers) -paul
[2001-06-18 10:18:00] - paul: the contractor already is required to pay for the roads in new developments. Disney didn't build in Haymarket because of how much it was going to cost them to build a new exit ramp from I-66. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:17:00] - paul: privitized road societies stink. believe me, our neighborhood used to own our road, and it was the hugest pain in the world, not to mention a whole lot more expensive than just paying taxes -dave
[2001-06-18 10:17:00] - not like a microsoft monopoly, no. microsoft has a monopoly over most of the earth. i'm talking about the cox monopoly, where they have a monopoly over a small part of the earth - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:17:00] - dave: I see it this way, the government didn't give me any freedom, it just takes some of it away and tells me how happy I should be with the little I have left -paul
[2001-06-18 10:17:00] - paul: old-fashion term for highways? - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:16:00] - dewey: Whoever made the houses in the neighborhood. Nobody would buy a house in a neighborhood unless it has roads -paul
[2001-06-18 10:16:00] - paul: and who is going to make sure those roads are capable of handling traffic such as fire trucks and ambulances? - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:16:00] - paul: i don't follow your comment on how much of the population has computers. -dave
[2001-06-18 10:15:00] - dewey: Post roads? What is that? -paul
[2001-06-18 10:15:00] - http://www.thecomicreader.com/html/icst/icst-6/icst-6.html -jdb
[2001-06-18 10:15:00] - paul: then who would pay for the road to get you to your house from the highway? - dewet
[2001-06-18 10:15:00] - vinnie: i understand what you're saying, and i think it is a valid argument. i'm just saying that when you talk about governmental laws, you're talking about countries. and when you talk about countries, the us does not have a monopoly -dave
[2001-06-18 10:15:00] - dave: Yeah, but if we are taking into account the entire world, what percentage of the population has computers? -paul
[2001-06-18 10:14:00] - i think it is slightly ironic that you would criticize our govt for restricting our freedom when it is just because we have such a govt that we even think that these are viable issues -dave
[2001-06-18 10:13:00] - About tolls on roads, I was talking about it with Miguel last night. You wouldn't really need to have tolls on any roads except highways in a privitazed road society -paul
[2001-06-18 10:13:00] - dave: we're not talking about monopoly over everything. we're talking about monopolies over location - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:12:00] - paul: also in article 1, section 8, clause 7 "the congress shall have the power To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" seems to say they must be incharge of roads. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:12:00] - paul: but 90% of whatever of computers use windows. that's a far larger monopoly than whatever small percentage of people in the world live in the us -dave
[2001-06-18 10:12:00] - dewey: Wow, I never knew that, thanks. I still don't think that means the government has the responsibility to make roads though -paul
[2001-06-18 10:10:00] - paul: i doubt it too. i was just clarifying what aaron was talking about -dave
[2001-06-18 10:10:00] - Dave: I don't think it is far-fetched for someone to use netscape or Linux because they don't like microsoft -paul
[2001-06-18 10:10:00] - paul: Section 8, clause 3 of the constitution says "The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:10:00] - dave: i think the cable analogy is appropriate - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:09:00] - dave: And with a monopoly, you have the option to not buy it's product, that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly -paul
[2001-06-18 10:09:00] - i don't think it is far-fetched for someone to move to another country because they don't like the laws of the us -dave
[2001-06-18 10:09:00] - dave: I doubt most stick-shift drivers would be talking on cell phones not because of safety concerns, but just because it is so hard to do -paul
[2001-06-18 10:08:00] - paul: you have the option to not live under that govt -dave
[2001-06-18 10:08:00] - paul: it might not be in the constituation, but it is something that the american public wants, and therefore the govt does -dave
[2001-06-18 10:07:00] - dave: I agree with Vinnie except I think the government is far worse then a monopoly because they can force you to do things whereas you always have the power to not buy a product from a monopoly -paul
[2001-06-18 10:07:00] - dewey: great point, i didn't know that -dave
[2001-06-18 10:06:00] - I don't think it says anywhere in the Constitution that the government is suppose to facilitate trade or take measures to ensure the public safety (although I could be wrong on that last one) -paul
[2001-06-18 10:06:00] - vinnie: oops, i meant to say that i don't think it's fair for you to say the govt has as a monopoly -dave
[2001-06-18 10:06:00] - of-course, this argument is moot because the system already taxes only those who use the roads. The money to fund transportation comes from the gasoline tax. if you walk, you don't pay those taxes. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:06:00] - paul: yeah, but aaron was talking about stick-shift drivers -dave
[2001-06-18 10:06:00] - dewey: These aren't responsibilities of the government, Dewey, these are things you think they should be doing -paul
[2001-06-18 10:05:00] - they would still be funding the highways. just with tolls instead of taxes - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:05:00] - aaron: yeah, i think you're right. cell phones are too small to try to do that -dave
[2001-06-18 10:05:00] - aaron: Most people use one hand to hold the phone and the other hand to steer the car I think -paul
[2001-06-18 10:05:00] - vinnie: mayhaps, but you're talking about govt laws. that has a very wide scope - so i don't think saying the govt has a monopoly in terms of forcing you to adhere to its laws -dave
[2001-06-18 10:04:00] - vinnie: another responsibility of the government is to maintain channels of trade. They must fund the roads for interstate commerce, therefore they must fund the highways. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:04:00] - dave: I can't perceive trying to cradle a modern cell phone between my neck and head, I mean, the microphone-part of the phone would be nowhere near my mouth, and if I moved my shoulders to steer, the phone would probably dislodge itself... - aaron
[2001-06-18 10:03:00] - not = talking - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:03:00] - vinnie: if you think that the us is the best place to live, than you have to take the cons with the pros. -dave
[2001-06-18 10:03:00] - dave: i'm not about a monopoly on location. just like if I want to live in franklin glen and get cable, i have to get cox. i don't have any other options - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:02:00] - vinnie: well i'm not sure it is 3/4, but a whole lot of people don't live here. that contradicts the definition of a monopoly methinks. -dave
[2001-06-18 10:02:00] - dewey: except only people using the road would pay. it would work much like our current system - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:02:00] - vinnie: and how about people who use the buses? they are using the roads, but can't be accounted for it. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:01:00] - paul: i think i agree with you. but it does depend on those injury figures - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:01:00] - paul: vinnie agrees with you i think -dave
[2001-06-18 10:01:00] - vinnie: a year-round fee called taxes. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:01:00] - vinnie: the us is not really a monopoly. more than 3/4 of the world doesn't live in the us. -dave
[2001-06-18 10:00:00] - I guess I am the only one here who thinks that not wearing a seat belt should be legal? -paul
[2001-06-18 10:00:00] - dewey: but that doesn't change the fact that "normal" adult drivers can talk to people without compromising their safety -dave
[2001-06-18 10:00:00] - "Made by the people, for the people." it is your government. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:59:00] - dewey: well i think you could make a case for a law like that. in fact, you could probably make a good case for teenagers not being able to use cell phones while driving. -dave
[2001-06-18 09:59:00] - dewey: think of something like smarttoll. a year round fee or something - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:58:00] - a monopoly on land? yes. if i want to live in the united states, i have to adhere to their rules (purchase their government) - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:58:00] - vinnie: or should we have a toll booth at every intersection? - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:58:00] - aaron: yeah, and if you are cradling it in between your shoulder and head, then your head is tilted and you don't see everything as well -dave
[2001-06-18 09:58:00] - vinnie: so you want to pay a toll every time you change roads? - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:57:00] - dave: the studies are just now being released about that. Teenagers are not allowed to have passengers in the back after certain hours because there are studies that show the new drivers become too distracted. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:57:00] - dewey: and as for safety, i think people can talk to their passenger and still be safe. -dave
[2001-06-18 09:57:00] - dewey: tolls - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:57:00] - In particular, if you're holding a cell phone and driving a stick-shift in heavy traffic... It just doesn't work. You can't shift up gears, when necessary. - aaron
[2001-06-18 09:56:00] - vinnie: who would maintain the roads if we didn't pay for them with taxes? - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:56:00] - dewey: i don't think that matters. because you can have a conversation with someone in the passenger seat just as easily. should we make passengers illegal? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:55:00] - vinnie: i don't think that's true. there are plenty of other countries. each has its pro's and cons. -dave
[2001-06-18 09:55:00] - Yeah. For the record I think a speaker phone cell phone would be OK because it's hands free - aaron
[2001-06-18 09:55:00] - but in the other respect, i'd like to think it represents individual liberty - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:54:00] - vinnie: do you think you are generally safe if you are driving and not wearing a seat belt? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:54:00] - dave: true enough, dave, i can always leave the country. in one respect, the government is like a giant corporation that has a monopoly - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:54:00] - dave: it isn't just that your hand is occupied with the phone, or that you divert your eyes to dial; it is that while you are having a conversation on the phone, you concentrate on the conversation instead of driving. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:53:00] - guidelines are more like, if you do this you will be safer, but even if you don't you will generally be safe -dave
[2001-06-18 09:53:00] - vinnie: yes it is a guideline, but it should still be a law. it being a law gives it added importance in that the govt is saying you must do this to be safe -dave
[2001-06-18 09:52:00] - vinnie: if you don't agree with the govt's laws, you can either try to get them changed, or leave the country -dave
[2001-06-18 09:52:00] - aaron: In my experience using GBA with my old gameboy games, it needs about the same amount of light, haven't played any gameboy advance games on it yet though -paul
[2001-06-18 09:51:00] - haven't we talked about it before? the whole speaker phone cell phone thing? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:51:00] - Montana: http://www.doj.state.mt.us/ago/newsrel/00release/seatbelts.htm; New York: http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/may21_1_98.html - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:51:00] - dave: then i think we have similar views on the seat belt law. we both think it should used as a guideline - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:51:00] - vinnie: i think cell phone operation in a car could be made to pass acceptable safetly lvls. -dave
[2001-06-18 09:50:00] - dewey: Actually, that's a very good reason to vote for browne if you want to have more money for retirement. He actually laid out a plan by which we could afford to pay off everybody and have money left over -paul
[2001-06-18 09:50:00] - if i decide not to use the road because i don't agree with the laws that the government has set up for it, why should i pay for it? - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:49:00] - vinnie: not particularly. i think it's fine the way it is. you don't get stopped just for not wearing a seatbelt. but if you do get stopped for speeding or something, you can get in trouble for not wearing one -dave
[2001-06-18 09:49:00] - dewey: i'm just making the point that it shouldn't all be safety. how do you feel about the banning of cell phones? - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:48:00] - dave: I got mine at Microcenter, most electronics stores have at least one brand in stock now -paul
[2001-06-18 09:48:00] - here are some good reasons: http://cincinnati.bcentral.com/cincinnati/stories/1997/12/08/focus2.html - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:48:00] - the govt is still responsible for public safetly regardless of whether it's a tolled or taxed road -dave
[2001-06-18 09:47:00] - what difference does it make whether the road is tolled instead of taxed? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:47:00] - dave: but then should we do seat belt checks and stuff? - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:47:00] - vinnie: Climbing mount everest is a personal acheivement that you can equate with earning eagle scout or winning the outback survivor challenge. if you walk into work and boast about not wearing a seatbelt, what does that get you? - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:45:00] - the govt is responsible to keep people safe. now when you start not following the laws, the govt is no longer responsible for your safety -dave
[2001-06-18 09:45:00] - like josh and others have pointed out, i wouldn't have most of these propblems if the road was tolled instead of taxed - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:45:00] - it's just like speeding. just because so many people speed doesn't mean we should take away the speed limits, or even raise them -dave
[2001-06-18 09:44:00] - vinnie: like i said before, people want to know that if they follow the law, they are safe. you can choose to not follow the law, but then they know they're running the risk of getting hurt -dave
[2001-06-18 09:44:00] - dave: i was agreeing to your statement that people will just break the law anyway, rendering it useless - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:43:00] - vinnie: oh i get it. you're responding to me saying that practically you can choose to wear the seatbelt or not -dave
[2001-06-18 09:43:00] - dewey: why do we allow people to climb mount everest? there needs to be some degree of personal freedom also - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:42:00] - vinnie: you lost me with "exacty, so why have a law." i don't understand what you were agreeing to or how that means we shouldn't have a law -dave
[2001-06-18 09:42:00] - the bottom line is the public wants to know that if they follow the laws, they are generally safe. that applies to the driver, the passenger, and the pedestrian -dave
[2001-06-18 09:41:00] - dave: exactly. so why have a law? just increase awareness. or course, like we've both pointed out, few people oppose the seat belt law. the cell phone law is a little more controversial - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:40:00] - vinnie: that's technically correct, but you're splitting hairs. and besides, it's a slightly different issue -dave
[2001-06-18 09:40:00] - and if you say it isn't, then you might as well say we shouldn't have police or fire protection or any emergency medical services. and if you say that, I say you are irrational. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:38:00] - practically you still have the choice whether to wear it or not. people aren't going to track you down just because you weren't wearing your seatbelt -dave
[2001-06-18 09:38:00] - the issue here is overall public safety. that is one of the government's job. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:38:00] - those cars - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:38:00] - people assume that if they follow the laws, they are generally safe. if there is a law that says you have to wear your seatbelt, then they know that to be safe you should wear it -dave
[2001-06-18 09:38:00] - of course. but let's say our roads say that any car with a safety rating less than x can't drive. people aren't going to make cars with a rating less than x because it's not profitable. that doesn't mean we aren't allowing the production or sales of
[2001-06-18 09:38:00] - "Given the kinds of crashes we’re seeing, reaching the people who don’t take the time to buckle up is clearly a top public safety priority," he said.
[2001-06-18 09:37:00] - i think you can make the case for both personal safety and others' safety. -dave
[2001-06-18 09:37:00] - paul: one more reason not to vote for browne- we don't have the financial capability to just pay everyone off. the plan works based on the assumption that those working now pay for the ederly. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:36:00] - it seems rather elementary that if someone is going to buy a car, they're going to drive it -dave
[2001-06-18 09:34:00] - again, we're talking about others' safety vs personal safety. but i honestly don't object to people making or buying cars with low safety ratings. just people driving them - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:34:00] - people want to know that they are generally safe when they buy any car. same thing with getting into a car with someone. you want to feel generally safe about riding with anyone -dave
[2001-06-18 09:33:00] - jdb: I don't know what the optimal solution to that would be, I know Harry Browne favored just paying everybody back the money owed for social security all at once and then ending the program -paul
[2001-06-18 09:33:00] - http://www.portablemonopoly.com/ game boy advance apparently has severe problems functioning in medium/low light.... By which I mean, anywhere indoors - aaron
[2001-06-18 09:33:00] - that = than - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:32:00] - vinnie: do they let people make cars that have horrible safety ratings? no. even though you could say, well, by buying that car they know what they're getting into -dave
[2001-06-18 09:32:00] - dave: i agree that more people object to banning cell phone that requiring seat belts, but i think the principle is the same - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:32:00] - vinnie: true, you have a choice, but i'm not sure it makes that big a difference -dave
[2001-06-18 09:30:00] - vinnie: if you want to talk about cell phones and radios, it would seem a lot more significant than discussing whether you should wear a seat belt -dave
[2001-06-18 09:30:00] - because you have a choice whether or not to drive with someone who doesn't wear a seat belt, and whether or not you want your passengers to wear a seat belt - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:28:00] - vinnie: why wouldn't it still matter if the person hurt other people inside the car? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:28:00] - sorry, not kill, but injure - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:27:00] - dave: plus, the principle at stake here applies to other personal freedoms, like cell phones, radios, and makeup - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:27:00] - dave: agreed. but we're not talking about other things, are we? - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:26:00] - dewey: unfortunately, i don't know the numbers for the number of people who don't wear a seat belt and kill someone not in their car. that's probably the only number that matters to me - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:25:00] - vinnie: and there are plenty of other more meaningful personal rights violations to worry about, seatbelts would seem rather petty -dave
[2001-06-18 09:25:00] - vinnie: so you feel we should eliminate the law? I'm a supporter of the darwin awards, but I still think this is a good law. Besides, it is just a fine and only enforced when someone was pulled over for something else. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:24:00] - vinnie: i know, but still, how much of a personal rights violation is it to make everyone wear seatbelts? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:22:00] - dewey: i'm not sure if anyone is particularly arguing against it -dave
[2001-06-18 09:21:00] - dave: it's more the principle than the convenience factor - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:20:00] - jdb: true enough. your choice who to drive with - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:19:00] - wait a minute, is someone arguing the seatbelt law? - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:18:00] - jdb:
- dewey[2001-06-18 09:17:00] - dewey: i agree, it's not like seatbelts are that much a pain to put on or anything -dave
[2001-06-18 09:17:00] - vinnie:i wouldn't consider the passengers-inside-the-car situation as strong of an argument as passengers in one car hitting the passengers of another car. -jdb
[2001-06-18 09:16:00] - paul: where would be a good place to look for mp3 discmans? -dave
[2001-06-18 09:16:00] - dewey: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/art/liptonad1.gif (too big) -jdb
[2001-06-18 09:14:00] - vinnie: or side-to-side collisions where the passenger smacks heads with the driver. Seatbelts are a must! - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:13:00] - vinnie: Virginia already has a seat-belt law. And seat-belts do save lives. And there are numerous people who die from the passenger in the back seat coming forward and hitting the people in the front because they weren't belted. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:12:00] - dewey: ahh, ok, thx. -dave
[2001-06-18 09:07:00] - dave: oh, I don't know the latest developments. I thought you were asking why they had rolling blackouts. - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:07:00] - paul: ...that ignores the basic questions i have regarding transition and of how to deal with current recipients. -jdb
[2001-06-18 09:07:00] - paul: i've looked over a bunch of different things on that cato social security site. all i've seen talks about how wonderful a plan would be once it was in place, and how it'd operate. however, ... -jdb
[2001-06-18 09:04:00] - hooray for lipton!
- dewey[2001-06-18 09:03:00] - dewey: i thought that they had gotten a grip on it. at least last time i read something on it they had -dave
[2001-06-18 09:02:00] - dave- they are that strapped for energy. they can't produce enough to power the entire california area at peak usage - dewey
[2001-06-18 09:01:00] - but i'm not sure whether the number is significant enough to justify a seat belt law - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:00:00] - ar - vinnie
[2001-06-18 09:00:00] - jdb: seat belts do protect the safety of others. i don't know if it's significant, but i've heard of more than a few cases where a person not wearing a seat belt flew out of their car and injured others, and injured other people in their own c
[2001-06-18 08:48:00] - http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/41796.htm -jdb
[2001-06-18 08:45:00] - paul: and why do they purposely do blackouts? to conserve energy? they're not that strapped for energy are they? -dave
[2001-06-18 08:41:00] - dave: No idea, I think a rolling blackout is where they blackout certain areas in order instead of having everything go out at once -paul
[2001-06-18 08:40:00] - jdb: Sorry it took me so long, but here is that cato web-site I told you I would try to find http://www.socialsecurity.org/ -paul
[2001-06-18 08:36:00] - paul: what's the difference between a blackout and a rolling blackout? -dave
[2001-06-18 08:36:00] - dave: Watch out for rolling blackouts
-paul[2001-06-18 08:14:00] - i'm going to be in california from this coming wed to the following tuesday - just so you know -dave
[2001-06-18 08:13:00] - paul: don't know why some would be taken care of better than others...but it sounds like they don't take good care of yours -dave
[2001-06-18 08:13:00] - paul: the govt has been pretty good about paving our road. -dave
[2001-06-18 00:31:00] - http://morons.org/articles/1/314 -jdb
[2001-06-18 00:20:00] - http://www.schuminweb.com/ has been remodeled -jdb
[2001-06-17 23:20:00] - true. - mig
[2001-06-17 23:20:00] - mig: So V-dot finally comes to repave our roads last month, they tear up the old pavement and then stop. A month later and our road is still in horrible condition, waiting to be paved. Every week they tell us they will be starting next week. -paul
[2001-06-17 23:19:00] - mig: For instance, there is a place in southern Virginia that my family visits a lot that get's new roads like every year even though they don't need it. Yet my neighborhood hasn't had it's road paved in like 15 years -paul
[2001-06-17 23:16:00] - mig: It's not necessarily about the crazy traffic laws. It's more about the fact that the government is extremely incompetent when it comes to road work -paul
[2001-06-17 23:13:00] - i hear about wrongful improsonment a lot. i remember reading a washington post article about interagotors denying the right to see an attorney, and then coercing confessions. - mig
[2001-06-17 23:12:00] - http://www.technews.vt.edu/Archives/2001/Jun/01222.html -jdb
[2001-06-17 23:10:00] - hate to think about how frequently this sort of thing happens --> http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/16/crime.free.reut/index.html -jdb
[2001-06-17 22:29:00] - among other things . . . they also dealt with an affair between a teacher and a student. its a cool show.
[2001-06-17 22:25:00] - i guess it was one of those "don't make fun of those who are different" kind of episodes? - mig
[2001-06-17 22:24:00] - and by :-o i mean
[2001-06-17 22:23:00] - boston public was very good today. fat people have feelings. :-o
[2001-06-17 22:20:00] - or at least, you can have crazy traffic laws with private ownership. - mig
[2001-06-17 22:18:00] - i don't really see the difference who owns the roads. either way you have crazy traffic laws. - mig
[2001-06-17 22:08:00] - jdb: I wish more people voted in general, except for those damn liberals
-paul[2001-06-17 22:06:00] - logan: Oddly enough, I am beginning to see more and more why we should leave road construction to private companies... -paul
[2001-06-17 21:48:00] - If the government funded the roads, then the roads are stolen goods. -logan
[2001-06-17 20:57:00] - to put it in another perspective, technically, most of the roads we drive on belong to the gov't, since they funded them, so you could look at it as "you want to drive on our roads, you play by our rules." - mig
[2001-06-17 20:55:00] - i would argue that it should be revoked if they physically aren't capable of driving anymore. i would however be against a law that said, "if you are over age x, you cannont dirve anymore." - mig
[2001-06-17 20:08:00] - i wish more young people voted. i wish more lower class, working individuals voted also. -jdb
[2001-06-17 20:06:00] - ...but i stick by my statement that road laws are all about the safety of the whole, more so than individuals. "it's not about your safety, it's about my safety." -jdb
[2001-06-17 20:05:00] - Well, I gotta go now... but I'll be back to discuss agism, seat belt laws and other stuff after Boston Public
-paul[2001-06-17 20:05:00] - the problems of injuries inside the car is interesting. i'd say that's more in the domain of private space (of course that brings more reasons for cell phone freedom, etc.)... -jdb
[2001-06-17 20:02:00] - If I remember correctly, the law died a horrible death because old people were very against it and old people vote much more then the young people
-paul[2001-06-17 20:01:00] - jdb: Well, I've heard of people considering laws which mandate that once a person reaches a certain age that they should no longer be able to drive since old people are statistically worse drivers -paul
[2001-06-17 19:58:00] - jdb: As do I -paul
[2001-06-17 19:57:00] - i've never heard anybody argue against old people driving simply because they're old. they were always talking statisically about driving ability. -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:56:00] - jdb: I'm not arguing for a seat belt law, but I know there have been cases where somebody not wearing a seatbelt has been a factor in injuring another person in the car -paul
[2001-06-17 19:55:00] - paul: for the record, i always wear a seat belt.
-jdb[2001-06-17 19:55:00] - jdb: I personally don't think we should penalize old people by revoking their licenses simply because they are old. I was just wondering if people who support a cell phone ban would support revoking old people's licenses -paul
[2001-06-17 19:55:00] - paul: i would only agree with seat belt law if seat belts were correlated with the safey of other individuals (other than the wearer). -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:53:00] - paul: in regards to that old people driving question... do you think we should base laws on statistics? -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:53:00] - jdb: I mean, isn't that an example of where individual freedom taking a back seat to safety? -paul
[2001-06-17 19:52:00] - jdb: How is the seat belt law stupid? Doesn't it save lives? -paul
[2001-06-17 19:50:00] - paul: an example of a stupid traffic law -- the seat belt law. -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:49:00] - paul: ...so, if statistics show that cell phones are causing accidents and endangering lives, then a law banning them makes sense. -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:48:00] - paul: very complex issue. in general, i think people should have a lot of individual freedom to do whatever they want. but, the highway is not about individual freedom -- the goal is to keep everyone safe... -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:41:00] - jdb: What is your position on banning cell phone use while driving? -paul
[2001-06-17 19:38:00] - a: I guess my question is, do we not let old people drive because statistically speaking old people are more likely to cause accidents? -paul
[2001-06-17 19:38:00] - my 85 year old grandfather still drives, but to tell you the truth -- i wouldn't feel safe driving with him for great distances. -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:37:00] - i agree with adrian on that one. it all should depend on if people can pass driving tests. -jdb
[2001-06-17 19:35:00] - a: How about old people who are still fully capable of driving though? Do we revoked licenses because of age or ability? -paul
[2001-06-17 19:29:00] - old people should have their licenses revoked when they can't drive properly anymore. ~a
[2001-06-17 19:26:00] - i heard the new cake song again and have decided that i like it. the statement that there are no cake songs that i hate is still true. ~a
[2001-06-17 19:25:00] - Random question on a previous topic, to those people who thought that cell phone use should be banned while driving: Should old people have their licenses revoked just because they are old? -paul
[2001-06-17 19:22:00] - jdb: According to my TV guide, Boston Public isn't on tonight. Are you sure it is on at 9:00 for everybody? -paul
[2001-06-17 18:29:00] - http://www.chronicle.com/free/v47/i39/39a02101.htm -jdb
[2001-06-17 18:15:00] - http://www.allchristiancruises.com/Bibleman.htm -jdb
[2001-06-17 17:55:00] - i was just giving the ip & domain name of the person who decided to post that. ~a
[2001-06-17 16:01:00] - http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb99271814036200215.htm - mig
[2001-06-17 15:58:00] - what is with this obseesion with kiddie porn? - mig
[2001-06-17 14:50:00] - child porn: 193-152-186-175.uc.nombres.ttd.es ~a
[2001-06-17 14:00:00] - jdb: yay for category 2! - boing
[2001-06-17 13:14:00] - tonight at 9pm, monday at 8pm, tuesday at 9pm. -jdb
[2001-06-17 13:08:00] - oh yeah, boston public comes on tonight. 3 nights in a row! -jdb
[2001-06-17 13:04:00] - child porn
[2001-06-17 12:55:00] - i got cat 3. - mig
[2001-06-17 12:46:00] - jdb: I got category 4, free the schools from government
-paul[2001-06-17 12:43:00] - jdb: Those are some pretty cool sandals there
-paul[2001-06-17 12:43:00] - i got "Category 2: Reform the schools" -- but i think survey is way over-simplified. -jdb
[2001-06-17 12:42:00] - World's Smallest Education Survey --> http://209.24.29.72/NEP/ -jdb
[2001-06-17 11:42:00] - another example is MST3k. I was as sad as the next guy to see it go, but the fact is that it wasn't exactly "screwed," since it went on for a long time and people loved it - boing
[2001-06-17 11:41:00] - a: but that's what I'm saying... they put it int he list of shows screwed over by hollywood, when it really wasn't. Not to mention that hollywood didn't even have any involvement with any of these shows, the networks did - boing
[2001-06-17 11:14:00] - http://www.shoesofthefisherman.com/ -jdb
[2001-06-17 10:35:00] - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
[2001-06-17 09:06:00] - i don't see any whining; i just think they couldn't find a way the x-files was screwed over. ~a
[2001-06-17 02:26:00] - if that seemed to be in the better interests of the network... also, that site whines about insignificant stuff a lot. their only x-files complaint is some obscure inconsistency between two episodes - boing
[2001-06-17 02:25:00] - I dunno... I mean, with some of those series there was obvious butchering of even popular shows (sliders, star treks, etc)... but in a lot of those cases I could understand doing things like preempting the show for a special - boing
[2001-06-17 02:21:00] - berlin elects gay mayor http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=LycosPolitics&storyId=44588 -jdb
[2001-06-17 01:27:00] - http://www.firsttvdrama.com/neverf/neverf.php3
[2001-06-17 01:06:00] - mig: mascots don't have to be creatures. they can be objects... for example, my middle school's mascot? a giant crayon.
-jdb[2001-06-17 01:02:00] - i don't like the drugs but the drugs like me
[2001-06-17 00:59:00] - i farted
prev <-> next