I'm not minimizing that some of their points are valid, but they are also a hate group. They paint everyone "non-black" with the same stroke, close freeways for hours forcing people that did nothing to them to piss in a jar while stuck in their cars, damage property, smash windows, etc..

For example, in Ferguson, for days/weeks the media "omitted" the young man had just strong-arm-robbed a convenience store, they wanted "innocent and minding his own business". Trayvon Martin - the only photo they had of him was a 12-year old class picture, even though many recent ones were available on his Facebook page, the narrative was "young defenseless child walking to get a soda-pop" (but had recently been arrested for possession of stolen goods (jewelry) from Miami-Dade and that is why he was moved to live with dad).

Lest we also forget their targeting and ambush of police officers in Dallas.

My personal viewpoint, while I don't agree or condone the use of deadly force by police in many cases, that can also be minimized by not doing things that invite negative police contact. I also have a very hard time taking a stand one way or another when media portrayals of a case are missing key facts. Most people make it through life without 30 or 40 or 50 arrests. If you do have regular contact with police, the odds of a misunderstanding exploding into an incident obviously go up enormously.

Everyone is offered an education for free, it's a key to get out of the hood, change life's circumstances, etc. Some embrace it while many others are either too lazy for the long-road or prefer the 'cool' image of being a dumb-ass. Ultimately, everyone has an opportunity given to them at enormous cost to the taxpayers, and many choose to flush it down the drain (white or black).

The challenge with the statement of 'target' is that statistically, there is no difference in outcomes for people of any race with violent / felony contact with police.

I'm not a police officer. My only comparable experience was a few months of patrols in Rwanda, Kosovo, and Mogidishu when I was in the Air Force in the 90's. It's extremely tense when you come up on two people in the middle of a dispute, you have no idea which one is the aggressor or the victim, or if both are aggressors, or domestic, or what the case is. I have a lot of sympathy for the officers, we basically outsource our mental illness 'response' to the police in this country, they don't have the education or expertise to deal with it, we punish them when they misjudge a situation, and certain communities punish/blame/protest their actions while rarely or never doing anything in the way of volunteering to solve the problems.

For each of those cases - did any of the parents encourage the kids to be a policeman, firefighter, or doctor when they grew up? Did they do anything to point the kids in that direction? This is really about not only the degradation, but the complete failure of family structure in America. What we really need to do is stop blaming AR-15's, police, or any other inanimate object or societal norm when there isn't a father "in the picture". No dad? No blame.

We all remember the routine - particularly with Ferguson.. The kid was at first an aspiring track star and on his way to college. Whoops, he's 330 lbs.. no track star future. Whoops.. he may not have really been going to college. Whoops.. he may not have been just kicking it with his friends on the porch... well, maybe he just stole the beer and pretzels he was eating, but that was a misunderstanding. Video of him committing robbery? What robbery? Oh damn, the police officer was found innocent by a mixed-race jury - now time to burn the city to the ground in "protest".

Ok, so here's the problem with that approach - by the time the 3rd, 4th or 5th lie comes out, no one wants to listen to it, or give a damn anymore. Honestly, by the time the second lie came out, I was done. Why not just state the facts? He was walking down the street (or fleeing the store), he was a suspect and the officer had probably cause to stop him and detain him - but he had no reasonable cause to escalate the situation further. If the kid was trying to get away, let him go - call for backup, follow him with the police car. I don't know what happened, if the kid tried to go for the officer's weapon, the outcome was valid - but we'll never really know the truth because we crucify officers for making a bad decision when they have a ¼ of a second to do so. If they make a mistake in that ¼ second, we imprison them for life. We ask them to keep the peace, and keep our society intact. Rarely do we acknowledge how hard that is to do.

What I do know is that when the arguments always start with a lie, they are not getting their point made, they are just deteriorating what others think of their group and their position on issues.

There are also the stories about kids who wanted to go to the rally and express their opinions about their objections to more gun control, who were prevented from speaking. Yeah, really spontaneous! Free speech, as long as you tow the line for the Leftist-controlled NEA (National Education Association). And of course, how come Schumer and all the other usual suspects show up to speak at these rallies, but Wayne LaPierre didn't get invited? The answer is obvious!

You're welcome. A good while back it occurred to me dino that what conservatives have been accused of being the progressive movement has become.

Regarding this brilliant writer who freedomforall Recomended to me ( I just loved Stranger in a strange land) That he was ignored and pilloried , probably by people who never read his work. Liberals feel entitled to their beliefs and do not have to justify them. My daughter (who is a great mother and person but was indoctrinated at KU )and son in law were over for a st patty's day meal. Son in law's father is Jewish.
They are a liberals. I asked him what he thought about Louis Farrakhan he said he didn't really know him. I said he was at the capital a lot with Obama and the democratic black caucus. When I said that he thought the Jews should be eliminated and that white people deserved to die. I was immediately censured by my daughter and the question was ignored. My thought is that this is a typical response. these liberals are like ostriches they have firm opinions with no room, time or interest for analysis.

You have the same false impression of the founding of the country that you did when you said this 2 1/2 years ago. Impressions from the equivalent of a school field trip are not an education in history and the reasons for it.

The Declaration was a political document listing the reasons for breaking with England, with a preamble summarizing what was already commonly understood about the rights of man, as the standard by which England's actions were rejected and explicitly showing why it was a philosophically based document. See Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas.

The Declaration only talked about England for the obvious reason that England was ruling the colonies then. That does not mean that the principle of the rights of man only applied against England. It had nothing to do with British actions against Puritans who had landed here more than two centuries earlier.

The Constitution was a document specifying the functions and limits of a new national government. It was not a philosophical document because that was not its purpose, but like the Declaration, was philosophically based: It presupposed a political philosophy of individualism from the Enlightenment and was designed to protect against actions by the Federal government. Different ideas lead to different kinds of government.

The compromises in the framing of the Constitution were on matters of specifying government structure and procedures, not philosophy. It was not about freedom from England, whose rule had already been overthrown years before. Freedom from government interference in religion meant what it said, which was all religion. It did not furtively mean Mormons were excluded.

It was also not about freedom of Indian individuals versus others; it had some provisions for dealing with Indian tribes, who were still carrying on wars that were a pervasive physical threat at the time and had to be defended against. Neither the Constitution nor the new government got rid of English, French, Spanish, Mexican, Indian, or Mormon people. They did not "take over" the land to the Pacific; the jurisdiction of the American government replaced what was left of the rest by a freer system based on the rights of the individual and political freedom.

The Constitution and the new government were what they claimed to be. Today they are not because of the influence of contrary ideas, implemented by Pragmatism and Progressivism imported over centuries from Europe out of the counter Enlightenment. Those who do not understand the role of basic ideas in the course of a culture and a nation you will never understand the founding of this country and what happened to it since.

Recommend you read DiLorenzo's book Organized Crime for more detail of Jefferson's thinking (and of other "founding fathers" and national "heroes".) Consider the source of the information being presented as Jefferson's thinking. Some would love to ruin Jefferson's reputation and to praise others who were statist looters. DiLorenzo documents the sources he uses in his book.

Well I would agree that it appears to be a foolish place and time to cross the street pushing a bike.

Politicians seem immune to all forms of restraint, auto or otherwise, now don't they?

There is what appears to be a nice city pedestrian walkway shaped like an X right in the middle of the road. It is not lit, and has small signs stating it is closed to pedestrians.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/2...

(See top picture)

To blame an accident on self-driving cars? She was playing chicken. Why did the chicken cross the road?

But what does any of this have to do with the thread you started? You've hijacked your own thread, so why not throw a chicken into the pot, too?

They already have that. It would be impossible to automatically navigate without it. But the sensor processing has to distinguish between accepting normal object motion and collision avoidance. In this case the bicycle was in an uncoming lane where traffic is expected, and where much of the early part of the trajectory and location was less relevant. That is harder to deal with than detecting a large object in the same lane or a parked car (or the wall at the back of your garage) for ordinary collision avoidance.

The object has to be isolated, classified and tracked for its trajectory, before a decision is made without being over sensitive and in time. Avoiding false positives is the hard part: avoiding collisions is easy -- just stop and don't ever move (like guaranteed blocking of spam by not ever allowing incoming mail).

If sensors were using only visible light it would be much harder in the dark; if it uses infrared or some other wavelength like radar, which we expect, it would detect more than a person would see in the dark, which is an improvement, but it still has to resolve, identify and track, then decide in time.

The programming may or may not have been using too high a threshold or something else may have gone wrong. That is why the passive driver is there to intervene during testing, where they know problems are expected. In this case the passive driver could not have seen the victim suddenly appear out of the dark in time even if she had been looking for it. They could give her infrared glasses but, like the control system, she would have to be carefully trained (more cookies versus shocks) to look at the road instead of at her lap or dozing off. Testing is best done using normal humans in focus and with the required attention span.

Your not supposed to use objectivity with liberals.
They don't want to discuss anything.

Yup, indeed so.

There is a difference between waling out of a room full of students for a few minutes and a single student left unsupervised. To a degree, the students will supervise each other. To a degree.

Different schools have different policies. My school was pretty firm on it, although the teacher was perfectly happy letting me work on the project by myself he wasn't allowed to.

Senior year in high school during an English test: The teacher was gone the whole time. One of the worst D students in the whole senior class continuously and openly asked and received help throughout the test from all those sitting around him. When the tests were later returned the teacher made a big speech beaming about how proud she was of the A grade received by said D student. Everyone else knew and sat stunned by the display of fawning gullibility. It's not a way for a teacher to earn respect.