God I love that story where Louis gets Smacked the Fuck Down. You gotta know your audience, and a late night audience isn't about certain jokes coming from certain people.

So really the issue is people are doing something illegal and getting busted for it. The government is aware that people will routinely break said law and are profiting off it.

So the real issue is that the government is acting as a for-profit organization, right? That still doesn't negate that people are breaking the law and getting busted for it. If the drivers followed the speed limit, then the government couldn't profit off them, now could they? *smacks forehead*

See, with red light cameras there's a legitimate argument to be made. If a driver is following the speed limit, and break safely, there is a set time the yellow light should progress in order to insure compliance and safety. So for instance, if a vehicle traveling at 30MPH takes 10 seconds to come to a slow, controlled stop, the yellow should last for 12 seconds to ensure the drivers a reasonable time to notice the light change and react. (Normal human reaction time is between .3 to 2 seconds.)

So if the government sets the yellow to only 5 seconds, this creates an unsafe and unreasonable margin. And then, if the safest and more sane thing to do is "run the red" and are subsequently ticketed, then that's entrapment. That is wrong, and is something someone can complain about.

Complaining that you got caught speeding, well, boohoo for you. Don't speed. No one is forcing you to speed. So it's your own damn fault, no matter if the government is profiting off it or what video is posted.

If what you're really complaining about is that the actual design of the road triggers a natural response to travel at a "perceived safe speed" (which is a real thing) and the limit is set to a lower than needed limit, then that's something you can complain about. Still doesn't mean speeding isn't illegal.

Speed traps don't work in general. All they trigger is a momentary change in behavior and once the negative force is removed, the behavior continues. But because of the quota systems placed by "hard on crime" Republicans, real change isn't going to happen. Instead what you're seeing is a systematic failure of a rewards and punishment system that has long been proven to be ineffective and counter-productive.

Instead, if they really want to slow speeds, they should redesign the road and perhaps do a road diet, re-stripe the lanes, use bricks or plant trees (which is illegal by DOT standards btw - they hurt cars if they crash, but people don't, so it's better to hit people than trees - no joke, literally their logic.)

Or, if you're worried the police force is resorting to the quota and a misguided broken windows policy, then that's something to address. You're lack of ability to lay off the gas pedal is not a "liberties" issue or the "man putting you down."

The focus is totally misguided and the video is proof.

Governments are profiting from unnecessary ticketing of speeders? I must have missed that somewhere. Oh wait there's a whole video about it at the top of the page!! *smacks forehead*

smack, horse, H,

I'm down the fuego, but nothing's like the black tar

well thank god i visited your page!
oooo../claps hands
what a delight to read your response!

i agree with almost everything you expressed.
oh thank you my friend!

economics has never been my strong suit.i know..shocker.
but i AM quite literate in history and government and of course politics.
while you are correct that a socialist state can become a fascist one,so too can a democracy.
it is really the forces of ideology which can push a state to either a fascist or swing despotic.
but i get your point.

i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to economics,so i rely on my history and governmental knowledge to fill in the gaps.
your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was having during this conversation.

i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
and we are.

1.the banks need to held accountable.
check.
2,which by inference means the governments role should be as fraud detector and protector of the consumer.
check.
3,you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a person and therefore shall be removed from the political landscape.
check.
4.this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is diseased at the moment).
5.which will return this country to a more level playing field and equate to=more liberty.
6.this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices.

how am i doing so far?

now.
since we have to talk about politics when we talk about markets.
my old professor dr paul (great man,miss him very much).
he reduced politics down to one simple question:
"what should we do"?
or in terms that we have been discussing:
"what is governments role"?

thats it.
now people like to make it more complicated,especially people getting paid good money to postulate on sunday morning tv shows,but thats it.

being an anarchist is not one dimensional.
the anarchism YOU are speaking of is the extreme.
i am more the libertarian socialism flavor.(yes..you didnt convert me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
the anarchist may see a form of government that no longer works.that is weighed down by its own hubris,greed and corruption.
the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that government to build a new one.

and why not?
if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of it and try another.

now you wanted to know why i feared and unrestricted free market.
(which is how i was talking your previous post and confused me greatly).i see now i may have misinterpreted your commentary so my next point may be a moot one.
if so..i apologize.

if we put everything on the table as an unrestricted free market.we would be going back to feudalism.
the flaw in capitalism is not just the boom and bust but the exploitation of the common man,or worker if you like.

not only would the most vulnerable of us be exploited but it would make the class structure even WORSE than it is now (which by comparison is not too bad when compared to,say..somolia).

we see pockets of this happening now here in the US:
http://youtu.be/GVz_yJAxVd4

imagine having to pay for any road you drove on.ALL of them.all owned by different companies and subsidiaries.every one of them a toll road.
the market would dictate what burden could be held sufficiently in order to turn a profit.
what percentage would be prevented from driving those roads due to lack of funds?

see what im saying?

lets take this template and put it with firefighters.
would having a firehouse every couple of miles be profitable?
i mean,how many fires are there actually occurring on any given day?
so the firehouse would have 2 choices that i see.
shut down the more rural and spread the firehouses more thinly OR charge a monthly fee.
since a nominal fee would be the most likely avenue,what about those people who cant afford that fee?
does the firehouse BILL them?
"sorry for the loss of your house ..pay us".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A

and what about police?
they already have become revenue generators and protectors of the privileged.
what happens to poor folks in an unrestricted market?
police wont have a station in any inner city areas.no profit there.
no no no..wait a minute!
there would be HUUUGE profit there!
/smacks head
what was i thinking!
of course!
just like our prison system the police would be paid by the state PER arrest.
to be reimbursed on a quarterly basis!
BRILLIANT.
then poor people could be commodities!

nope nope nope.not gonna work.
that would mean the state would have to impose a tax or something to generate the revenue to pay for the arrested subjects.

hahaha im being an asshole now.forgive me.

ok.lets talk schooling.
lets privatize em!
free market baby!
based on the local population and average income we can fill those seats.
aaaand maybe get rid of NCLB and standardized testing,which i loving refer to as the giant ball of bullshit.
now this would be GREAT.

wait a minute.
what about the poor families that cant afford the tuition?
what do they do?

well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system driven by self interest and profit?

welcome back child labor!!
and the 80 hour work week!
and beatings for not making quota!
and how awesome is it that that poor family of 5 gets to live with grandma,grandpa,uncle lou and aunt sara and there 3 kids all in one 3 bedroom house.
its 1913 all over again.
happy days are here again.......

ok ok.dont get mad at me.that was mostly tongue in cheek.
i realize after your post tonight that you are not suggesting an "unrestricted" free market but a free market.

and i am ok with that.
if we can limit government intrusion.
allow companies to tank when they fail.
rewrite the corporate charter (or dissolve them completely,or as i suggested previously make them accountable and put back the phrase "for the public good").
reign in bank fraud and make the rules to keep em honest.

in my opinion the only thing we really seem to disagree on is when it is in regards to labor.

i tried a few years ago to buy my friends bar/eatery with most of the employees.
did you know what i found out?
we were not allowed.
could not get the permits.
the owner even offered to finance us all..
nope.
how about them apples.illegal to have an employee owned business.

that is changing though.
employee owned businesses and co-opts are popping up like recurring herpes.

i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how employee owned companies would threaten a free market.

but as you figured out.
economics is not my strong suit.

and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your views and even some about free markets.

thank you my friend.thank you.
namaste.

Actually that's a famous Brazilian routine, which roughly translates into "smack dat ass".

Essentially my guess is that the bullet can only transfer so much kinetic energy to accelerate the block upwards. Above that threshold it finds other ways of disposing of this energy. Why this threshold/diminishing return might exist idk.

So yeah, I think there must be some change in the efficiency of the transfer of energy in the two examples. Does smacking the bullet right in the centre create more sound? Does the bullet deform/heat up more in the first example because the block simple can't get out of the way fast enough? You'd think that spinning a block would take comparitively little energy compared to all those other inefficiencies. Perhaps if you were to increase the velocity of the bullet you might not see that large of a difference in the height it rises - rather the block would sustain more damage, the slug would pancake more etc etc.

It does seem raher counter-intuitive though. I'd like to know the explanation.

Chi Chi, I don't think you've ever offended me even once. Most of the time, I can't even understand what you're saying.

Look I'm not advocating violence: it's pretty ridiculous that the mom in this vid walks right past her son to confront the guy. I can't imagine doing that but I can imagine going into a fevered blood-rage over someone hitting my kid with a skateboard while he's playing in a park. (I also can't imagine what makes you guys think this is a skate park?)

All I'm saying is that, regardless of the fact that it was an accident, if you hit a toddler playing in a park, it's your fault (speaking of trying to find blame in others). And that, just maybe, getting punched in the face isn't such an incredible reaction to expect in that situation.

What I love are the comments about charging the mom with assault or smacking her back with a skateboard after she just watched you smash her baby's head into the pavement. Yeah, that's definitely the appropriate reaction. Congratulations, you share the sensibilities of every twelve-year-old who commented on Youtube.

I'm willing to bet that the skater brushed it off and thought roughly, "oh good, now we can call it even."

Not so much though with Internet Tough Guys.

I hope he smacked her with the board after the camera cut because that was uncalled for!

*promote the washed-out hack
mack-daddys' back
with his punk beats
Hoein'-out to Hollywood Jump Street;
Slingin' sit-com crack like a chump thief
"Are We There Yet?" ,I don't know Uncle Tommy, you tell me?!

Come a long way since the N W A,
Now you makin' all yas' Compton brothers nervous,
and your tinsel-town time looks like community service,
to the white man;
Kissin' his nutsack
Took a promissin' career , went and showed it your buttcrack;
Turnin' niggas into stereo-typical, thug-smack
If your granny was alive you'd be feelin' a BITCH SLAP!

Tell us what you've done for the Black community;
Given niggas nothing more than some pimp-ass immunity,
from thinkin' too hard about from whence they came
from playin' any better at the white man's game
from stayin' Afrocentric and adjustiin' the game,
helpin' all the righteous brothers to a dose of the same, you're LAME!
and your rhymes, all the same
Played-pentameter-same, house-nigga blame-game...

Many may freestyle, the few deal in truth.

*beggin', smack, slappety-slap

what about the Ass lifting?! I've had some cats that were really into S&M kinda thing, when the harder you smack their ass, the better....

Your video, Sen. Warren verbally smacks down CNBC's "Squawk Box", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I love the wide eye'd "I'm fine" thing with the hand wave or drop. It's more obvious than smacking a dude upside his head.

I gotta say, I pretty much get annoyed by all memes except Laina. I would gladly watch her on a TV show or something.