Searching \ for '[OT] rules, was Yes,' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=rules+was+yes
Search entire site for: 'rules, was Yes,'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] rules, was Yes,'
2004\09\22@172409 by Robert Rolf

picon face
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

2004\09\22@204210 by Robert Rolf

picon face
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

2004\09\22@214218 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > 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_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.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

2004\09\22@220551 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>[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

2004\09\23@002159 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:06:04 -0500, Dave VanHorn <.....dvanhornKILLspamspam@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

2004\09\23@024229 by Robert Rolf

picon face
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

2004\09\23@044056 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> 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

2004\09\23@054609 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>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

2004\09\23@073556 by Jinx

face picon face

> 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

2004\09\23@081733 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
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

2004\09\23@112157 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
ROLF! Thank you!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu
> [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dave VanHorn
> Sent: 2004 Sep 22, Wed 19:06
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.; EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.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

2004\09\24@104329 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
> 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

2004\09\24@122613 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > 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,
jayspamspam_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

2004\09\25@094352 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
>> 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

2004\09\25@233315 by Joe Jansen

picon face
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@listsKILLspamspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\26@043748 by Rich

picon face
Plato advocated a political rule by philosopher kings.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Jansen" <KILLspamjoe.jansenKILLspamspamgmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] rules, was Yes,


{Quote hidden}

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}

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\26@114845 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
>> 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

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...