D.C. police chief says drivers who use iPhone aps to find speed traps are “cowardly.” Uh, okay. Thing is, if those traps really are in areas where speeding is particularly dangerous, the aps are slowing people down in those same areas. Which means they’re making D.C.’s streets safer than they’d otherwise be. I suspect it’s the lost revenue that’s really bothering the chief. And holy crap. Ten percent of the country’s traffic cameras are in D.C.? Guess the city needs a steady stream of income to keep the city council’s friends, relatives, and lovers well paid.
Isn’t Larry Summers supposed to be smart? Maybe he just thinks the rest of us are stupid.
Good piece on the right’s unfortunate eagerness to quickly assign black hats and white hats in every global conflict. And not just because it quotes me.
Seriously, Amazon? I mean, of all the books…
Mark Cuban gets a big win in his insider trading case.
I resemble this study. I just decided to write about crimes instead of committing them.
Here’s a good entry for Tyler Cowen’s “markets in everything” series.
Walter Olson finds an outrageous gift to trial lawyers covertly tucked into the health care bill at the last minute. The provision was pulled after protests from Republicans, but Olson asks: “Who in Congress slipped this language in, anyway — and on whose behalf?” Time for a shaming.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, July 18th, 2009 at 8:42 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Motorist Freedom.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Two more that I posted late last night:
Black Philadelphia police sue over message board, say it’s racist
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/police.racism.lawsuit/index.html
California officer admits to sexual assault while on duty
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/officer.sex.assault/index.html
[...] Hemingway/NRO “Corner”, For What It’s Worth, Blogs for Victory, TigerHawk, The Agitator [...]
the other site for the orwell books is awesome!
Regarding the amazon.com item, I don’t believe anyone could even imagine a scenario that would make more of a statement about putting control of your library in the hands of someone else.
Deciding not to sell a book is certainly within the rights of a publisher, but the idea that they can take it back after they sell it exposes a huge weakness in the entire electronic media industry. The more we migrate toward digital media, the easier book burning becomes. And, it’s not just books. Video games and some music, which are regularly accused of instigating violent behavior in children, can now be undistributed at the drop of a hat, simply by removing them from authentication servers. In the case of video games, some require you authenticate every time you play them. I expect that trend to spread as media producers develop new modes of limiting the playability of individual copies in order to boost sales (as is already done in the video game industry).
I know I’m a radical idealist with absolutely no sense of reality, but I think insider trading laws are proof positive that the utter impossibility of a thing is no hindrance when writing a law to accomplish said thing.
Thing is, if those traps really are in areas where speeding is particularly dangerous, the aps are slowing people down in those same areas. Which means they’re making D.C.’s streets safer than they’d otherwise be.
We’ve been over this before.
Yes, people go slower through those intersections knowing the traps are there. But if they didn’t know where the traps were, they’d go slower through all intersections.
Wait a sec. Does that last item imply that someone read a bill before they voted on it? I’m stunned!
Not only do we want to identify who slipped that crap in there so we can crucify him outside the gates of the city, we should also find out who discovered it and take him out for a drink (or even an entire night of free booze and women — I mean, you know, if we want to encourage that kind of thing…).
From the Walter Olson piece:
(the removed legislation)…would remove a significant barrier to litigation…
…P. 716 specifies that “any person” may bring the action, that is, it need not be a lawyer representing the injured person or any other injured person…
…Page 720 specifies that the suit may be settled “notwithstanding the objections of the United States” — that is, the objections of the entity on whose behalf it was supposedly filed — if a court so agrees…
…Medicare would have to cooperate with the private lawyers, whether or not the government joined or approved of the action, by handing over various documents useful to them…
…there are many entirely legitimate reasons why federal managers might not decide to pursue Medicare liens from every possible defendant…
note that these are all examples of wanting more regulation and “big brother knows best”. Why don’t we deregulate and let the “free market” sort this out? Wouldn’t these changes allow for greater innovation in the marketplace?
The irony of the Orwell/Amazon story is making my head hurt ….
Hmmm… Interesting perspective, but I don’t see any of those as examples of more regulation. I see them as simply a welfare program for lawyers who earn their living by creating a liability where one didn’t previously exist. I think it was added by pawns of the beneficiaries hoping no one would notice (not unreasonable, considering how few members of Congress read the legislation they pass).
Furthermore, leaving that language out of there does nothing to promote a free market. Health care reform, while commonly promoted as a cost reduction scheme, has really become an expansion of welfare. Welfare is socialism (the antithesis of the free market). The free market is not the answer to the question, “How do I get more stuff “for free?”.
I always knew Barack was a criminal
Um, “they found that the more unlikely the name the more likely a boy is to commit a delinquent act”. And the top ten bad boy names are–Alec, Luke… I’m confused. Am I really this out of touch?
#6 Matt D “Yes, people go slower through those intersections knowing the traps are there. But if they didn’t know where the traps were, they’d go slower through all intersections.”
Actually Matt, red light cameras at “intersections” cause an increase in accidents. If you want to reduce accidents at stop lights all you have to do is make the yellow light last longer.
I am sure you are going to come back and say you didn’t mean intersections.
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
#13–blah blah blah blah. Way to nitpick.
#13–blah blah blah blah. Way to nitpick.
He provides data that refutes your assertion and this is your response? Really?
That TAP article is just horrible.
“Every time an international crisis of some magnitude comes along, mainstream Democrats led by President Barack Obama, and their allies among realist Republicans, initially offer careful statements, eschewing the bombastic rhetoric of the Bush administration.”
– So his side is mainstream and “realist.” Got it. I assume the article will make an attempt to prove this bold assertion.
“But had the United States followed conservative advice and turned a crisis into a full blown conflict . . .”
– So the Bush administration’s rhetoric was bombastic, except in the only example he gives to prove it.
“Obama, now president, issued a statement raising questions about the nature of the elections . . . But once again conservatives demanded stronger words and harsher condemnation . . . Obama appropriately sharpened his rhetoric as the Iranian regime escalated violence against demonstrators.”
– I guess only whacked out radicals thought that the Iranian regime that just stole an election would beat the hell out of protestors.
“A more ambiguous case comes in the form of the recent coup in Honduras, where the military removed President Manuel Zelaya from office after he persisted in pursuing an illegal constitutional referendum to gain additional time in office.”
– Wait, what’s ambiguous about that?
“There’s no question that Zelaya’s referendum was unwise and that he has been an ally to bombastically anti-American Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.”
– Bush and Chavez are both bombastic. I see what you did there.
“But supporting a military coup whose early actions have included severe restrictions of civil liberties is not in the best interests of international stability or democracy in Honduras — and plays right into Chavez’s critique of American hypocrisy. ”
– So it’s a military coup. Isn’t the article supposed to be about careful rhetoric and not jumping to conclusions? And we’re really supposed to take at face value that Chavez values talking points for his critique of America over an ally in the region?
“The Obama administration has called for a return to democratic process and the reinstatement of Zelaya . . . ”
– Oh, found the ambiguity.
“It’s also led conservative pundit Andy McCarthy . . .”
– Can I point out that Ezra Klein is an idiot and prove any point I want about liberals?
I thought I was for a more “careful” approach to foreign policy, but after that whargarbbl mess, I’m going to rethink that.
Regarding the Larry Summers one I suspect that Obama or his staff has probably issued a standard order to use web data and/or information when ever possible. He probably saw this and said it fits, so he said it. Dumb thing to say though….
Are we talking about speed traps, or traffic cameras (used to determine which roads have delays), or red-light cameras?
Matt’s point stands – cops can’t be everywhere. Regardless of whether the change in behavior that their presence or potential presence leads to is a good thing or a bad thing, knowing with good certainty which of the many places that they could be that they actually are (and thus which others of those places they aren’t) reduces the impact.
If “those traps really are in areas where speeding is particularly dangerous” it is not the case that “the aps are slowing people down in those same areas.” A general note “Watch your speed on Route 3, I’ve seen people pulled over every time I’ve used it in the past month” will slow people down; “The speed traps today are at Exit 27 and Exit 33″ or “The speed traps today are on Route 495″ does not except in those specific locations.
#6 | Matt D — “But if they didn’t know where the traps were, they’d go slower through all intersections.”
Matt, I down-arrowed you because I am empirical evidence that your statement is false. I don’t give a shit where speed traps are, I’m going to drive the speed I want to drive no matter what. If I get a ticket, fuck it. Haven’t gotten one in 20 years. Knock on wood.
“Matt, I down-arrowed you because I am empirical evidence that your statement is false. I don’t give a shit where speed traps are, I’m going to drive the speed I want to drive no matter what.”
Actually, there is empirical evidence to support your personal anecdotal evidence. I don’t have a link, or remember all the details, but there was a NHTSA study (not sure, but I believe it was NHTSA) that studied the effects of speed limit changes on various roads. (I know, this doesn’t exactly address speed traps, but…)
Anyways, the study showed that raising the speed limit was correlated with a slightly lower accident rate and lowering the limit INCREASED the accident rate. However, the average speed remained relatively unchanged regardless of the posted speed limit. In other words, “I’m going to drive the speed I want to drive no matter what” is what most people will do. Artificially low speed limits, or even any speed limits at all, and their enforcement, will not increase safety, only increase revenue. Which is, of course, what they are designed to do.
Dave Krueger | July 18th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Regarding the amazon.com item, I don’t believe anyone could even imagine a scenario that would make more of a statement about putting control of your library in the hands of someone else.
You are correct here.
Amazon should not have the ability to remove books from the device once the books are purchased. People get het up because it is Orwell, and especially ‘1984′ but if they look further, they will see that a publisher who did not have the rights to the works in question profited off selling the e-books, and Amazon stopped the selling and deleted all copies. Amazon should have paid who ever does have the rights and the previous purchased copies should have stayed the property of whomever bought them, while Amazon stopped distribution. Who knows though, maybe the current rights holders wanted the copies deleted. Someone should ask Amazon, and ask the rights holders.
Also, I will bet 100 to 1 that Amazon has a EULA that states they can delete e-books of the device. If a EULA will stand up in court or not is a whole other kettle of fish, though.
Not sure that Larry Summers is being dumb there at all.
OK, I wouldn’t put all that much weight on it, to be sure, but it’s not an outrageous claim.
Recessions are due, at least in part (how much will depend on which school of economics you subscribe to and Larry’s pretty much a Keynesian and Keynes does indeed talk about “animal spirits”) on the way that people feel about the future. If we all individually decide that the future is sh*t and thus don’t invest or consume but save, then the future will indeed be sh*t.
If that was how we were all feeling and that mood has changed, that we think things are bottoming out, then we’ll save less and invest and consume more: and things will be less sh*t.
Yes, I agree, that’s a very crude explanation and searching for “economic depression” isn’t the most accurate of pointers. But that is the basic logic and the searches are an indicator, however trite or light.
Perhaps we should put this one with strong logic but weak empirical evidence?
One would think that before the purchased copies could be retrieved from those who bought them, some kind of court action would be required. Unless, of course, customers granted that right to amazon as part of the contract they probably had to “sign” when they made the purchase, which is where I suspect they got the authority to do that. Amazon is saying they will never do that again, but I wonder if they’re going to change their purchase agreement accordingly.
In any case, digital media is definitely not “the same as buying a book only better”. As a former member of Music Match, which went belly-up and then Yahoo Music which following in the same footsteps, its become clear to me that what you think is a “purchase” may be no more than a DRM-governed rental, subject to the whims of the seller.
Amazon has done some other gooify things. When customers started leaving 1-star reviews of video games because of the extremely restrictive DRM, Amazon simply deleted all the 1-star reviews. When that caused an even worse shit storm, they reinstated them.
Well, if I was considering buying a Kindle, I wouldn’t be considering one anymore. At least Baen Books doesn’t try to indian-give electronically.
You LIE! That was the only portion of the entire article that was arguable. The rest of it only proved Tim Fernholz is a kool-aid drinking idiot.
#16 Alex has already covered it but not only was Fernholz analysis of the russian v. georgian and the honduran situations mistaken and horribly mistaken, it wasn’t solely the american political right that was speaking out. The condemnation of the russian invasion and the Iranian governments response to the election protests were universal, and included obamas own secretary of state.
We elected a guy whose entire foreign policy experience lies in the fact that he could see canada from his house. Good thing he has that elite east coast education and speaks so eloquently or somebody might start to notice he doesn’t know wtf he’s doing.
Old,
When I wrote #24, I hadn’t read #22, so I think my comment just duplicated some of what you had already said.
With the Amazon book, problem was they were unauthorized editions of the title, as downloaded from Australia (where Orwell’s public domain.) The “auto-delete” after hearing from the publisher, while creepy, was actually Amazon’s implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act DMCA)–which essentially gives Amazon protection if they just, you know, agree to remove an infringing work should they hear from a rights-holder.
Upshot is, now Amazon’s going to have to police the Kindle store to protect themselves, meaning potentially infringing works (and perhaps obscene works, not to mention libelous works) may never get a chance, or have to sign a few more things, or be vetted for review, etc.
An incredibly open system will now get less open.
Yay, bad reporting of the infringing nature of the original Orwell titles!
The nice thing about books is they don’t have an EULA.
The downside with the Prospect piece was that it promoted Obama making the exact mistake with Honduras that he avoided with Iran. I guess it doesn’t count as “picking sides” when it comes to some sides.
“And the top ten bad boy names are–Alec, Luke… I’m confused. Am I really this out of touch?”
Apparently we both are. There’s only one name in the top 10, I haven’t heard all that frequently. The rest seem pretty common to me. What criteria are they using to determine if a name is “odd” or not.
#20 | whappan? — “Actually, there is empirical evidence to support your personal anecdotal evidence.”
Semi touche. I consider my anecdotal evidence to be empirical, because if someone were to study and quantify my behavior, they would find out exactly what I told you and what you substantiated, that generally people will do what people will do.
/nitpick
Gotta agree with Alex on the TAP article – it was an “Obama is wonderful and the right is stupid” fluff piece. I can certainly see that the right has some tendency towards white hat/black hat, but A) that piece was an exceedingly poor one to make that point, since that was just the pretense of what it was about, and B) I’ll take that over the left’s international tendencies (which are, to oversimplify a bit and to be more than a bit generous, the opposite problem) every day of the week and twice on Sunday.