| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> how is it protecting the interest of society?
<1> That's the reality.
<1> It has nothing to do with risk.
<0> and, again
<1> Noidea, you've been in California too long.
<0> you don't start getting drunk driving victims until you hit .15
<1> If a cop pulls a kid out of his car and throws him on the ground
<1> And the kid didn't have a weapon
<2> I tracked my problem down to the end of my Dialog cl*** in my On_OK message handler, where at the end it adds an object to my list of elements in the document
<1> The cop isn't necessarily acting wrongly
<2> this is where the debugger showed the problem
<2> CString::CString(const CString& stringSrc){***ERT(stringSrc.GetData()->nRefs != 0);
<0> the law should be impaired driving
<1> No
<0> not some arbitrary number on a fallible device
<0> because, you, as a non drinker would be far more impaired below the legal limit than I would be over the legal limit.
<1> PF, I don't know, try googling ***ert and nrefs
<1> NI
<1> Think about what you're saying
<1> You want to reduce fallibility by removing a measuring device for impairment
<1> And leaving it entirely up to personal judgment
<0> it's a BS device
<1> Even if I agreed that that the moral ideal of law is to reduce fallibility
<1> Which I don't
<0> it operates based on an average
<1> Your method for doing so would **** tremendously
<0> that has wild outliers
<1> What average does a breathalyzer depend on?
<0> how rapidly the average person processes alcohol.
<1> I don't care how fast they process it
<1> Obviously not fast enough if it's still there in front of the cop
<0> so you think it should be 0 tolerance
<0> despite there being 0 risk
<0> 0 impairment
<1> Doesn't matter what I think
<1> But if it did, I think .08 is okay
<1> Not 0 tolerance
<1> .08 tolerance
<0> .08 is too low
<1> Well, too ****in' bad.
<1> Skip the last beer.
<1> What do you want me to say?
<1> We tried too high and it ****ed.
<1> We haven't found just right
<1> And nobody would ever agree to it if we did
<0> I think I remember seeing a study showing that you're more impaired with 2 kids in the car than at the legal limit.
<1> So .08 is what you've got.
<0> .10 wasn't too high
<0> .08 was pushed by MADD
<0> and, actually
<1> If the enforcement was too stringent
<1> Then the problem would fall off the radar
<0> while DUI arrests went up after .08
<0> so did DUI fatalities.
<0> the actual kind
<0> where people were over twice the legal limit.
<1> Yeah, I'm sure that was because they were arresting drunk drivers
<0> and, since this is all in the interest of society
<2> a guy in a big rig truck impailed a 42 year old man into an iron fence on saturday morning 1 block from my hours
<2> house*
<1> I, along with the majority of state legislators in the US, simply have no more sympathy for drunk drivers, Noidea.
<1> That's the reality.
<0> areas that use road blocks see their DUI fatalities go up as well
<2> driver ran away
<0> not down.
<1> It's not about limiting risk
<1> It's not about reaching an "equitable" BAC
<1> It's certainly not about presuming that a 25 year old cop can judge medical impairment
<3> how do you iterate through a vector that has strings for indices (ie vector["foo"] = bar, etc.)
<1> It's about society's frustration with a serious problem
<0> it wasn't ever a very serious problem
<1> Until you address that, all you're saying is that you agree with them but want to quibble about a third decimal digit.
<1> And nobody cares.
<0> but, the problem has only gotten worse with more strict enforcement
<2> ++iter
<1> It's always been a very serious problem.
<2> (*iter)
<0> you've got the cops focusing on people who aren't a threat
<0> rather than catching the people who are actually dangerous.
<1> And how do they find them?
<2> last one is a derenference
<2> derefrence*
<1> Noidea, you have to stop with this California nonsense about personal comfort being the end-all be-all of jurisprudence.
<0> personal comfort?
<4> how i can creat array of animal?
<1> Right
<1> Your basic point here is that you aren't comfortable with the measures being used to fight drunk driving
<4> with minimum size
<0> when you're turning things that are hurting no one into a crime
<0> there's a problem
<1> They're hurting a great many people.
<1> People you've forgotten about in your focus on your belly button
<0> no, again, that starts around .15
<4> how i can creat array of animal?
<1> Oh, so accidents don't happen under .15?
<1> That'd be an interesting statistic.
<0> accidents happen at 0
<2> what do you mean, the word?
<2> or animals?
<0> but, the rate doesn't go up significantly until .15
<2> char an [10] = 'animal';
<4> <2> iwant the basic rule to create a specific array !!!
<5> !!!
<3> .ro?
<1> Okay, ni, show me evidence of that
<2> int x [ 10 ]; //create an array of 10 integers
<3> Pink_Floyd, sorry - but how do i use ++iter in context?
<2> well, if you have a vector, list or whatever container that supports iterators, call it, vector<int> vec;
<3> Pink_Floyd, its called vector<string>
<3> i want the indices to be strings
<2> and you fill it with stuff, by using: vec.push_back(10); vec.push_back(99); ... you can then say vector<int>::iterator iter = vec.begin();
<2> that will be the first one
<2> well yeah, you can do string, char*, whatever
<2> pretty much
<2> will someone get this guy AccCPP?
<3> AccCPP?
<2> good book: Accelerated C++
<2> best beginner c++ book, can teach a kid with downsyndrome C++
<3> oh, sorry. i know its a pain
<1> Heh pf
<0> http://www.duiblog.com/2005/03/08#a121
<1> [02:31] <0> but, the rate doesn't go up significantly until .15
<1> I meant that
<2> lol
<0> http://www.theagitator.com/archives/017186.php
<0> I'm looking
<0> I'm coming across other things as I look
<1> I know, take your time, I'm refilling my drink
<2> people are stupid, I would love there to be cameras everywhere where I live, I don't mind, I ain'
<2> t committing no killings/ bad crimes
<1> Well
<2> I smoke weed every once in a while but that's not what these people out here are doing
<1> Okay, but that could be a felony
<2> I see killers alot of the time where I live, not drug dealers, not thugs, killers
<2> if I have enough of it on me yes
<1> Well, in the roughest neighborhoods, yah, cameras might be a good idea
<1> Typically, though, they tend to plop them around the rich white guys' houses
<2> **** yes, It just costs to much
<2> kinda a good idea to save money, but we are having problems here with killings and bad drugs ( coke, meth, heroine... )
<1> The link Noidea had from Houston was about the government forcing owners of private businesses and homes to install surveillance cameras inside, if they call the cops too much. Or something.
<1> And that would just be wrong.
<0> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570222
<1> Well, that's not about the statistic you mentioned either
<1> And it doesn't really say anything good about DUI
<2> I thought it said that it was for problem houses like ppl who are selling drugs out of their
<2> ?
<1> I don't remember, something like that
<1> Basically the same thing
<2> yep
<2> brb smokey time
<1> But government surveillance cameras do not belong on private property
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#linux
jixroba
#london
#MissKitten
inventory overshare
#chatzone
Class not found when loading object from file :
solaris 10 netgear ma311
WG2500 manual
#php
|
|