Lots of interesting news today

RatLabGuy said:
www.reuters.com

Monster Energy wins $293 mln false-advertising verdict against rival Bang

Monster Energy Co convinced a California jury on Thursday to award it $293 million in damages from rival Bang Energy in a lawsuit alleging that Bang falsely advertised the ingredients and health benefits of its drinks.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
I’m always amazed of the revenue earning potential of overpriced sugar water. I mean when I pay $1.25 for a big fat coke I choke a little bit, but $4 for a can of medicine tasting fizz is ridiculous, it’s like people just blow their entire load on a can of pop
 
Last edited:
Shreddinlettuce said:
I’m always amazed of the revenue earning potential of overpriced sugar water. I mean when I pay $1.25 for a big fat coke I choke a little bit, but $4 for a can of medicine tasting fizz is ridiculous, it’s like people just blow their entire load on a can of pop
Click to expand...
Movie stars and racecars are expensive.
 
LBarr2002 said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but what if that speeder hits and kills your wife and kids... still on them?
Click to expand...
But its ok if they are going the speed limit? The problem isn't the speed, its the incorrect move or lack of vehicular control.
 
JSJJ388 said:
You are welcome to disagree. Speeding does not cause more damage to the road. That seems entirely illogical, as its the same tire making the same track. It does indeed increase the risk of a bad outcome, if you wreck. Its on the individual to weigh those risks, and to deal with the consequences of their actions should they harm someone else.

I know first hand what is set in motion when someone ODs. I deal with it regularly. Im not saying these folks are completely innocent, but they cant reach out for the help they need either. I may not have all the answers, but I do know that punishing people for doing something that hurts no one or only hurts them is wrong.
Click to expand...

Spend much time on gravel roads? Faster they are driven on the quicker they get town up. Now concrete and asphalt sure it’ll take a lot but still damage done.

You work as a first responder. Your telling me your ok with a drunk driver on the road as long as he doesn’t hit anyone. But when he does he has to deal with the consequences. Tell that to the family your cutting out of the car.
 
jeepinmatt said:
But its ok if they are going the speed limit? The problem isn't the speed, its the incorrect move or lack of vehicular control.
Click to expand...
Speed limits are based on the almighty engineers assessment and calculation of the average driver and average car safe reaction time. So yes it’s ok if they are going the speed limit.

And I will say if the 100’s of accidents I have seen. The fatalities I have seen have been due to drivers exceeding the speed limit.
 
Futbalfantic said:
I disagree with this. I very much believe an ouch of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Most see speeding as a victimless crime. But it does more damage to the road, causes other drivers to have to react and back ups, significantly increases high potential for bad outcomes.
Click to expand...
Speeding is a victimless crime. Driving unsafely in and around traffic may not be. In a straight line, it does not do more damage to the road. On curves and at accel/decel points, the forces are higher relative to speed and acceleration rate, however, I guarantee you my smooth acceleration, braking, and sweeping lines through the corners are much less damaging than Karen and the gang on their cell phone, not paying attention when the light changes and waiting until someone blows the horn to finally accelerate away, or slamming on the brakes at the last minute because they weren't paying attention, or running off the side of the road because they were texting.

Futbalfantic said:
significantly increases high potential for bad outcomes.
Click to expand...
JSJJ388 said:
It does indeed increase the risk of a bad outcome
Click to expand...
None of these bad outcomes ever occur simply due to speed. They are always a result of loss of control or misjudgement of distance or other more "dynamic" factors.


I'll even go as far as to argue that slow drivers cause significantly more accidents and damage than speeders. I'll take an attentive speeder over a laissez faire slowpoke any day.
 
Last edited:
Futbalfantic said:
Speed limits are based on the almighty engineers assessment and calculation of the average driver and average car safe reaction time in like 1965. So yes it’s ok if they are going the speed limit.
Click to expand...
FIFY, and no, its not ok if they are going the speed limit if they hit and kill your wife/kid/etc. No vehicle should ever impact another vehicle or person, regardless of speed.

Futbalfantic said:
And I will say if the 100’s of accidents I have seen. The fatalities I have seen have been due to drivers losing control or making a mistake while exceeding the speed limit.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly about speed exacerbating the severity of an incident. The key to being a good driver is to avoid any incidents. But speed alone does not cause this.
 
Futbalfantic said:
Spend much time on gravel roads? Faster they are driven on the quicker they get town up. Now concrete and asphalt sure it’ll take a lot but still damage done.

You work as a first responder. Your telling me your ok with a drunk driver on the road as long as he doesn’t hit anyone. But when he does he has to deal with the consequences. Tell that to the family your cutting out of the car.
Click to expand...
Plenty. They do not degrade faster with relative speed. That aside, how many state maintained gravel roads are left?

I do indeed volunteer. Bad decisions are still bad decisions. But there is no crime until there is a victim. How many drunk people stop and go "hmmmm, drunk driving is illegal. I shouldnt do that since its illegal."? Id wager next to none. Now, lets say the penalty for killing someone due to drunk driving is death, no questions asked. Is that going to stop someone? Maybe, maybe not. but its much more likely than the threat of losing a license (which they may or may not have). Ive worked enough calls and seen enough shit to know that stupid people are going to be stupid, and not much will stop them. That doesnt change the fact that a crime requires a victim.
 
jeepinmatt said:
Speeding is a victimless crime. Driving unsafely in and around traffic may not be. In a straight line, it does not do more damage to the road. On curves and at accel/decel points, the forces are higher relative to speed and acceleration rate, however, I guarantee you my smooth acceleration, braking, and sweeping lines through the corners are much less damaging than Karen and the gang on their cell phone, not paying attention when the light changes and waiting until someone blows the horn to finally accelerate away, or slamming on the brakes at the last minute because they weren't paying attention, or running off the side of the road because they were texting.



None of these bad outcomes ever occur simply due to speed. They are always a result of loss of control or misjudgement of distance or other more "dynamic" factors.


I'll even go as far as to argue that slow drivers cause significantly more accidents and damage than speeders. I'll take an attentive speeder over a laissez faire slowpoke any day.
Click to expand...

Typically they are the result in a rapid deceleration. :flipoff2: However the greater the deceleration, the greater the impact (no pun intended).
 
JSJJ388 said:
Plenty. They do not degrade faster with relative speed. That aside, how many state maintained gravel roads are left?

I do indeed volunteer. Bad decisions are still bad decisions. But there is no crime until there is a victim. How many drunk people stop and go "hmmmm, drunk driving is illegal. I shouldnt do that since its illegal."? Id wager next to none. Now, lets say the penalty for killing someone due to drunk driving is death, no questions asked. Is that going to stop someone? Maybe, maybe not. but its much more likely than the threat of losing a license (which they may or may not have). Ive worked enough calls and seen enough shit to know that stupid people are going to be stupid, and not much will stop them. That doesnt change the fact that a crime requires a victim.
Click to expand...
So you have kids.
Do you enforce rules to prevent risky behavior or potentially bad things happening if something happens that they didn't expect?
Do they have to wear a helmet when riding a bike? Do they have to wear a seat belt in the car? Do you let them run around while carrying knives open faced? How about swinging a knife around the room wildly? play with fire? Would you punish them for doing any of these things?
All of these are perfectly safe, victimless behaviors - unless something goes wrong.

Rules are put in place in order to minimize damage when somebody, or something, makes a mistake, whether it is actually you doing the risky thing or somebody else doing it. Without the rules, you invite risks that increase harm to everybody. And without some kind of enforcement, rules are meaningless and not followed.

Punishment only after negative events leaves you in a solely reactive state and has ben proven by decades of psychology to be a very weakly effective form of training.
 
jeepinmatt said:
I'm still confused.

If you look at the ACTUAL title of the article:
"To promote racial equality, NC sheriff's office is no longer enforcing minor traffic violations"

That directly implies that black and brown (non-white, if you prefer) people have more "minor traffic violations". That in and of itself is stereotyping and inherently racist, which is directly contrary to their purpose of promoting racial equality. :shaking:
Click to expand...
Stop being so smart. Jesus man!
 
Biden pardoning past Federal MJ possession convictions, urging Governors to do similar at state level, and pushing review of MJ classification schedule.
www.whitehouse.gov

Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform | The White House

As I often said during my campaign for President, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana. Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Criminal records for marijuana...
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
 
RatLabGuy said:
Biden pardoning past Federal MJ possession convictions, urging Governors to do similar at state level, and pushing review of MJ classification schedule.
www.whitehouse.gov

Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform | The White House

As I often said during my campaign for President, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana. Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Criminal records for marijuana...
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people this will pardon. Find it hard to believe there is someone sitting in federal prison for personal use weed possession. Or was that what they pled down to or what charge they could make stick.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Biden pardoning past Federal MJ possession convictions, urging Governors to do similar at state level, and pushing review of MJ classification schedule.
www.whitehouse.gov

Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform | The White House

As I often said during my campaign for President, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana. Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Criminal records for marijuana...
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
Click to expand...
This part REALLY bugs me for Reasons both grammatically and politically:
"And while white and Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, Black and brown people have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates."
 
Futbalfantic said:
Find it hard to believe there is someone sitting in federal prison for personal use weed possession.
Click to expand...
They are not. It is more like numerous ounces or pounds. Feds don't care about personal use. At least all the agents I knew. They would give the cases to us to charge on a state charge.
 
Tom@Hilltop_Machine said:
They are not. It is more like numerous ounces or pounds. Feds don't care about personal use. At least all the agents I knew. They would give the cases to us to charge on a state charge.
Click to expand...
they even said this in the press discussion right before the embargo lift, that there are zero people in Fed prison right now that this will release.

For 99.5% of us the important part of this edict is point #3, to have the Fed schedule classification reviewed.
 
RatLabGuy said:
they even said this in the press discussion right before the embargo lift, that there are zero people in Fed prison right now that this will release.

For 99.5% of us the important part of this edict is point #3, to have the Fed schedule classification reviewed.
Click to expand...

Wonder how that will work for us with federal government finger in the pot requiring drug testing (healthcare, fed employees, fed contractors, etc)
 
Back
Top