I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, but I should elaborate. We can have a debate about whether the state should own the roads but given that it does, I don’t consider its efforts at stewardship to be legitimate criticisms against the existence of the state, or toward Libertarianism. Private entities make stupid decisions too, after all; they’re just often incontestable.
If a law exists, it must be true! All distractions the law says are bad, are equally bad. All distractions the law says are ok, are equally ok. If an actual HUD is capable of enhancing the driving experience, perhaps even by lessening other distractions or improving our ability to deal with hazards, we need laws and bureaucrats to keep us safe! Lots and lots of bureaucrats to keep us safe from things advancing too quickly.
I withdrew my comment because I think it was a misstatement as worded.
That said.
Voters tend to skew older that the eligible population. State legislators tend not to be the most recognized public office holders. Those that do know who their state legislators are do tend to be largely older than 35.
There are a number of issues around the country where bad bills gets passed because State officials sometimes feel less accountability to younger voters. The lag between public polling on issues like gay marriage and marijuana are examples.
Ah, you think driving, operating a car, is inalienable right, a guaranteed liberty via federal, not the Virginia constitution. 10th amendment was it?
Generally accepted? Precedent? Important? Demonstrate once where it was ever cited, anywhere, since it rolled out of a looney tunes ragtime state court in 1930.
You can’t & your source for it is the same collection Freeman-raving blogs as your first link, who misrepresent even the court it is from.
As for your membership, of course you aren’t, you guys don’t have members do you, to cumbersome & encroaching, that sort of thing. Should be the Freechildren really. I’m not tarring you by association, I specifically think you’re an idiot for choosing, on multiple occasions, sources of that nature & being unable to show from any other source.
Put the text of your so-called precedent setting case into the ol computer there, sparky.
See that? That’s the company you keep when you hold out hope that driving a car is specifically a guaranteed liberty.
Claiming I didn’t have any points is asnine. Go argue about your registration stickers with a state trooper, or buy land with scrip, it makes no difference, driving ain’t itself a right. You know it, because you had to disavow an entire federal court, in a ruling made within 1 year of the century we are in now. Here, in the future.
Yes, I was picking on you a bit, no I wasn’t driving trollies you though if I had known you’d cite such nonsense, I might have, mariner.
& don’t bother replying, I doubt you’re dumb enough to link to anymore funny things & your stern & lugubrious replies are just pathetic. You act like it matters, your -belief- that driving your car is a right.
OK OK you have no articulable point of view. You have no argument. You only have an argumentative tactic. Fine. We get that. Rather than discuss the issue you like attacking me directly.
So, I’ll just look at what you are trying to say in your fumblin
Our rights and liberties are not granted by the constitution, bill of rights, or any law. They are inalienable rights. This concept of liberty in common law predates the United States. At the creation of this nation it was important to the founders to codify the concepts of freedom and liberty. However, it seems that history lesson was one of the many you skipped.
Maybe you are hung up on the Bill of Rights. You do know that the amendments to the constitution are not an enumeration of the rights of the people but only serve to restrict the laws that can be passed which restrict our liberty? You went to that 7th grade class, right?
Meh, maybe you are one of those totalitarian types who thinks the state has to grant us everything. Who knows?
As I demonstrated earlier, the power to regulate a liberty does not magically transform it to a privilege. Voting is a basic right of every citizen but the state has the power to regulate voting. In some states they require ID, voting registration, etc yet voting remains a right, a freedom, a liberty.
You seem to think that we have to have some piece of paper somewhere telling us that driving is a right of the people but nothing could be further from the truth. Our rights are not granted us and I think that’s the major disconnect here and the basic flaw in your line of thinking
That’s only because you never made a point and you have failed to articulate whatever point you say you have. So far, you only seem to be argumentative which is a far cry from someone with an actual cogent argument.
So, I’ll just read what you write and hold off any further comment until you are able to collect your thoughts, use your words, and present your argument about why google glass and driving is bad in a coherent manner like a big boy.
If you would like to continue down the irrelevant topic of driving as a right v. driving as a privilege, that’s fine too. Repeating the wisdom of your drivers ed teacher is pointless but harmless. As I’ve said twice now, that discussion is beside the point and I’m not going to try to put you through a 7th grade civics class just so we can argue about what rights really are. So, you will be having that discussion with yourself.
So before we make something illegal in relation to driving we should exhaustively prove that it’s dangerous? That’s going to be a hilarious, near infinite, series of safety testing videos that I want to see.
“Okay, that’s it proven for the left nostril so we can make THAT illegal. Now stuff the scorpion up his right nostril…”
I’d recommend at least some study, some evidence, something that shows there is a compelling reason to pass any law. I don’t think there needs to be exhaustive testing at all. But before we go passing laws on something, don’t you think we should know a little bit about the subject first?
There is a concept known as cost benefit analysis. It’s a wonderful tool and one governments should employ before making any laws. Take recycling as an example. Many cities passed recycling laws. The idea was that it would be a benefit to the environment. Glass, aluminum, plastic, paper, are required to be recycled in may locals. The problem is that not everything should be recycled. There is debate on whether plastic recycling is beneficial or harmful in the long run. It really all depends on the plastic type.
Knowing at least some the facts before passing a law doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me. Why does it to you? Do you think we should pass laws based on our fears and ignorance? Kind of like we did with the patriot act?
We need to pass laws that make good sense instead of ones that make us feel good.
Well, yeah, pretty much NO. Go scream “FIRE”, over and over in a crowded theater, or stand up in the middle of your next flight on an airplane and start yelling “I’ve got a bomb!”. The government most certainly bans you from saying certain things in public, when the public safety argument outweighs your personal love of the word ‘fire’. That is neither censorship, or tyranny, and there is nothing magical about it. A license to drive encompasses that times about 1,000. And if you can’t see what’s wrong with basing every decision on “If I owned it would it cost me money”… 1) You DO own it. I own it. We own it. “Public” does not mean “owned by no one”. 2) There are more important factors than cost, I leave it to you to figure them out.
My one question in all of this is… When has passing a law actually stopped the behaviour? Distracted Driving? Hello? Ever heard of a radio? But thats ok I guess. How about people who put on make up while driving? How about people who boom loud music with 300 watt speakers? Is that distracting? Laws do NOTHING to stop the behavior. If they did we wouldn’t have to enforce those laws. Prostitution is illegal, so are drugs like cocaine and heroin, don’t forget drunk driving and driving without a seat belt.
Have any of those activities stopped as a result of laws being passed? The answer is no! Laws are not passed to stop or even reduce the instance of a unwanted activity, they just punish those who are unlucky enough to get caught.
By the way, such laws against distracted driving are never applied to law enforcement. I see officers text and drive all the time as well as talking on mobile phones. Do police magically have more attention than other people? Do they never get distracted? I guarantee that some of the first institutional buyers of wearable computers like the Google Glasses will be law enforcement. You know they will be using them to record you, check your face against image recognition databases and get any information about you relayed back to their Glass display, all without even having to put down the donut.
I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions. If I don’t wear a seat belt and I get into an accident and get injured that that is my fault and I pay the price with any injuries I may sustain. If I drive too fast and lose control of my car then that is again my fault. Laws designed to prevent behaviors that MAY cause accidents and injuries, is just a way for governments to maintain control over and to increase their ability to collect revenue for the state. Such laws do nothing to prevent the behavior because the behaviors themselves are not the problem.
The problem is that people make mistakes that sometimes results in injuries or death. This situation will never be eliminated because we are not machines. If you notice, google is also spear heading the acceptance of driverless cars. This would solve the problem of distracted driving and allow passengers to access their devices (google glass?) without fear of injury or of prosecution, assuming such laws will be changed or repealed when robot cars make distracted driving laws unnecessary.
There are NO good laws. Laws seek to control others against their will. Laws, seek to replace freedom of choice and personal responsibility with codified systems of proscribed and prescribed behavior with no room for exception. Google wants to give us technology to empower us, and to make google a ton of money. Ultimately google wants to sell everyone robots. Governments and the laws they enact seek instead to make US the robots.
That idea falls apart when you think about passengers in a vehicle unfortunately
Looks like a ridiculous movie. The Army’s version of Top Gun?
1 Like
And here’s the full movie. The out of sync audio gives this a surreal effect.
Right up there with The Starfighters
1 Like
There’s the Air Force version too.
1 Like
“Luke, you switched off your targeting computer! What’s wrong?”
“Nothing. I’m all right.”
Checkmate.
2 Likes
The Iron Eagletrailer suggests that the pilots acted without authorization. Now, I haven’t actually seen TopGun-- apparently it’s all about the Danger Zone-- but nothing I’ve heard about TopGun implies that the pilots were defying orders and rejecting the chain of command.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
