The fact that it pairs with something that has shown up in every other hoax makes it suspicious.

But when it comes to astrology and horoscopes, this clip summarizes my interest in them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ilKEHcX0A

KCRG needs to verify their sources better. It's an old hoax, as others have pointed out. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/101392/20110115/o...

With social media and the regular media more anxious to be the first with a story, or how people trust information if they see enough instances of it (often overlooking searches for the counter-stories) this time, the story made it much further into the news.

When will we get the retraction?

If an officer was posted on I-380 and pulled you over, you would drive carefully for at least a while, and your violation would immediately be known to you. But now they will have two sets of cameras, enabling you to get two tickets and not know for a few days. It seems they want to catch you as many times as possible before you get a chance to correct your behavior. If you trip one, you'll probably trip the other unless you entered or exited between the two.

It sounds funny, but even that isn't permitted by city ordinance, which states the following.

"No tent or similar structure shall be erected, used, or maintained for human residence. Erection, use, and maintenance of tents and similar structures for other uses shall be subject to the fire prevention regulations and other applicable regulations of the City."

That's what most rational people would do, but that's not what the city did. They demolished hundreds of homes this year and last year before acquiring the deed. Homeowners were told they could back out of the voluntary buyout anytime until the financial transaction occurred, which is also when the deed transfers. No buyouts occurred until this year, and as the story says, only 100 are complete. Hundreds of other properties have been cleared. Although some were destroyed due to safety/code violations, many more were destroyed with the belief that the city would eventually own the property. This is the story that usually doesn't get reported very well.

So what happens if there end up being properties that the city fails to acquire, but that it demolished the home and any other structures on the property, and if they did so without claiming the structure violated any laws?
(There are risks to doing things to properties you don't own)

Most people agree there will be rationing, even among several members of the administration finally admitting it. Yet, the law was passed by many people who kept suggesting that health care/health is a right. For anyone who supported the law because they believed health is a right, rationing is by definition a violation of your rights, and it will happen anyway.

If you want safer roads, let people focus their attention on driving safely.

The study about the signage was brought up by the people the city brought in to help citizens understand how to design cities the best, just before asking the citizens what they wanted in the city. The signs draw attention away from the roadway ahead. Some signs can be good, but too many hinders safety by becoming a distraction.

The state passed a law to ban texting while driving that went into effect this week. In a similar way, distraction is seen as a problem.

Since we never know the setting of the speed cameras, and they could be set for the posted limit, even if we drive below the limit normally, it's worth that extra check of one's speed just before entering an intersection to avoid tickets for unintentionally breaking the limit.

I would rather know I'm approaching a dangerous intersection, and then be allowed to focus on the threats of collision with others. Instead, we have our attention drawn disproportionately to the traffic light (above traffic), the line to stay behind to avoid entering the intersection unless the light is green (below traffic), and our speed gauge (which takes our attention away from the road, even if for only an instant).

When we most need to focus on the environment around us, because we are near or in a dangerous intersection, we find ourselves focusing less on what is around us, and more on these three things that usually form a straight line up and down.

With two hospitals on 10th St East, it can be important to listen for sirens, focus more on peripheral areas in case an emergency vehicle is about to enter on a red, etc. But now more people will focus as close to the center of their lane than ever.

That seems to go against everything both the state and city consider wise regarding traffic safety. Is this post longer than the last one? I'm not keeping track. Hopefully the intelligence level is sufficient this time.

A study once aimed to observe what would happen if we removed all traffic signs in the central area of a town. This resulted in an increase in safety. Rather than people being focused on signs, they could focus on driving and seeing people/things approaching them.

When people enter an area they know has 100% enforcement of something like a posted speed, they are more likely to keep their eyes on their speed rather than the road. They will focus on the speed law, rather than staying focused on avoiding hitting things.

People should obey the laws, but I wonder if this type of enforcement may distract people from driving, whether they usually obey the law or not, and result in more problems. I know that even though I tend to go the speed limit, I don't want to have a ticket for a moment of not confirming my speed. So every time I approach these speed traps, I look down several times, especially since traffic patterns in this city usually cause significant stop-and-go flows.

If traffic is regulated like most cities, we can go a steady speed, and it's easier to ensure we stay below the limit. Since we aren't able to maintain a constant speed, I find myself rarely going a steady speed in the speed trap intersections. I am usually still accelerating from the last stop. Since I'm accelerating into a speed trap, I have to focus attention on not over-accelerating. This means I look away from the road far more often than ever. Thanks for making the city safer, but I think I was doing fine before.

At that rate, the city will make a little over $350,000 a year for a system that cost $750,000, and was supposed to raise $750,000 a year. Timing lights could have benefitted the community up to $40 for every $1 spent, but now we have something that brings in closer to 50 cents on the dollar. That wasn't enough benefit for the Army Corp of Engineers to justify flood protection.

Also, about 1/3 of the revenues go to the out-of-state company that sold these to us. Since the $1,066 figure already subtracted that out, I figure this system allows roughly $500 a day to seep out of our city & state to pay for what local officers could have been paid to do.