If it's being backed by DARPA, you know it's 4 Laws Safe!

1- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3- A robot may not injure its own kind and defend its own kind unless it is interfering with the first or second rule.
4- [CLASSIFIED]

If only people were ticketed for refusing to yield right of way to faster traffic (ever see a 'slower traffic keep right' or 'left lane is for passing only' sign, the rule applies everywhere), there would be FAR less road rage.
This guy failed badly in many ways, but the woman filming was breaking at least 2 laws there, 1)using an electronic device while driving (and filming to boot, which took nearly 100% of her attention off driving) and 2) failing to yield to faster traffic.

Understand people, if you aren't a cop, it's not your job to police others. That means if someone is speeding behind you, move, don't break the law to try to force them to obey the law. More often than not, that ends in the wannabe 'police' being hurt or in trouble...rightly.
No winners here to me.

When I went thru Montana in the spring of '96 (by bus, ugh), there was no set speed limit for cars. At night, all vehicles had to obey a speed limit of 65mph and during the day, trucks had a 65mph speed limit. For all other vehicles, the daytime speed limit was whatever could be considered "reasonable and prudent"; so if you wanted to go 110mph it would only take you about 7 hours to make it through Montana on I-90. The phrase "reasonable and prudent" allowed for prosecution such as when driving above the speed limit deemed safe for non-car vehicles during bad rain or snow. In May of '99, Montana changed their maximum speed limit to 75mph.
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/186lzd4j8zkp5jpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

Must.. Obey... Hypno... Train...

"Whether or not Lincoln could have bought all the slaves is entirely irrelevant."

Irrelevant to what? Jon Stewart's comment?

"That is not why the Civil War was fought."

And?

"Buying the slaves wasn't an option."

It was not an option because that would not have prevented confederate secession. As you say, Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves only about preserving the union no matter how many were killed or maimed in the process. It is totally relevant to Judge Andrew Napolitano saying that if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, the Civil War would have been unnecessary. But as you say (and he would agree), freeing the slaves were not Lincoln's concern.

So you are right, totally correct. For someone who did not want the South to secede and for whom it did not matter if the slaves were freed or not (in his own words), as long as the South would keep paying its tariffs, paying to free the slaves and avoiding bloodshed was not an option. Avoiding bloodshed was not his primary concern. Preventing secession was.

From his first inaugural:
"[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority."

Basically, obey the "national authority" or suffer bloodshed and violence.

Which they did.

While the "bloodshed and violence" were unnecessary to free the slaves, had that been the goal, at least it would have been a worthy goal even if the means were monstrous. But "bloodshed and violence" to "preserve the union" or to collect taxes, that's beyond the pale.

When the people feel that their elected officials stop following the laws then the people will stop obeying the laws.

We are nearing that tipping point.

If Man Obeyed God has been added as a related post - related requested by VoodooV.

Hey I heard oil regenerates too so drill baby drill! lol.

This seems relevant too:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/If-Man-Obeyed-God

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The government can have a deaf ear to any and all petitions.
There are no criminal penalties for choosing to not represent your constituents.

The nuisance created by peaceful public assembly is the power that coerces the government into obeying.

The government has 'reinterpreted' the constitution to belittle the 1st amendment's protection for peaceful assembly, so they can shoo away assemblers with permit requirements and arrests.

Meaning that the government can in perpetuity deny all right to peaceably assemble, by simply issuing no permits, and arresting all that try to peaceably assemble.
In effect, removing the 1st amendment protection in its entirety.

-scheherazade

My observations as someone who drives pretty much all the time but has spent some time on a bike (all being in the San Francisco bay area in Calif.)
In general people who are incompetent asshole drivers (ones who don't obey the law and drive in a dangerous manner) also tend to be incompetent asshole cyclist. Assholes are assholes regardless of mode of transportation. I also think that when a driver sees a cyclist do something unsafe it makes an impression that they dont forget as conflicts are a rare occurrence (compared to conflict with other automobiles)and tends to stand out in ones mind. However I find that every time i drive across town or down to the local market I see multiple people (in cars) tailgating ,driving to fast, running lights, not using signals, generally being unsafe. Thing is we accept this as being pretty normal so it doesn't make as much of an impression. Just business as usual.
Being on a bike for me makes me hyper aware of my surroundings as I realize one mistake by an automobile can cost me dearly. When driving in my comfortable bubble of an automobile not so much.
Also in MY(exclusive to my personal experience) many years of being on this planet ive not once irl known a cyclist who condemn motorist for driving automobiles. Thinking they are somehow better for riding a bike(its always drivers who say that about cyclists). Most peeps i know that ride bikes do so because they love it and don't give two shits about what you do.

-edit-
Just annoys me that people are so quick to point out some reckless cyclist when they have little or nothing to say about the epidemic that is horrible unsafe driving(at least in California) that we seem to accept.

Then again, they also said those few black kids going to all white schools were idiots too . . . Or those few Indians who stood against British rule . . . Or perhaps those few women who protested and marched until they had the right to vote?

See, the problem with that statement is that many cyclists are actually out there to change the world for what they perceive is a better way of life. Not to mention, they have tons of research on the subject to back up their claims (unlike the situations I cited, which btw, I am well aware are on a totally different level of human abuse).

The issue is of course is you have some die hard cyclists who aren't there to make a statement, but because they're counter-culture. They're hipsters. They're going to run stop signs because "fuck authority" etc. Then again, I've been hit 6 times in my car. Care to guess how many of those were because someone didn't obey a traffic law? That's why we have those rules to begin, to prevent "accidents" from occurring.

As a cyclist-commuter, and as someone who drives thousands of miles as work requires, I say if a cyclist blows through a stop sign and you hit them, their own damned fault.

Many of us, including myself, have petitioned to create a Yield on Stop Under 30 rule. In essence, we have way to many stop signs in this country. This goes for cars as well. And you know you've done it at some point: you come to a stop sign in some part of a housing project and you "California Roll" through it. Or a "Brooklyn Stop." Whatever you want to call it.

But I do know some cyclists who blatantly disobey rules as a fuck you. But as a cyclist who stops at red lights, who stops at stops signs, who checks behind me to see if I can make it easier for a car to pass me, the whole "fuck cyclists" thing tells me exactly what I see on the streets everyday: we don't need cars. Cars create assholes. Cars insulate you from the world around you and the people around you become anonymous boxes of steel that you don't care about. It's a me me me me society.

To that matter, the cycling community here in Orlando is pretty big given our population and disgusting sprawl patterns. The majority of us you'll never notice because we're doing things right. Some of us, you will notice because we are doing things right. When we make a left turn, we get in your way. So would any other vehicle. Are we going too slow? Suck it up. I can't tell you how many times some asshole comes within inches of me trying to speed past me . . . on a 25 MPH road while I'm doing a good 18. We almost always end up at the same stop sign or red light.

So yeah, as you said, the extreme ones are stupid. It goes both ways, as you said. But FYI, the world would be a better place if everyone rode a bike. Just saying.

And typical non-cyclist response. Nothing new to see here either.

All I see is a bunch of assholes who honk at me, try to hit me on purpose (one intentionally ran me over), and hundreds of people a day with absolutely no respect for someone else's life. And all that happened while in the bike lane. Oh, the guy who ran me over? He hit me because I WAS obeying traffic laws. Both the person behind him and the officer both concurred.

So yeah, nothing new to see here, right?

Typical biker not obeying any rules

Nothing new to see here

You're way off, and you clearly haven't read or understood any of the authors named in my comment. Had you developed an informed opinion before spouting off on the basis of the Kool-Aid you've drank, you'd understand that, without government, there'd be no "big guys" to exploit the subsidies and cronyism that are implicit in the original monopoly that is "government."
If you think that some how government (i.e., kleptocrats) are "overseeing things," then you've got some learning to do. The corruption and co-optation of the market is not a "problem" to be "fixed" by the government. It is a direct effect of government. To think otherwise is a fatal conceit, one whose costs get higher by the day.

But, you can believe whatever you want to believe.


"The politicians are real, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians’ will are real, the buildings they inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed “authority” is not. And without that “authority,” without the right to do what they do, they are nothing but a gang of thugs. The term “government” implies legitimacy– it means the exercise of “authority” over a certain people or place. The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of” government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to rule (”authority”), there is no reason to call the entity “government,” and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers. And that, in reality, is what every “government” is: an illegitimate gang of thugs, thieves and murderers, masquerading as a rightful ruling body." -Larken Rose

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt Damon, Obey, Rule of Law, Civil, Obedience' to 'Matt Damon, Obey, Rule of Law, Civil, Obedience, Howard Zinn' - edited by xxovercastxx