www.ditl.org

ChakatBlackstar wrote:...Although IMHO if you're stupid enough to drink, you're too stupid to drive...

And, IMO, if you're stupid enough to sleep around with multiple partners, you're too stupid to procreate. Thankfully, that degree of moral policing isn't common. Let's hope it never becomes common.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
You clearly don't know the first thing about me. I don't like alcohol, and I have to be careful about touching the stuff period(personal reasons). And I don't sell my cars. I drive them to their grave. And seat belts and airbags improve safety, without inconviencing anyone. A breathalyzer is inconvenient in every sense.

I don't have to know you nor do I care too. Frankly your 18 years old and the statistics are aginst you, the fact remains is that your are willing to put 30 seconds of your time ahead of everyone else.

pssst...19 year old.

I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth. I'm saying I shouldn't have them installed. I have no problem with having them installed in cars owned by people who are stupid enough to drink. Although IMHO if you're stupid enough to drink, you're too stupid to drive.

Then what the hell do you propose? Waiting 'till the driver's killed someone before putting them in their car? Not putting them in anyone's car? Interviewing every driver to see whether they should have one, and trusting them to be 100% truthfull?

Basicaly, your entire argument is "it inconveniences me, so it's a bad idea".

So, does anyone have a pic on what these things would look like?

Rochey wrote:

I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth. I'm saying I shouldn't have them installed. I have no problem with having them installed in cars owned by people who are stupid enough to drink. Although IMHO if you're stupid enough to drink, you're too stupid to drive.

Then what the hell do you propose? Waiting 'till the driver's killed someone before putting them in their car? Not putting them in anyone's car? Interviewing every driver to see whether they should have one, and trusting them to be 100% truthfull?

Basicaly, your entire argument is "it inconveniences me, so it's a bad idea".

No, my arguement is "It inconveniences smart people, so it's a bad idea."

It wouldn't inconvienience me.

stitch626 wrote:So, does anyone have a pic on what these things would look like?

Probably something like this:

Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important. Failure of law enforcement officers to use the devices properly or of administrators to have the machines properly maintained and re-calibrated as required are particularly common sources of error. Most states have very strict guidelines regarding officer training and instrument maintenance and calibration, and do you really think they're going to be able to enforce that kind of stuff in the general public?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important. Failure of law enforcement officers to use the devices properly or of administrators to have the machines properly maintained and re-calibrated as required are particularly common sources of error. Most states have very strict guidelines regarding officer training and instrument maintenance and calibration, and do you really think they're going to be able to enforce that kind of stuff in the general public?

Way to almost entirely quote the same Wiki article I read on the things. I already brought up the point of unreliability earlier; I'd guess they'd be using a more advanced model if they intend to make it mandatory... Unless they're going to pay for my bus fare.

BTW, that's "Jekyll".

1) It's spelled 'Jekyll'.
2) The point of reliability was adressed earlier.
3) Your personal convinienve < peoples' lives.
4) Another stunning display of maturity.

Rochey wrote:1) It's spelled 'Jekyll'.
2) The point of reliability was adressed earlier.
3) Your personal convinienve < peoples' lives.
4) Another stunning display of maturity.

Hey, I'm not the one who made it

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

Rochey wrote:1) It's spelled 'Jekyll'.
2) The point of reliability was adressed earlier.
3) Your personal convinienve < peoples' lives.
4) Another stunning display of maturity.

Hey, I'm not the one who made it

Oh, right.

Dev! Learn to spell!

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--AND the one!

me,myself and I wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--AND the one!

To quote a famous Starfleet captain, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many"