I only slightly agree. road workers are protected the same way by the law, but they are not afforded the same 'off duty' protection that cops grant eachother.

Partially it's that society has decided that we want law enforcement to be protected, so a crime against them is considered worse.

Partially that cops and prosecutors (the people who decide who gets charged and with what crime) are on the same side.

[deleted]

This has nothing to do with protector own.

Cops are more exposed to traffic and people are supposed to pay more attention when cops are involved because there is a high likelihood that there is a special situation going on.

TSA’s task is to establish your identity. Not to direct you to the terminal you should be at.

It would be an utter disaster and crash the economy. Billionaires don’t have a billion dollars of cash sitting in their bank account. It’s all tied up in real estate and shares of stock. For them to give all their wealth away, they would have to sell all of those properties and stock holdings. What do you think happens to the value of a company if 10% or 50% of the shares were sold at once? The price would crash and likely bankrupt that company. Same with real estate. Prices would crash.

So, the average person might get a check for $10,000, but their 401k value is down 95%, their home is now worth 30% less, and they are now unemployed because their company went bankrupt.

While yes, one life shouldn’t be more valuable than other, looking at the bigger picture a cop/firefighter/EMT are more IMPORTANT to everyone than the average person, as they go through training for several hours to be at the service of everyone for “free” doesn’t matter the time of day. The unexpected loss of any of them mean that there are fewer people to help the community, along side the whole training cost for a replacement.

[removed]

What do mean treated worse? Like legally or by the public?

There's a lot of context that goes into how the public and legal system determines how to "treat" someone. Publicly, how the story is framed makes a big difference.

"Local hero tragically taken too soon in car accident" gets a different reaction than "corrupt cop found dead in car crash"

There are numerous cases of crimes incurring an extra penalty if they affect a certain group, to show that targeting those groups is seen as especially heinous, and/or to more strongly disincentivize crimes targeting them. For example:

• Many states have laws saying that killing a pregnant woman is charged as double homicide.

• The entire purpose of hate crime legislation is to tack on extra charges against someone who commits crimes for racist/religious/sexist/etc. reasons.

• Within police departments, K9 units are often ranked as technically higher than their handlers, so abusing one nets a charge of attacking a superior officer.

This. I've gone to the "wrong" terminal numerous time to access a specific Airport lounge that is clearly superior to the offerings in the "correct" terminal. Some Airports will actually try and actively discourage/forbid this.

There is a bit of sensationalism by the media, just because it sells papers or generates clicks, what have you.

There is also a "crashed into a cop car while it had its flashy lights on" issue too. Which also tends to get some attention.

Then we have an extra air of cops, firefighters, military personnel being heroes... going on at this time. So, that also comes into play.

In truth, it's all perception. But I don't think you have committed a greater crime if you get into an accident with a police officer, unless you committed a crime to cause that accident. Ran a red light, ignored their flashy lights, etc...

That’s thing about our world: If everything was divided equally we’d be all poor. So I don’t think it has much impact, maybe an ice cream for all?

Because the cops are the ones whose job it is to find criminals. Unfortunately they assume any crime committed against them takes priority.

for road racing, it's mostly venting and aerodynamics. after those two considerations then it's about who the sponsor is and aesthetics.

In the US? Not much. If they gave it directly to USA citizens it would amount to about $8500 per person. If they gave it to the government to pay down it's debt, they'd reduce it by about 10%.

Everyone wants the rich to pay for free stuff for everyone, but they actually do not have sufficient wealth to do it. This is why when the government starts giving away "free" stuff it inevitable falls upon the middle class to pay for it.

[removed]

It's the way of the prosecutor and the media are telling you "challenging the authority" by doing the exact same action (killing someone) comes with additional negative connotations.

To the masses, not really very much. One estimate of the wealth of the 0.01% is around 50 trillion dollars. Divided over (for ease of math) 10 billion people, this is $5,000 per person. Not an insignificant amount of money but hardly life changing for an average income earner even in a relatively poor country (presumably this is a one time deal)

Economically, in any real sense, it would be a disaster. Most of the wealth for the very rich are held in assets (property, ownership of companies, etc). It would be pretty much impossible to liquidate it quickly without causing markets to crash and companies to fail.

For another perspective, total global GDP per year is estimated at 100 trillion. So the amount you're discussing is 6 months worth of global economic activity. Certainly substantial but not exactly "everyone could live in luxury for the rest of their lives" substantial.

I'm pretty sure TSA doesn't keep records of airline schedules or things like that. So they wouldn't know if you are at the "wrong" terminal. All they know is if the boarding pass is valid or not.

Also, maybe request to your city or whoever the airport authority is, that they should consider an airport design that doesn't have "wrong terminals". At a lot of modern airports it doesn't matter what TSA checkpoint you go through because all the gates are connected behind security anyway. Such as Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, etc

Some good answers already, but I'd like to add some additional perspective.

Marriage is, legally, a contract. The government defines what the default terms of the contract are going to be. Sometimes the people who want to marry would like to alter the default rules, and they do this by entering into a separate written agreement.

The written agreement can be drafted and executed at any time. But it is often drafted prior to the marriage. If the agreement is drafted before the marriage, it is called a prenuptial agreement ("nuptial" means marriage, "prenuptial" means before marriage).

Some things the couples might like to have a written agreement about:

What happens to premarital debts?

What happens to property either spouse gains during the marriage?

Can either spouse unilaterally sell co-owned assets, or do they need consent of the other spouse?

How much alimony should be paid if there's a divorce?

Airplanes need an atmosphere (aka, ‘air’) to rise up into the sky (aka, ‘fly’), just like a boat needs water to float and move around.

So an airplane could fly on Mars (let’s say it’s battery powered so we can ignore fuel) because Mars has an atmosphere.

But on the Moon an airplane would never be able to lift off of the ground, no matter how fast it was moving, because there is no atmosphere for it to push off of and ‘float’ through (on top of that, but keep in mind it’s a separate issue, turbines and propellers would also be useless on the moon).

Here is a weird fact: Air and water are both considered ‘fluids’, therefore the same principle that lets airplanes fly also works underwater!

Conclusion: Airplanes cannot leave Earth’s atmosphere because they require it to operate, and in more ways than one!

It depends how they did it, most of their money isn't available as cash instead it is in assets like property, art and companies.

The idea is that if the journalist violated the "off the record" request from the source, then people who could be used as sources would stop talking to that journalist. Obviously, sometimes there may be a reason for the journalist to violate it anyway.

It's a contract signed by two people before they get married ("nuptial" means "marriage"; "pre-" is "before"). It usually defines how the marriage will work, what the expectations for each person is, and, most importantly, how property (including money) will be split between them in the event the marriage ends.