If I'm watching YouTube on my TV, I mute it when anything longer than a 5 second ad comes on. If what I'm watching is less than 10 minutes, I'll just back out and start in again, usually it will come up without the ad, then seek to where I left off. Although oftentimes lately, I'll be watching a 5 minute video, and I'll get 1 minute in and get hit with an unskippable 2 minute ad, I just quit YouTube for the day.
When I heard this story, the man wasn't just being obstinate, every time he was offered rescue, he turned it down because he was sure someone else needed the help more than he did. It's a minor difference in words, but a major difference in the tone of the story.
I think you're missing the point - it's not that he's enriching himself - he's already done that. It's that the charity carries out his will, not necessarily the will of people who need charities.
Yes, and they were designed with that in mind- brake pedals with more leverage for one...
My mom had a Ford ranger for a while that had lost its brake boost, it took a lot of force to get it to slow down, and that wasn't even a heavy vehicle, this was back when a pickup was a two-seater...
I've had the opposite experience - 10 sucked, but I have no complaints about 11... Though it might make a difference that my experience with 10 was after my old (win7 vintage) laptop took the free update, while my 11 experience is based on a new laptop that came with it preinstalled...
My uncle was like that - he was a contractor and realtor. He had several work trucks, each for a specific purpose, plus one general purpose, and half of them had snowplows of various sizes. Most of them had something wrong with them that didn't interfere with their specific purpose, but would have been a pain to deal with daily. Only new one was a minivan for driving clients to sites... Then he bought a house closer to town that had a flatbed truck left on it...
I was trying to offer an argument for the alternative
But that's not what you did, at first anyway. You were looking for an argument. You asked someone to justify something that to you is a slight, with no way of knowing whether the other person intended it that way. They got defensive because they have no idea what you're getting at, from their perspective you're just saying "you said something wrong, this is right" without explaining why.
It's not charity to give money to an organization you (or friends or relatives) control, it's a way to keep your assets under your control without having to pay taxes that would otherwise be required.
I think most people who challenged lost, but it didn't stop them from trying... Regardless, the courts weren't getting the money from the fines, at least not enough to compensate for the amount of time people took up.
They tried that for a few years. People went to court to challenge them, overwhelmed the court system, and made it not cost effective to pursue people.
Do you think speed cameras will slow them down? Or do you think they'll just figure out how to get away with it? When my city put in speed cameras everywhere, it didn't slow me down. After the first one (which was a surprise btw- same route I drove to work every day, but after they put in the speed camera, the speed limit was reduced by 10mph mysteriously...) I researched the fuck out of the topic and found
A: they can't act on a mailed ticket unless you voluntarily respond (so I didn't) or it's delivered by a process server (which costs money, and the local government isn't going to bother when there are plenty of pigeons that don't know better)
B: they have to be able to identify the driver- as in see your face. There was a famous case of a guy wearing various zoo animal masks, and I have a couple pictures of me in a cheap Spartan mask doing 90 in a 65 that never went anywhere.
C: even if they serve you, and even if your face is plainly visible, it may still be worth a shot going to court. I did the one time one was properly served, which was another surprise one, not one of the times I was taunting them. It was another case of the speed limit being temporarily reduced, this time for construction - except the speed camera had been set up after the end of the construction zone, and I had just gotten on the highway, there was no signage indicating the construction zone or the reduced speed between the on ramp and the camera, and again it was a familiar area where I knew the limit was 65 normally... Anywho, tangent. I went to court, and I got to see which arguments worked and which didn't. It was pretty comical, one woman was trying to argue that she didn't know the speed limit had dropped, but she had been clocked at 79- the judge yelled at her "even if you thought it was 65, you still would have been going nearly 15 over! Pay the fine and get out!" Anywho, one thing I noticed was they always gave the measurements of how far the speed camera was after the speed limit sign, so that was going to be my angle- I would just ask how far that was from the on ramp- but I didn't get the chance. They got to me, and the prosecutor said he didn't have the evidence to pursue my case, so he moved for dismissal. No further explanation.
So that's just what works in my jurisdiction, it's likely other places close some of those loopholes, but introduce some of their own. And you can bet assholes like me will be better at figuring it out and will overall pay less in fines than suckers like you that just get caught by surprise once in a great while. Is that fair?
If I'm watching YouTube on my TV, I mute it when anything longer than a 5 second ad comes on. If what I'm watching is less than 10 minutes, I'll just back out and start in again, usually it will come up without the ad, then seek to where I left off. Although oftentimes lately, I'll be watching a 5 minute video, and I'll get 1 minute in and get hit with an unskippable 2 minute ad, I just quit YouTube for the day.