Post by thread:[OT] rules, was Yes,

'[OT] rules, was Yes,'

James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> 

> Just a thought. And we do kill 50,000 to 60,000 every darn year on the road

> here in the USA.

> http://www.massmind.org/other/911.htm 

" 9/11? Big Deal!

60,000 people die on the roads in the US every damn year. That is more 

US citizens than died in the entire Viet Nam war by about 2,000. "

AMEN!

And don't forget the 10's of thousands of deaths and injuries a

year in the USA caused by handguns. Yet you have no 'homeland security'

response to THAT carnage. In fact, assault weapons just became legal 

again. Leadership?? WHAT leadership?

'If you aren't for us, you must be against us'. G.W. Bush.

How childish.

I guess you get the leaders you deserve.

Robert

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

John Ferrell wrote:

> I (and many,many other Americans) chose to be your adversary on each of

> these points.

So 50 to 60 thousand PREVENTABLE traffic deaths a year is OK?

10 of thousands of PREVENTABLE gun deaths a year is OK?

Having a president who has a narrow 'us vs them' view of the

world and engages in a war in Iraq which costs over 900 American lives

(and dozens of lives of other friendly nationals)

to destroy WHAT weapons of mass destruction, is OK?

> I also choose to behave in a much less inflammatory manner. I respect your

It was not meant to be inflammatory.

But given the 'you're either with us or against us' attitude of many

of your leaders, I am not surprised that you reacted as you have.

Just because I disagree with your choices doesn't mean that I am

"against you".

> position and I expect you to respect mine.

I do. You're the one with the firearms-in-every-house/army/missles.

Might makes right, right?

My apologies for expecting a rational discussion on the topic.

> We like our culture and are willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain

> it.

I understand that. I simply question the effectiveness of an approach

that seems to globally make more enemies than friends.

With freedom comes responsibility, but many of your countrymen

don't seem to be sufficiently responsible about the lives of

those around them (or under their command).

And don't get me started on deaths by tobacco, alcohol or drug abuse.

> John Ferrell

> http://DixieNC.US

I wonder if your Californian or mid-western states feel the same way.

All I ask is that you THINK about why you feel the way you do.

Are your feelings and responses based on 'thought' or just on

what you've been taught or been exposed to as a child?

If the billions being spent on homeland security were spent

on gun control or improved traffic safety, you'd be saving far

more lives per dollar spent. As has been amply demonstrated by

the news media, border controls are NOT working very well.

If terrorists want to strike within the USA, they WILL.

Just look at how ineffective Israel has been at protecting -their-

population from terrorism.

Since James is concerned about bandwidth use, I'll not

reply to further posts on this thread.

Robert

Do I smell smoke?

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

> > I (and many,many other Americans) chose to be your adversary on each of

> > these points.

I don't. I'm a born and bred citizen of the US, and you don't speak for

me.

> So 50 to 60 thousand PREVENTABLE traffic deaths a year is OK?

Absolutely not. I've been making this point for years.

> 10 of thousands of PREVENTABLE gun deaths a year is OK?

No.

> Having a president who has a narrow 'us vs them' view of the

> world and engages in a war in Iraq which costs over 900 American lives

> (and dozens of lives of other friendly nationals)

> to destroy WHAT weapons of mass destruction, is OK?

No. Personally I wish our president would go over there in person without

a bodyguard and appologize for our invasion.

> > I also choose to behave in a much less inflammatory manner. I respect your

> > position and I expect you to respect mine.

Why should I respect your position? If I knew you, I might be willing to

respect *you*, but not your position. I respect your right to hold that

position.

> > We like our culture and are willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain

> > it.

Maybe you do. I, on the other hand, actually believe in the constitution

of the USA. And I don't like our president using irrational fear to

trample over the Bill of Rights.

> And don't get me started on deaths by tobacco, alcohol or drug abuse.

[Rant on]

I *just* had somebody deliver a shipment of medical supplies needed by

my wife who is extremely ill. The smell of tobacco smoke still reeks in

our house.

I fail to understand how *any* rational person can smoke, let alone those

in the medical profession.

[Rant off]

> > John Ferrell

> > http://DixieNC.US

> 

> I wonder if your Californian or mid-western states feel the same way.

I'm from central Pennsylvania, and I still think John's position needs

to be rethought.

> If the billions being spent on homeland security were spent

> on gun control or improved traffic safety, you'd be saving far

> more lives per dollar spent. As has been amply demonstrated by

To heck with that. Throw 10% of that money into education and you'll

probably solve all those problems within a generation. And the other

90% could be used to pay off the deficit.

> If terrorists want to strike within the USA, they WILL.

Ayup. And we don't even have to go outside our own borders. It was

a native who hit Oklahoma City.

So far the US has been extremely lucky. Most countries have seen far

more terrorism than the US ever had.

-- 

D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,

spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.

http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>

>[Rant on]

>I *just* had somebody deliver a shipment of medical supplies needed by

>my wife who is extremely ill. The smell of tobacco smoke still reeks in

>our house.

>

>I fail to understand how *any* rational person can smoke, let alone those

>in the medical profession.

>[Rant off]

It does kind of boggle the mind..

Especially when they are around people who are rather sensitive to this sort of thing. 

It didn't bother me for years, but now I hardly can visit in person with one of my friends, who smokes. If I do, my lungs don't feel right for half a day, and that's when he doesn't smoke! It's just the pervasive chemicals that get me.

Our local hospital has banned smoking anywhere near the entrances, it used to be that the smokers all hung out just outside the doors, and anyone who was entering or leaving had to run the gauntlet.

>To heck with that. Throw 10% of that money into education and you'll

>probably solve all those problems within a generation. And the other

>90% could be used to pay off the deficit.

I hear that!

We have a "book fee" locally, that I've never been able to figure out. 

They charge each student, enough to pay for all they books they use in a semester, then they only buy one book for each seat, so that the students can't bring them home. 

They replace the books every 6 years.  Looks to me like they are getting roughly 12X the cost of the books.  Where does that money go?  Nobody knows..

>So far the US has been extremely lucky. Most countries have seen far

>more terrorism than the US ever had.

Well, there was that whole thing back in the 1770's, but the terrorists won. 

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:06:04 -0500, Dave VanHorn <.....dvanhornKILLspam@spam@dvanhorn.org> wrote:

> 

> It does kind of boggle the mind..

> Especially when they are around people who are rather sensitive to this sort of thing.

> It didn't bother me for years, but now I hardly can visit in person with one of my friends, who smokes. If I do, my lungs don't feel right for half a day, and that's when he doesn't smoke! It's just the pervasive chemicals that get me.

>

That was my biggest problem with Europe when I was visiting there,

some things are so progressive there, and then they have smoking

allowed in the airports and malls!  The non-smoking sections are

separated from the smoking sections with a dotted line... a lot of

good that does.  I had to wash all of my clothes when I got back a

couple of times to get the odour out.

End of my rant. :)

Alex

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Robert Rolf wrote:

>> So 50 to 60 thousand PREVENTABLE traffic deaths a year is OK?

>>

> What makes you think they're preventable?

Statistics from when your speed limits were dropped to 55MPH.

Highway death rates declines significantly, then rose again

as the limit was removed, in spite of safer cars decades later.

>  What makes you think that

> you'd be willing to put up with what might be necessary to prevent them?

I would have no problem with driving the posted speed limit rather

that 15mph above, as most traffic does.

I have no problem with NOT driving drunk. (I don't drink, period).

Zero tolerance for drunk driving seemed to work quite well in

Venezuela (circa 1980). If you drove drunk, and cause an accident,

the soldiers patrolling the streets executed you on the spot.

There are NO repeat offenders, and first time DWI is nearly

non existent. The severe deterrent seemed to work well enough there.

Zero tolerance for DWI (driving while intoxicated) with mandatory

jail time would go a LONG way to reducing the current carnage.

An protester who pied our premier just got sentenced to

30 days in jail for assault. Earlier this month a woman

who had a history of drunk driving killed someone by going

the wrong way down a one way highway. She was sentenced to

one year probation. e.g. NO JAIL TIME. Where is the justice in that?

Where is the message that driving drunk will have severe consequences?

If prosecutors would charge drunk driving as 'attempted murder',

since it is only by luck that you don't kill someone, the penalties

might become harsher and more effective as a deterrent.

Death rates CAN be changed, but y/our spineless and ineffective

legal systems allow repeated drunk driving offenses to go unpunished.

> It scares me when people won't take responsibility for their own actions,

Scares me too. And makes me angry that the authorities allow them

to get away with it by failing to impose the legal sanctions available

to them to prevent it.

> but I think it scares me more when people have to find blame for every

> accident.

There is ALWAYS blame assignable, even if it is mechanical failure.

There are no 'accidents'. Just stupid decisions made by drivers,

be it drinking, speeding, lane changes, running lights,

failing to be rested, failing to maintain vehicle etc.

I have avoided many 'accidents' in my 30 years of driving

by having paid attention to my surroundings,

and always driving with an 'escape' space near me.

Why are some drivers able to go decades without 'accidents'

while others are uninsurable because they have so many?

>  And I worry that the things that get made illegal in the US

> are the things that insurance companies are afraid that they might have

> to pay for...

Huh?

Please explain how drunk driving, speeding, unsafe lane

changes, running red lights, etc. are NOT a problem and so

should be legal? These actions are illegal precisely because

they are UNSAFE.

I don't have a problem with insurance companies having different

rates for different classes of drivers IF the statistics warrant

it. I also think smokers should pay 10 times the health premiums of

non smokers since they statistically use 10 times the resources.

Robert

I smell gasoline. Anyone got a match?

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>> This just seems nutty to me unless you are going

>> to argue that people are being killed on the highways intentionally.

I'm not.

But I think it is widely if not totally agreed that a significant proportion 

of "accidents" are caused by people doing stupid or excessively or selfishly 

dangerous things.  Any number of accidents result because "social contract" 

is violated. Poor maintenance, excessive speed for conditions (whether above 

or below posted limits), drugs of all types, carelessness (cellphone, 

car-radio, ....), poor driver condition (sleepy, angry, ...) all contribute 

to deaths that are a statistically certain outcome of that sort of 

behaviour. Any one instance may not result in death, but 

behaviour/circumstance of  that sort id certain to increase death rate 

overall. A good test is to ask "If someone else killed my family because 

they did xxx would I consider that they were acting in an acceptable manner 

and that it was 'just an accident'?".

James is hot on this. Maybe he can give us a list of the things he does to 

minimise his contribution to the unnecessary death of others on the road 

(seriously). (Note: remember I've seen you drive :-) )(I don't recall you 

doing anything stupid).

My partial list would be an unexceptional one.

Don't think that I actually always DO all this :-)

NO influencing drugs

Be prepared to NOT drive if known disqualifying conditions exceed 

pre-determined limits.

Have pre-determined limits.

Drive at a speed that will be demonstrably safe retrospectively.

Think of the other drivers.

Do unto others ...

Decide how much you care about how your family & friends will feel.

Decide how much you would care about how the other driver's family and 

friends would feel.

Be proactively aware of effect of distractions (car radio tuning, cell 

phones, conversation, views (of all types).

Note tiredness, anger, ... .

Drive within road conditions.

Observe or exceed recommended following distances. (Why wouldn't you?)

Turn on your headlights on non-divided roads (even the cops flash me!)

When the guy (almost always a guy) behind doesn't observe safe following 

distance on a freeway etc leave more room in front to compensate.

Don't be fussed by people who pull into the large space in front - just drop 

back again.

Be aware by actually comparing results of how little difference it makes to 

drive aggressively and stupidly rather than more carefully.

(Look for the hoon/boy racer in the next town and smile at how far he isn't 

ahead.)

Know your stopping distances and reaction times.

Do the occasional utter panic stop on an *empty* road to see how it REALLY 

feels and how well your car & you really handle it (and it's fun).

Never die or kill while overtaking.

Note that a high percentage of accidents involve "drift off". Work out why 

this isn't going to happen to you.

Plan in advance what you hope to do in selected emergencies. (Head on car, 

leave road at speed, road blocked ahead, ...)

Ensure available safety systems used (seat belts, ...).

Tyres, brake fluid, clutch fluid, ....

Check your light bulbs regularly.

Understand how to skid.

Understand how not to skid.

Understand hydroplaning.

Have antilock brakes.

Know that a greater percentage of solo males driving cars with antilock 

brakes die than percentage of those who die driving cars without.

In the absence of antilock brakes know how to pulse brake.

Know how to steer under HEAVY braking.

Don't drive like me.

                RM

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>>There is ALWAYS blame assignable, even if it is mechanical

>>failure. There are no 'accidents'. Just stupid decisions made

>>by drivers, be it drinking, speeding, lane changes, running

>>lights, failing to be rested, failing to maintain vehicle etc.

>>

>

> What about 'acts of god'?  Does he have insurance you can claim against?

God carries His own risk :-)

(as the insurance industry would put it).

So called AOG are liable to be a small percentage of all.

What AOG MEANS in this context are events which are so improbable and/or so 

expensive to avoid that it is not reasonable to plan for them - you just 

accept the consequence. This may be eg a large bird smashing through your 

windscreen (mesh over road, tunnels, antibird auto-gatlings), a bolt etc on 

the carriage way fallen off a truck or trailer or part of a vehicle that 

causes an accident (all trays covered, death penalty for unsecured loads, 

all parts engraved with your ID etc), Tornado when weather conditions 

predict there certainly won't be one, Lightning, Fish dropped by water spout 

.... .

Realistically, almost everything you really see could have been done better.

Road was greasy after rain (often is), diesel dropped on road when cap left 

off (it happens, it often enough kills people, check the cap properly 

always), retread on truck tyre flies off and impact car (standards, 

inspection, you KNEW it was past service life,  ...), failed to take bend 

(slow down / sleep more/ drink less/ pay attention / ...), yada yada yada  .

Mainly it's people, directly or indirectly.

        RM 

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

> half of people having a driver licence should be withdrawn because of

> they are simply not able to drive below an expectable hazard minimum

I find those terms a little confusing - you did mean "above a minimum

proficiency standard" ? ;-)) Otherwise you'd be removing the better

half of drivers

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

This is a  reply to a different post.

How about changing the subject line ...

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

ROLF! Thank you! 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu 

> [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dave VanHorn

> Sent: 2004 Sep 22, Wed 19:06

> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.; EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu

> Subject: Re: [OT] rules, was Yes,

> 

<SNIP>

> >So far the US has been extremely lucky. Most countries have seen far 

> >more terrorism than the US ever had.

> 

> Well, there was that whole thing back in the 1770's, but the 

> terrorists won. 

> 

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

> To heck with that. Throw 10% of that money into education and you'll

> probably solve all those problems within a generation. And the other

> 90% could be used to pay off the deficit.

I take it you're not in politics... :)

There seems to be one universal constant: the amount of reason in political

decisions approaches 0, independently of the political system, local

culture and other factors.

Gerhard

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

> > To heck with that. Throw 10% of that money into education and you'll

> > probably solve all those problems within a generation. And the other

> > 90% could be used to pay off the deficit.

> 

> I take it you're not in politics... :)

Absolutely not.

> There seems to be one universal constant: the amount of reason in political

> decisions approaches 0, independently of the political system, local

> culture and other factors.

It's also due to committee thinking.

-- 

D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,

jayspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.

http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>> I take it you're not in politics... :)

> 

> Absolutely not.

Sometimes (when I'm very little busy with other things :) I wonder how our

selection process works. I think that's one of the most fundamental flaws

of democracy as we know it: the way we select the representatives. It seems

people "with reason" don't get there very often -- pretty much

independently of the country. We all probably know a few people who are

reasonable enough that we would want them as representatives in any of the

different elected positions -- but usually none of them is in such a

position. It happens here and there locally, but it seems that anybody who

has enough taste for power to go through the machine to get elected for

state or federal office, has already lost his reason :)

Gerhard

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

I believe it was Plato, (or Aristotle?  I *REALLY* don't want to go

dig out my Humanities book) who showed, logically, why there must be a

higher calling than "politician" (in his case it was that of

philosopher) and why the representatives must step down from their

loftier pursuits to "serve their time" as political leaders.  If

politics is the most respected, or best paid, position, then the worst

of scoundrels will end up there.  You really need something else for

them to aspire to, so that better people can serve as representatives.

--Joe

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:43:47 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler

<@spam@listsKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}> >> I take it you're not in politics... :)

> >

> > Absolutely not.

> 

> Sometimes (when I'm very little busy with other things :) I wonder how our

> selection process works. I think that's one of the most fundamental flaws

> of democracy as we know it: the way we select the representatives. It seems

> people "with reason" don't get there very often -- pretty much

> independently of the country. We all probably know a few people who are

> reasonable enough that we would want them as representatives in any of the

> different elected positions -- but usually none of them is in such a

> position. It happens here and there locally, but it seems that anybody who

> has enough taste for power to go through the machine to get elected for

> state or federal office, has already lost his reason :)

> 

> Gerhard

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> http://www.piclist.com

> View/change your membership options at

> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Plato advocated a political rule by philosopher kings.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Joe Jansen" <KILLspamjoe.jansenKILLspamgmail.com>

To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTmit.edu>

Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:33 PM

Subject: Re: [OT] rules, was Yes,

{Quote hidden}> I believe it was Plato, (or Aristotle?  I *REALLY* don't want to go

> dig out my Humanities book) who showed, logically, why there must be a

> higher calling than "politician" (in his case it was that of

> philosopher) and why the representatives must step down from their

> loftier pursuits to "serve their time" as political leaders.  If

> politics is the most respected, or best paid, position, then the worst

> of scoundrels will end up there.  You really need something else for

> them to aspire to, so that better people can serve as representatives.

>

> --Joe

>

>

>

>

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:43:47 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler

> <spamBeGonelistsspamBeGoneconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> > >> I take it you're not in politics... :)

> > >

> > > Absolutely not.

> >

> > Sometimes (when I'm very little busy with other things :) I wonder how

our

> > selection process works. I think that's one of the most fundamental

flaws

> > of democracy as we know it: the way we select the representatives. It

seems

> > people "with reason" don't get there very often -- pretty much

> > independently of the country. We all probably know a few people who are

> > reasonable enough that we would want them as representatives in any of

the

> > different elected positions -- but usually none of them is in such a

> > position. It happens here and there locally, but it seems that anybody

who

{Quote hidden}> > has enough taste for power to go through the machine to get elected for

> > state or federal office, has already lost his reason :)

> >

> > Gerhard

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > http://www.piclist.com

> > View/change your membership options at

> > mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

> >

> _______________________________________________

> http://www.piclist.com

> View/change your membership options at

> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

>> Sometimes (when I'm very little busy with other things :) I wonder how our

>> selection process works. I think that's one of the most fundamental flaws

>> of democracy as we know it: the way we select the representatives. It seems

>> people "with reason" don't get there very often

> I believe it was Plato, (or Aristotle?  I *REALLY* don't want to go

> dig out my Humanities book) who showed, logically, why there must be a

> higher calling than "politician" (in his case it was that of

> philosopher) and why the representatives must step down from their

> loftier pursuits to "serve their time" as political leaders.  

We probably wouldn't be worse off, and quite possibly would be better off,

by selecting representatives arbitrarily. No one knows who it's going to

be, so no one has time to set up lobby support and stuff :)

And think of all the productive forces that would be set free by the lack

of a need for campaigning...

Gerhard

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist